The terms “transactional,” “dealmaker,” “businessman” and the like are routinely lobbed at President Trump. They accuse him of not understanding the nuances of foreign relations and diplomacy — and even suggest he’s got a certain amorality to him.  

Yet what relationship with a foreign country or any agreement or “deal” between nations isn’t “transactional”? They all are. It’s the essence of the thing. Both sides believe and expect they are getting something useful out of it.   

A country gets American protection, say, while we get the right to operate from their bases and maybe receive some limited military assistance.  The knock-on effects from a “deal” can be  considerable. Say, visa-free travel, preferential trade rights, or political support at the United Nations or for border disputes with other countries.

Country to country agreements resemble business agreements. Both sides offer up “consideration” in exchange for something each side values. There are, of course, contract negotiations where one side has a huge advantage over the other, such as when someone is facing bankruptcy.  

One side might not like what it’s getting, but 

it’s still getting something of value and is otherwise free to walk away. It may be diplomats and officials talking to each other rather than MBA types, but it’s the same basic idea.

Trump can’t be blamed for wanting to get a good deal for America. Like a businessman he’s going to instinctively focus on what the other side is offering, can offer, and should offer in exchange for what we give them. What president isn’t shaped by their background and experience?

Trump, though, doesn’t care about geopolitics per se, or so it’s said, and would sell out his friends to cut deals with dictators? Where’s the evidence? And what about Presidents George H.W. Bush and Clinton greasing the skids to allow the People’s Republic of China into the World Trade Organization?

Messrs. Bush and Clinton thought we would get  a liberalized Communist China that adapted to “global norms.”  Instead they got a People’s Republic and People’s Liberation Army that can defeat us. We also got President George W. Bush looking into President Putin’s eyes and seeing his soul — and figuring he was somebody one could do business with?  How has that worked out?

What about President Obama handing over billions to the Iranian mullahs?  In exchange for what?  Not killing Americans too much and not flaunting their nuclear weapons program? As for the “Trump is cozying up to dictators” mantra: Sure, he is sometimes gracious to his global competitors — and even enemies — but why shouldn’t he be?  That’s Negotiating 101.

Trump’s good friend Mr. Putin must be wondering about those Javelin missiles Trump provided Ukraine that killed Russian troops and helped stall, in 2022, a Russian offensive that has cost the Kremlin a half million troops and counting.

The president-elect is smart enough to recognize the “deals” his predecessors have cut haven’t been good ones in many cases. A lot of Americans might agree. They pay the price after all. Yet are Americans really “altruists” who can also afford lopsided deals?  Some people like to think so.  Yet we’re now $36 trillion in the hole.

So we don’t have the money, our economy and our businesses aren’t as dominant as they once were, and we face a rival — China — that aims to destroy us, and is increasingly able to act on its threats. And anyway, we never were altruists. Deep down we expected the recipients of our altruism to appreciate it. 

The bottom line is that all presidents are “dealmakers” and “transactional.” A lot of them in recent times just haven’t been good at deal making. It’s about time someone is in the White House who at least will negotiate for America’s interests — not the foreign policy class and business elites’ interests.

Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick called it right.  “We should reject utterly any claim that foreign policy is the special province of special people — beyond the control of those who must pay its costs and bear its consequences.”