People worldwide were shocked by the recent tariff announcements by US President Donald Trump. He had declared that the US would impose a 25 percent tariff on Canada and Mexico and a 10 percent tariff on China. Later Trump agreed to a 30-day pause on tariff threats against Canada and Mexico. The measure alarmed not only the three nations but also other countries.
South Koreans, in particular, had another reason to be stunned. Just two months ago, South Korea experienced an absurd incident when President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law, only to be arrested and indicted for charges of insurrection. He is now being held in a detention center, awaiting the Constitutional Court's decision on his removal from office and his first criminal trial.
While the actions of Trump and Yoon were vastly different, they share two critical similarities: Both leaders are outsiders to mainstream politics and prisoners of anachronism. Trump has wielded tariffs to exert pressure on foreign nations. However, it is unsettling to witness a US president -- especially one leading the world's most dominant economy -- resorting to tariffs, a strategy more befitting an earlier era of economic nationalism. The post-Cold War global economy has thrived on free trade, overwhelmingly benefiting stronger nations like the US. This is precisely why, for over three decades since 1991, Washington has led efforts to dismantle trade barriers worldwide.
Historically, there were times when tariffs were used as strategic weapons, particularly during trade and diplomatic conflicts. However, their heyday was more than a century ago. Former Presidents William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt expanded US territorial and economic influence through imperial policies. Yet, the era in which a nation could sustain itself solely by maximizing trade surpluses and imposing tariffs has long passed. The US has since evolved from an emerging industrial power to the world’s preeminent superpower nation.
Following its victory in the Cold War, the US spearheaded the globalization movement, integrating former communist nations into the capitalist system. One of the most defining characteristics of globalization was the elimination of trade barriers, allowing the free movement of goods, capital and labor. The US reaped significant benefits from this system, leveraging its unmatched strength in trade, investment, technology, military power and intellectual property. Free trade has consistently favored the US, making Trump’s protectionist stance a glaring anachronism.
In 2018, Trump initiated a strategic competition with China, raising fears of a new Cold War. Yet, despite initial concerns, trade between the two economic giants continued to expand. While US policies curtailed certain Chinese industries, unexpected developments — such as China’s advances in artificial intelligence, exemplified by the DeepSeek R-1, a large language model similar to ChatGPT — demonstrated that tariffs alone cannot dictate the course of global economic competition. The world has moved beyond crude protectionism, but Trump remains fixated on an outdated economic doctrine.
Similarly, President Yoon's declaration of martial law represented a step backward into Korea's authoritarian past. After his attempt to use the military for political control failed and he was arrested, Yoon defended his actions by claiming that martial law was merely intended as a warning to the opposition and as a measure to investigate suspected problems with the election system. However, his claims have no substance. He deployed more than 5,000 military and police personnel to paralyze the National Assembly, seized the headquarters of the National Election Commission and tried to detain key political figures. Such actions cannot be dismissed as mere oversight; they constituted an attempted self-coup or insurrection.
Korean history has witnessed a similar example, but it was long ago. In 1952, President Syngman Rhee orchestrated the kidnapping of 50 opposition lawmakers and used military force to pressure the National Assembly into passing a law that extended his eligibility for reelection. The infamous vote took place under the watchful eyes of armed soldiers and police officers. Although this episode remains one of the darkest stains on Korea’s democratic history, the context of the early 1950s -- when the nation was at war and democratic norms were weak -- offers some degree of understanding. No such excuse exists for Yoon’s actions in the 21st century. A sitting president attempting to cling to power through military force is a flagrant violation of democratic principles.
It is not coincidental that we have two anachronistic leaders who threaten to destroy or harm their own political lives. We must ask why they chose self-harm rather than enjoying their glorious time as national leaders. The initial answer should be connected with political polarization. The two leaders have focused only on their supporters, not the people as a whole, perhaps because they think taking care of their opponents is useless.
Why has such extreme polarization arisen? It has probably originated from globalization or neoliberalism since the end of the Cold War about three decades ago. Globalization almost killed "political correctness" and has obscured the concept of borders. Politicians do not need to restrain themselves regarding national interests and can focus on personal gains. The question should go one more step because China is also a nation that benefited from globalization and has no problem with polarization. The answer to this could be the difference between democracy and authoritarianism. Democracy is open to everybody, but authoritarianism is not. Polarization appears only in an open society. Now, the question goes to another point: Why do other democracies, including the UK, France, Germany, Japan and Australia, not have such extreme polarization? This is easy to answer because they are all cabinet government systems, while South Korea and the US maintain presidential systems.
South Koreans and Americans are experiencing the lowest floor of the presidential democracy in the globalized world because we were trapped in a state of polarization and elected gangsters with anachronistic worldviews. We have no choice but to pay the price for mistakes we made.
We need to figure out the whole picture of the problem and one of the ways of correction should be not to elect a disqualified leader in the future.
Wang Son-taek
Wang Son-taek is an adjunct professor at Sogang University. He is a former diplomatic correspondent at YTN and a former research associate at Yeosijae. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. -- Ed.
