David Schultz, Professor of Political Science at Hamline University, USA, Visiting Lecturer at Mykolas Romeris University (MRU), and a member of the MRU LAB Justice Research Laboratory.
The Vision of the American Century
In February 1941, Life magazine editor and publisher Henry Luce declared that the twentieth century would belong to America. This vision was based not only on military superiority, but also on the interplay of economic dynamism, diplomatic creativity, cultural appeal, and intellectual leadership. H. Luce urged the United States to abandon isolationism and embrace a global mission—to spread democracy and act as a “Good Samaritan.” The American Century that followed was no accident; it was built on interconnected pillars of power.
Hirschman’s Theory: Exit, Voice, and Loyalty
To understand how these pillars function, the 1970 work Exit, Voice, and Loyalty by Albert O. Hirschman is essential. Hirschman argued that members of organizations in decline can respond in two ways: by exiting or by trying to improve the situation from within. However, these responses are not opposites—they are connected through loyalty. Loyalty delays exit and makes voice more effective because of the threat of leaving. When criticism is suppressed, loyalty weakens and turns into exit; when loyalty disappears, internal reform becomes ineffective. These three concepts only make sense when functioning together.
The Five Pillars of American Hegemony
The same logic applies to American hegemony—the dominant position of one state over others. After 1945, U.S. power rested on five pillars: military superiority, economic dominance, diplomatic ingenuity, cultural influence, and intellectual leadership. These elements functioned as a mutually reinforcing system.
Military, or “hard,” power made the U.S. the primary guarantor of security for its allies. Economic dominance—through the dollar-based financial system and global interconnections—provided structural influence. Diplomatic ingenuity was reflected in institutions such as the United Nations and NATO. Cultural, or “soft,” power—from Hollywood to universities—made the American model attractive. Intellectual leadership, based on science and talent attraction, created innovation hubs such as Silicon Valley.
The strength of these pillars lay in their interconnections. Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” doctrine, rather than restoring American greatness, systematically undermines these links, turning an integrated system of power into a collection of weaker, isolated tools. The result is an America that becomes less great with each passing year of this policy.
Why the Pillars Work Only Together
A. O. Hirschman’s framework helps explain why this system worked. U.S. military power was credible because it was embedded in a broad network of relationships. Allies cooperated not only because of pressure, but because of real benefits: security guarantees, market access, prestige, and educational opportunities. These benefits generated loyalty, which strengthened American influence.
A key insight from A. O. Hirschman is that those most capable of reforming a system are also those most capable of leaving it. In the U.S. case, partners such as the EU or Japan can both influence and build alternatives. When their voice is ignored, they begin to exit.
The Erosion of Allied Loyalty
When cultural and intellectual ties weaken, allied loyalty declines. When diplomatic dialogue erodes, partners seek alternatives. When economic relations are turned into tools of pressure—through tariffs or sanctions—they generate not loyalty, but disengagement.
This dynamic is already visible: Europe is strengthening alternative trade ties, Canada is reorienting its strategy, and other allies are reducing their dependence on the United States. These are not isolated decisions, but a long-term trend.
The Logic of Imperial Overstretch
This erosion is reinforced by Paul Kennedy’s theory of “imperial overstretch.” P. Kennedy argued that great powers weaken when military commitments exceed economic resources. Today, this problem is intensifying, as the U.S. simultaneously expands military commitments while weakening their economic and institutional foundations.
A historical parallel with Britain’s trajectory—from global hegemon to junior partner (roughly 1895–1945)—shows that such a path leads to strategic exhaustion: a state expands commitments but can no longer sustain them.
The Limits of Hard Power
This is evident in the U.S. military campaign against Iran. While operations may be effective militarily, their strategic impact is limited. Airstrikes can destroy infrastructure, but they cannot change political regimes.
More importantly, allies have distanced themselves. This demonstrates that hard power works only when supported by allied loyalty and cooperation. When partners are excluded from decision-making, they choose exit.
Economic Self-Harm
A similar logic applies to the economy. Aggressive tariff policies undermine trust and push partners to seek alternatives. When economic relations become tools of coercion, they stop functioning as mechanisms for generating loyalty.
Allies that once chose negotiation and adaptation are increasingly turning to diversification—relocating supply chains, forming new trade agreements, and reducing reliance on the U.S. market. Rather than strengthening America’s position, such policies gradually weaken its central role in the global economy and the stability of the dollar-based system.
The Decline of Soft Power
Significant damage is also being done to soft power—the primary source of loyalty. It operates not through coercion, but through attraction: culture, values, education, and institutions. Weakening public diplomacy institutions erodes long-term goodwill toward the United States.
This matters because soft power functions not only at the governmental level, but also among societies. As it declines, relationships become more transactional and short-term, and U.S. influence becomes less sustainable.
Domestic Foundations and Long-Term Consequences
Most importantly, the domestic foundations supporting the entire system are weakening. Cuts in research funding, the erosion of democratic norms, and restrictions on attracting talent reduce U.S. innovation and long-term competitiveness.
International students have long been one of the most effective mechanisms of loyalty-building. Studying in the U.S., professional networks, and career opportunities created lasting goodwill toward American institutions and values. Their decline means not only economic losses, but also reduced future political and economic support for the United States.
Strategic Error
This dynamic is directly linked to Donald Trump’s policies, which deliberately moved away from traditional U.S. multilateralism and alliance-building. Instead of long-term partnerships, a transactional approach to international relations has been emphasized—viewing them through the lens of short-term gain and pressure.
D. Trump’s fundamental strategic mistake is a misunderstanding of power. Power is reduced to coercion—military pressure and economic sanctions—while ignoring the importance of relationships, institutions, and loyalty. Yet these elements are what made U.S. power unique and sustainable. In a system dominated by pressure, partners no longer seek compromise—they seek exit.
A New Geopolitical Dynamic
Meanwhile, China is systematically investing in the opposite elements—infrastructure, diplomacy, and economic ties. Initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) create long-term networks of dependence and cooperation, especially in the developing world.
Instead of a single major conflict, a distributed erosion is emerging: states gradually build alternative systems that reduce U.S. influence not through direct confrontation, but by bypassing it.
Conclusion
The pillars of American power functioned as an interconnected system, where each element reinforced the others. Today, not only are the pillars themselves weakening, but also the links between them. Most importantly, the core element of the system—loyalty—is eroding.
Loyalty made U.S. power not only strong, but also attractive and stable. Once this capital is exhausted, it cannot be quickly rebuilt. Unlike military or economic resources, loyalty and trust in American intentions take decades to build, but can be lost in just a few years. And once gone, neither bombs nor tariffs can restore them.
D. Trump’s policy does not strengthen U.S. power—it weakens it. By undermining the connections between the pillars of power, it reduces allied trust and pushes partners to seek alternatives, diminishing America’s global influence.
Read the full article in INTERNATIONAL POLICY DIGEST:
https://intpolicydigest.org/trump-has-hollowed-out-american-power/