Democrats mock Trump for wanting to buy Greenland. He may get the last laugh. | Opinion
If Donald Trump has almost zero downside for talking about getting Greenland, and a large payoff for success, isn't it actually smart to talk about it?
All the foreign policy experts know President-elect Donald Trump’s talk of buying Greenland is a bad idea. Dumb, archaic, damaging to our alliances.
Nonetheless, is there a chance that Trump’s Greenland gambit could be smarter than they think? Yes, and in two important ways:
First, Trump will lose almost nothing if after four years Greenland remains part of the Danish constitutional monarchy.
Second, this cockamamie idea could … work.
Trump can use Greenland ploy to his advantage
One of the great advantages that Trump has had over every other politician in the modern era is his ability to retreat to "I was just joking" or "I was just posturing for negotiations" when he says something perceived as crazy.
Journalists wouldn't have allowed a previous president to get away with that; the dignity of the office and the reputation of the president were too valuable to risk. But with the polarization of the news media that Trump has accelerated, his echo chorus of networks, podcasts and websites will tell his supporters that it was all a joke, just to outrage the liberals.
Or it was a distraction technique, so that he could get to his real agenda, like tax cuts, while Democrats were wasting time on Greenland.
Trump is willing to accept that there is a baseline 1% to 15% chance that the United States acquires some type of sovereignty over Greenland. You may think 15% is high. But do you know anything about public opinion in Greenland? I know almost nothing.
Do you think it possible the 57,000 people there could be wooed by wild promises by Trump and Elon Musk? I do. They already feel neglected and colonized by the Danish.
Then why get into a subsidiary relationship with the even larger United States? Well ... because money? Attention?
I'm not saying it's likely. I'm saying it's not impossible, and Trump has the ability to make it slightly more likely.
What could Musk make happen for Greenland with his more than $400 billion fortune? Could he and Trump outbid the Danish with heliports, satellite internet, roads, trade, economic development and whatever else the Greenlanders desire? Possibly.
I am guessing there are some low-education, low-information folks in Greenland, and that's the type of people who love Trump and populist authoritarians like him all over the world. And if they feel ignored, that’s all the better.
Is Greenland that different from a MAGA heartland state like West Virginia? We could find out. I doubt that a majority would want to jump out of the embrace of the peaceful Danes into the talons of the American eagle, particularly given the experience of Indigenous people in our own history, plus the language barrier they would be adding.
To be clear, it is really unlikely that Greenland becomes part of these United States.
Even so, suppose all Trump gets is a greatly enhanced relationship, some sort of new treaty or mineral rights, or an enlarged base on Greenland, or Trump becomes the stepfather in Greenland’s long-awaited independence.
Do you think he could sell any of those outcomes as a victory? I do: "It's even better than owning it, and only I, Trump, could do it. Everyone said it was impossible!"
Greenland talk may be a trap for Democrats
And the more that Democrats mock Trump for his outlandish effort to acquire Greenland, the more egg on their faces if he pulls off this impossible feat or something close enough.
If Trump has almost zero downside for talking about getting Greenland, and a large payoff for success, isn't it actually smart to talk about it? What does he lose beyond offending the left, some Native Americans, and the Danes and Greenlanders?
To most foreign policy analysts, the pursuit of territory is playing 19th century empire games in a 21st century of satellites, soft power and virtual reality. But for Trump, it fits with the expansionary tone set by other right-wing nationalists, like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Of course, it is hard to imagine the incalculable damage that could be done to the forces of global institutions and democracy, as well as to our NATO alliance and our international image. If America becomes a grabby nation, with designs on the Panama Canal, Greenland and Canada, how exactly are we to stand against annexations of Ukrainian lands or Israeli land grabs in the West Bank?
Those are long-term concerns. With his hotels, his casinos and his political career, Trump has always been the man of right now, instant results, and the future will take care of itself.
The dumbest president in history could outsmart all the intellectuals – again. Even if it fails, he kind of wins a little.
Speaking for the intellectuals, that would drive us all a little crazier.
Jeremy Mayer is an associate professor in the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University, where he also directs the master's and Ph.D. programs in political science.