Big ideas often get watered down when tested empirically. Scott Appleby’s masterful Ambivalence of the Sacred—which includes deep, rich discussions of religious peacebuilding—is usually reduced to “sometimes religion leads to conflict, sometimes it leads to peace.” Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” is the same way, with most testing it by looking at whether Muslims tend to fight Christians. But his ideas, especially in the book, are much richer than that, and also more dangerous. Huntington saw his work as a restorative project for the West, something that is now being taken up by the Trump Administration. But Huntington also recognized limits to such a project, something Trump seems to reject.

MAGA’s Civilizational project

On October 7th, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave a speech in Athens, Greece. In it, he discussed the wonders of ancient Greece, which is the foundation for so many scientific and philosophical advances. He also claimed this was the foundation of a uniquely Western civilization, which he worried many in the West were turning away from. He saw Westerners embarrassed by their traditions, and abandoning nationalism and sovereignty in the face of globalism. He called on the West to reunite and face global challenges.

Rubio’s speech represents a civilizational turn in the MAGA foreign policy project. Trump’s initial “America first” orientation involved a call to question and pull back from long-standing US commitments to the world. This included things like alliances and free trade. Trump also reoriented foreign policy tools—such as religious engagement efforts—to achieve populist ends.

Huntington’s primary concern for the West is that it was failing to organize as a coherent identity, while the rest of the world did so.

This accelerated in his second term, as the Trump Administration expanded its mission. No longer would the focus be just on defending US sovereignty; now the United States would also defend Western civilization. The US National Security Strategy explicitly attacks Europe for abandoning Western civilization; indeed, the only mention of religious freedom involves Europe’s supposed failures there.

The appeal to defending civilizational values in international politics is part of a broader trend in the 21st century. Leaders have turned to such rhetoric in various ways; I discussed Russia’s use of conservative religious values as a way to gain an advantage in international power politics. Scholars have argued this is a way for states to contest the dominant liberal international order.

Rubio’s speech has prompted mixed responses. Some suggest it gives Europe an opening to play a more important part in the world. Others welcome Rubio’s recognition of history’s importance, but argue he downplays the importance of justice. And others worry Rubio is ignoring the role universal rights and inherent human dignity play in the Western tradition.

It is difficult to deny, however, the significant role this civilizational project plays in the second Trump Administration, so it needs to be understood.

Huntington’s civilizational project

As noted, much of the critique of Huntington’s argument involves its empirical inaccuracy. States don’t always fight across civilizations. The definition of civilization is often vague, and not useful analytically.

But some critiques go beyond that. They argue that Huntington’s argument can reshape the world, wittingly or unwittingly. His emphasis on civilizational conflict may lead states to over-emphasize threats posed by others, causing strife. His call for a focus on civilizations may be a way for Western states, mainly the United States, to dominate others.

The political project is actually pretty apparent in Huntington’s work, specifically the book version of his argument. He argued that the world was experiencing an “identity crisis” in the 1990s, with people asking “who are we” and “where do we belong.” During such crises, “what counts for people are blood and belief, faith and family.” These drivers led to the rise of civilizational identity.

But in some ways Trump’s civilizational project has gone beyond even Huntington.

To Huntington, this was occurring around the world, except where it most mattered: the West. There were signs of Western civilization being on the decline in the 1990s, both due to external and internal issues. Moreover, the embrace of “multiculturalism” within Western societies undermined their civilizational identity.

Huntington’s primary concern for the West is that it was failing to organize as a coherent identity, while the rest of the world did so. This meant it was ill-prepared for any civilizational conflicts that may arise. As a result, the “real clash” was “between the multiculturalists and the defenders of Western civilization.”

Would Huntington be MAGA?

Assessing Huntington is difficult, as he was both observing the world and prescribing actions for states to take. He was wrong about the coherence of many supposed civilizations around the world, and the prevalence of clashes along civilizational fault lines.

He did seem correct when it came to what would happen in the West, however. Many in the West are experiencing identity crises, leading them to question what makes us unique (and whether we should be unique). And much of the reaction does seem to involve rejections of pluralism in an attempt to strengthen Western unity.

Of course, he was also advocating this program. In ways, this is more dangerous than his work becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy of inter-cultural clashes. It can serve as a justification for Trump’s antagonistic approach to Europe and some of its domestic policies; remember that Huntington expressed concern about Latino immigration, and its impact on a unified American culture.

But in some ways Trump’s civilizational project has gone beyond even Huntington. Huntington criticized the “universalist” urge in the West; the tendency to assert its superiority over other civilizations. He argued “alone among civilizations the West has had a major and at times devastating impact on every other civilization.” And he called for efforts to identify and amplify “commonalities” across civilizations to minimize cultural clashes. Thus, Huntington would likely be wary of Trump’s openly value-free foreign policy, which would work against a civilizational renewal.

At the same time, the excesses of the Trump Administration may highlight the limits of Huntington’s project. Huntington seems to think the West could unite without necessarily dominating or fighting other civilizations. As Edward Said—a fierce critic of Huntington—has discussed in his work on Western studies of the Middle East, exclusive identities require an “other” in order to define themselves. That othering is a prominent part of Trump’s approach to the world, and may be an inherent element of any project of civilizational renewal that does not begin with the universal dignity of all people.