Abandon rationality or abandon Trump?

Matthew Hurst - Doctoral researcher, Univeristy of York

Thomas Moore - Doctoral researcher, University of Sheffield

What is it to be rational? 

An intuitive definition of a rational actor is one that acts in ways consistent with their stated or implied aims. For example, if you live half an hour from the train station, it would be rational to leave at least half an hour before your train in order to catch it. A person who frequently acts in ways that do not further their aims may be called irrational.

We need look no further than Downs’ (1957) book An Economic Theory of Democracy to see a political application. Downs (1957) argued that the primary goal of politicians and their parties is winning elections and gaining power. Consequently, it is rational for them to shape their platforms to appeal to the median voter.

Trump’s challenge to the rational actor assumption

Trump challenges this assumption, with the ‘liberation day’ tariffs being just the latest in a series of actions that appear irrational. Trump claims he dislikes war but has effectively triggered a European arms race by goading European allies into increasing their defense spending, reducing American support and pleasing Russia in negotiations over Ukraine. Trump ran on a ticket of reducing inflation yet his tariffs on imports will  raise the price of groceries and other goods. Trump told Congress: “the days of rule by unelected bureaucrats are over”; Elon Musk watches on, falsifying the President’s words. Trump purports he is a proponent of free speech but has thrown journalists out of the White House press pool and deported foreign nationals for joining protests. In all these cases, Trump acts in ways inconsistent with his stated or implied aims, making his behaviour hard to reconcile with the assumption politicians act rationally. 

The President’s defenders will often reply that Trump’s apparent inconsistencies belie a cunning and logical approach. This ‘Trump moves in mysterious ways’ argument has been articulated as far back as his first term, for instance by Thomas Firey who argued that Trump’s business background means he defies the normal rules politicians work by. Firey argues that Trump’s businesses in real estate and entertainment were no better than average, but Trump gained a competitive edge in these markets through brand strategy, making grandiose claims about matters such as the heights of his buildings and the extent of his past business success. It could be argued that Trump’s political strategy resembles this, for example with the ‘liberation day’ tariffs being a grandiose policy, ultimately designed not for permanent implementation but as a negotiating tactic to rebalance global trade in favor of the US. Indeed, many of Trump’s defenders, such as Bill Ackman , argued this was the case.

While this is not impossible, Occam's razor tells us the simplest explanation with the fewest assumptions is usually the best. In this case, it could be argued that labelling Trump as an irrational actor is simpler and more straightforward than assuming he has a complex, hidden strategy behind actions that consistently contradict his stated goals. It would be extremely complicated for Trump to consistently maintain multiple grand plans making the irrational explanation more plausible.

Reconciling rationality and Trump’s irrationality

How should political scientists reconcile Trump’s irrationality with the rational actor assumption? We might argue that Trump is acting rationally given his state of knowledge. However, the President is in a uniquely well-resourced position; despite his privileged level of access to information, Trump still chooses irrational paths.

We might instead relax our conception of what rationality is. Behavioral Economists might advocate this approach. For instance, Thaler and Sunstein’s popular book Nudge argues for ‘bounded rationality’: that agents are influenced by heuristics, biases and the inability to conceptualize information properly without being labelled ‘irrational’. However, arguably even this definition is not sufficiently generous to fully explain all of Trump’s actions, because they often seem to defy any consistent internal logic or goal-directed pattern, therefore exceeding the limits of bounded rationality.

Perhaps we should dub Trump an outlier to the general rule. But then we are faced with the question of when we should and should not apply the rational actor assumption. If the only arbiter is that politicians act rationally while non-politicians need not act rationally, then we are caught in a circular argument.

Abandon rationality?

An ostensibly more radical option would be to reject the rational actor assumption. Though political scientists may at first see this as reprehensible, it may turn out to be the most realistic option. 

The idea is not new. For example, in his 1948 book Politics Among Nations , Morgenthau turned the spotlight on the emotional impulses underlying national interest that often override rationality. Similarly, historians have long blamed political mishaps on the ill-logic of political leaders, weaving into their narratives such aspects as emotion, personal background, ambitions and character.

Rejecting the rational actor assumption would not be without its own complications. Yet holding it seems increasingly untenable when faced with the reality of the Trump administration. 

Conclusion

President Trump has done much damage to the U.S. and the global order. In doing so, he represents a grave challenge to the rational actor assumption.

We argue, however, that challenging this assumption could be productive. In his irrationality, Trump has more than any President before him shown that political actors are fallible and make mistakes. Trump may force us to reexamine the rational actor assumption but in so doing, political scientists may be forced to confront the irrationality of the actors they study.