What Donald Duck can tell Trump about politics of war

President Donald Trump has devoted little sustained effort to building public support for the US war in Iran, in contrast to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s extensive campaign to explain the sacrifices required during World War II, according to historian and Foreign Policy columnist Julian E. Zelizer.

Zelizer argues that presidents have historically understood the importance of explaining the rationale for military action and maintaining public backing as conflicts become costly.

He contrasts Trump’s handling of the Iran war with Roosevelt’s approach during World War II, when the administration used government agencies, entertainers, films, radio and popular culture to encourage Americans to support the war effort.

The Roosevelt administration worked to persuade the public to accept measures including higher taxes, war bonds, military conscription, factory work and rationing. The effort included entertainers such as Irving Berlin and Danny Kaye, as well as popular programmes such as The Burns and Allen Show.

One of the best-known examples was Walt Disney’s 1942 animated film The New Spirit, which featured Donald Duck learning about the importance of paying taxes. The film linked individual financial sacrifice to the wider war effort and was shown in thousands of US cinemas.

Zelizer notes that the campaign was part of a broader effort to ensure Americans understood the stakes of the conflict and believed their sacrifices were necessary. Other wartime entertainment included Disney films portraying Nazi Germany, popular songs about military service and comic-book storylines featuring characters such as Captain America fighting the Axis powers.

The historian acknowledges that propaganda can be dangerous when used to promote a false or unjust cause, citing the George W. Bush administration’s claims about weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But he argues that presidents must nevertheless make a clear case to the public when asking the country to accept the costs of war.

Zelizer argues that the Trump administration has offered varying explanations for the Iran conflict, which has now lasted six months and cost at least $35 billion, while providing limited clarity on its longer-term objectives or possible endpoint.

Zelizer argues that the lack of a clear justification has become more consequential as the conflict has produced economic costs and declining public support. He says Americans facing higher costs, including at the petrol pump and in grocery shops, have reason to question why they should bear the burden of the war.

The article concludes that Trump’s approach, which Zelizer characterises as transactional and dismissive of presidential conventions, has left the administration and the United States facing what he describes as a costly and confusing quagmire.

By Aghakazim Guliyev