This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2017, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Do all great powers decline? If the past is any indication, the answer is yes. But when they decline and how they decline depends on the leadership of that country.

With President Donald Trump at the helm, should we be concerned about how his leadership affects the potential of decline of the U.S.? I believe the quality of Trump's leadership as shown by his foreign policies may be facilitating the decline of the U.S.

The genesis of this argument goes back to the 1980s, when international politics scholars wrote about the decline of the US. One of the major voices of this argument, Robert Gilpin, wrote that great powers eventually will fall, but they do have options to slow the decline. At its peak, a great power grows wealthier, but consumption and military needs also take larger segments of the nation's wealth.

The expectation of continued growth actually leads to a process of diminishing returns. According to Gilpin, while at first the power of the country is increasing at a rapid rate, at a certain point the increase is diminished and the overall returns from investment decrease.

At this moment of impending decline, the quality of the nation's leaders becomes crucial. Leaders become aware of two fundamental options for a declining nation: expansion or retrenchment. On the one hand, expansionist leaders understand the precarious position of their country and they seek to reduce long-term costs by acquiring less costly defensive positions.

Leaders who chose this option of limited expansion then seek to increase efficiency in the use of existing resources. They then would strengthen their new positions of resources, markets, and allies that, in turn, would prolong their strength.

On the other hand, leaders may take the seemingly less risky position of retrenchment. This strategy includes a unilateral abandonment of the country's economic, political and military commitments, seek rapprochement with less threatening powers and make concessions to the rising power and thereby seek to appease its ambitions.

Gilpin also claims that the decline is accompanied by lack of social cooperation and by decreasing productivity. The frustration and pessimism generated by this gloomy atmosphere inhibit renewal and innovation.

Trump clearly has chosen the second option of retrenchment. His foreign policy strategy has been based on withdrawals, restrictions, tariffs and border walls. He has threatened to withdraw and/or renegotiate our traditional defense agreement with Europe. He has imposed travel bans and restrictions on immigrants. He has threatened to withdraw from the recent Paris climate accords.

He also intends to cut by up to one-third funding for the State Department, a similar amount of our foreign aid and significantly reduce our commitments to the United Nations. The motivation behind these cutbacks and reduced international commitments is short-term savings, but the long-term risks of retrenchment are considerable.

Trump's recent unilateral bombing of an airfield in Syria does not contradict this direction of retrenchment. Trump notified the Russians (and by extension the Syrians) and bombed without collaborating with our allies. The result was not a demonstration of our strength, but our inability to affect change through any other methods. Moreover, Trump is seeking a new alliance with a former adversary (Russia), appeasing China (the challenging country), and creating additional alliances with less threatening and undemocratic countries such as Turkey and Egypt.

As our nation begins to retrench, Trump also seeks to increase infrastructural spending, cut taxes on the wealthy and significantly increase the budget to the military. Domestic consumption and spending will dramatically increase while the country is undergoing retrenchment abroad. Again, his policies mirror what Gilpin argued 30 years ago.

According to Gilpin, all great powers at some point decline. Perhaps the U.S. is in the early stages of this decline. Nevertheless, the quality of our decline depends extensively on the quality of our leaders and the choices they make. Trump consistently is pursuing policies that further our decline through reneging on our international commitments, reducing our investments in our global interests and turning against our traditional allies. We need leaders in the White House and in Congress who understand that, at this moment in our history, U.S. foreign policy should be based on our tradition of global leadership. In this position of a renewed and strong global leader, the U.S. would be better situated to protect our national interests at home and abroad.

Howard Lehman, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Political Science and director of the Fulbright Program at the University of Utah.