The National Interest

What Did the President Watch Last Night? 

It’ll shape what he does today, which will shape what airs tonight, which …

- Jonathan Chait

OF ALL THE explanations for Donald Trump’s sudden foreign-policy about-face—from America First noninterventionist who coldly proposed to cooperate with Syrian president Bashar alAssad to humanitarian interventionist of sorts—the one that makes the most sense is that supplied by Trump himself. “That attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me—big impact,” he said at a press conference on April 5, the day after Assad allegedly launched a horrific chemical attack on civilians in northern Syria. “That was a horrible, horrible thing. And I’ve been watching it and seeing it, and it doesn’t get any worse than that.” Trump saw something on television that upset him, so he cast aside his position and formulated a new one, which neither Trump nor his advisers could articulate, driven by his newfound, apparently sincere, but diffuse outrage at the brutality of the dictator he had once touted as a potential partner against isis. The televised images of suffering overrode everything he had said about the issue for years.

It is possible that in this particular case the method will work. Perhaps Assad will get the message that he cannot use chemical weapons without consequence, or Trump will grope his way toward a coherent strategy for Syria, ISIS, Iraq, and humanitarian intervention, cable hit by cable hit. Or perhaps it will lead to a muddle, or worse. What is most telling about the episode is the method itself. The largest source of unpredictability in the Trump administration is the president’s addiction to television news. For good or bad, mostly bad, the herky-jerky logic of TV news coverage dictates the president’s strategy, or lack thereof. Previous presidents, most notably Ronald Reagan, became famous for their ability to manipulate television. Television manipulates Trump.