America First. R U Sure?

[OldLady]

I wanted to share this conservative's view on Trump's foreign policy.

Charles Krauthammer: Trump's foreign-policy revolution

• 
  
  
  • By Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post
    
  • Jan 29, 2017
    

WASHINGTON — The flurry of bold executive orders and of highly provocative Cabinet nominations (such as a secretary of education who actually believes in school choice) has been encouraging to conservative skeptics of Donald Trump. But it shouldn’t erase the troubling memory of one major element of Trump’s inaugural address.

The foreign policy section has received far less attention than so revolutionary a declaration deserved. It radically redefined the American national interest as understood since World War II.

Trump outlined a world in which foreign relations are collapsed into a zero-sum game. They gain, we lose. As in: “For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry; subsidized the armies of other countries” while depleting our own. And most provocatively this: “The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world.”


JFK’s inaugural pledged to support any friend and oppose any foe to assure the success of liberty. Note that Trump makes no distinction between friend and foe (and no reference to liberty). They’re all out to use, exploit and surpass us.

No more, declared Trump: “From this day forward, it’s going to be only America First.”

Imagine how this resonates abroad. “America First” was the name of the organization led by Charles Lindbergh that bitterly fought FDR before U.S. entry into World War II — right through the Battle of Britain — to keep America neutral between Churchill’s Britain and Hitler’s Reich.

Not that Trump was consciously imitating Lindbergh. I doubt he was even aware of the reference. He just liked the phrase. But I can assure you that in London and in every world capital they are aware of the antecedent and the intimations of a new American isolationism. Trump gave them good reason to think so, going on to note “the right of all nations to put their own interests first.” America included.

Some claim that putting America first is a reassertion of American exceptionalism. On the contrary, it is the antithesis. It makes America no different from all the other countries that define themselves by a particularist blood-and-soil nationalism. What made America exceptional, unique in the world, was defining its own national interest beyond its narrow economic and security needs to encompass the safety and prosperity of a vast array of allies. A free world marked by open trade and mutual defense was President Truman’s vision, shared by every president since.

Until now.

Some have argued that Trump is just dangling a bargaining chip to negotiate better terms of trade or alliance. Or that Trump’s views are so changeable and unstable — telling European newspapers two weeks ago that NATO is obsolete and then saying “NATO is very important to me” — that this is just another unmoored entry on a ledger of confusion.


But both claims are demonstrably wrong. An inaugural address is no off-the-cuff riff. These words are the product of at least three weeks of deliberate crafting for an address that Trump said would express his philosophy. Moreover, to remove any ambiguity, Trump prefaced his “America first” proclamation with: “From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.”

Trump’s vision misunderstands the logic underlying the far larger, far-reaching view of Truman. The Marshall Plan sure took wealth away from the American middle class and distributed it abroad. But for a reason. Altruism, in part. But mostly to stabilize Western Europe as a bulwark against an existential global enemy.

We carried many free riders throughout the Cold War. The burden was heavy. But this was not a mindless act of charity; it was an exercise in enlightened self-interest. After all, it was indeed better to subsidize foreign armies — German, South Korean, Turkish and dozens of others — and have them stand with us, rather than stationing even more American troops everywhere around the world at greater risk of both blood and treasure.

We are embarking upon insularity and smallness. Nor is this just theory. Trump’s long-promised but nonetheless abrupt withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership is the momentous first fruit of his foreign policy doctrine. Last year the prime minister of Singapore told John McCain that if we pulled out of TPP “you’ll be finished in Asia.” He knows the region.

For 70 years, we sustained an international system of open commerce and democratic alliances that has enabled America and the West to grow and thrive. Global leadership is what made America great. We abandon it at our peril.


Charles Krauthammer writes for The Washington Post. Email: [email protected].

playing with semantics like words are silly putty

Which words are those, Rosie?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I like Kraut but he's wrong on this one, he was wrong on a lot of things during the election

 

[OldLady]

I like Kraut but he's wrong on this one, he was wrong on a lot of things during the election

Is the reason for our many alliances and bolstering the free world no longer existent? Are we safe to withdraw? I am not afraid of Muslim refugees, but I AM afraid of losing our alliances around the world. Maybe Trump is capable of keeping our friends while no longer paying for that friendship. But I can't imagine why they would.

 

[TNHarley]

“The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world.”
Damn right! We got less rich, so poor countries could get less poor. Fuck exceptionalism.

And why did we do that, TN? What does Krauthammer say is behind it? Is the reason for that now gone? I guess we'll find out.
I don't agree with Krauthammer much of the time, but I respect his smarts. He's been studying this stuff a long, long time and he doesn't form his opinion based on the latest fad from the Republican party.

I said fuck exceptionalism. And if you think what we have now is "free trade", you are mistaken. Our trade deals are corporate whores.
Our rich get richer and our middle class gets poorer. No thanks.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I like Kraut but he's wrong on this one, he was wrong on a lot of things during the election

Is the reason for our many alliances and bolstering the free world no longer existent? Are we safe to withdraw? I am not afraid of Muslim refugees, but I AM afraid of losing our alliances around the world. Maybe Trump is capable of keeping our friends while no longer paying for that friendship. But I can't imagine why they would.

Any friend you have to pay to be your friend is no friend

 

[TNHarley]

I like Kraut but he's wrong on this one, he was wrong on a lot of things during the election

Is the reason for our many alliances and bolstering the free world no longer existent? Are we safe to withdraw? I am not afraid of Muslim refugees, but I AM afraid of losing our alliances around the world. Maybe Trump is capable of keeping our friends while no longer paying for that friendship. But I can't imagine why they would.

"allies" such a strong word for one sided relationships.

 

[OldLady]

I like Kraut but he's wrong on this one, he was wrong on a lot of things during the election

Is the reason for our many alliances and bolstering the free world no longer existent? Are we safe to withdraw? I am not afraid of Muslim refugees, but I AM afraid of losing our alliances around the world. Maybe Trump is capable of keeping our friends while no longer paying for that friendship. But I can't imagine why they would.

Any friend you have to pay to be your friend is no friend

When it comes to standing together against a threat to freedom, who cares why they're friends?

 

[Seawytch]

I like Kraut but he's wrong on this one, he was wrong on a lot of things during the election

Is the reason for our many alliances and bolstering the free world no longer existent? Are we safe to withdraw? I am not afraid of Muslim refugees, but I AM afraid of losing our alliances around the world. Maybe Trump is capable of keeping our friends while no longer paying for that friendship. But I can't imagine why they would.

Any friend you have to pay to be your friend is no friend

So I guess that translates that if you have to pay to have supporters, they aren't supporters?

FEC Filing Proves Trump Paid Actors to Pose as Supporters at Campaign Announcement

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I like Kraut but he's wrong on this one, he was wrong on a lot of things during the election

Is the reason for our many alliances and bolstering the free world no longer existent? Are we safe to withdraw? I am not afraid of Muslim refugees, but I AM afraid of losing our alliances around the world. Maybe Trump is capable of keeping our friends while no longer paying for that friendship. But I can't imagine why they would.

Any friend you have to pay to be your friend is no friend

So I guess that translates that if you have to pay to have supporters, they aren't supporters?

FEC Filing Proves Trump Paid Actors to Pose as Supporters at Campaign Announcement

When you can whine about Soros paying protesters you may have a legitimate gripe

 

[OldLady]

“The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world.”
Damn right! We got less rich, so poor countries could get less poor. Fuck exceptionalism.

And why did we do that, TN? What does Krauthammer say is behind it? Is the reason for that now gone? I guess we'll find out.
I don't agree with Krauthammer much of the time, but I respect his smarts. He's been studying this stuff a long, long time and he doesn't form his opinion based on the latest fad from the Republican party.

I said fuck exceptionalism. And if you think what we have now is "free trade", you are mistaken. Our trade deals are corporate whores.
Our rich get richer and our middle class gets poorer. No thanks.

I'm more concerned about the foreign relations piece and how it affects us if there is a serious military threat. Of course trade deals enter into that, I realize they do. But I don't think Krauthammer is primarily talking about trade, is he?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If conservative has any meaning, which seems as unlikely as ever, then Charles Krauthammer doesn't qualify. He's a textbook neoconservative, which means there's not a war on the planet he doesn't want the U.S. in the middle of, even if it has to start them. Regardless, "America First" was a non-interventionist organization that did want the U.S. to remain neutral in WWII, which is what most of the country wanted at that time as well. Unfortunately for everyone FDR had no interest in neutrality and favored the Allies all along and always intended to enter the war. Lindbergh was a member of the America First Committee, yes, but so were JFK and Gerald Ford and other notable people as well. Neocons love to bring up the dreaded specter of "isolationism," but the U.S. has been hyper-interventionist since the Spanish-American War. They also love to bring up Nazism and compare anyone not fuming for war to Neville Chamberlain. Forgive me if that's not a convincing argument.

Furthermore, it's clear that Trump is using the slogan America First without any of the principles that guided the America First Committee. If he actually shared their values he wouldn't be continuing Obama's drone war or having commandos do raids into Yemen.

 

[Seawytch]

I like Kraut but he's wrong on this one, he was wrong on a lot of things during the election

Is the reason for our many alliances and bolstering the free world no longer existent? Are we safe to withdraw? I am not afraid of Muslim refugees, but I AM afraid of losing our alliances around the world. Maybe Trump is capable of keeping our friends while no longer paying for that friendship. But I can't imagine why they would.

Any friend you have to pay to be your friend is no friend

So I guess that translates that if you have to pay to have supporters, they aren't supporters?

FEC Filing Proves Trump Paid Actors to Pose as Supporters at Campaign Announcement

When you can whine about Sonos paying protesters you may have a legitimate gripe

Got the FEC filings for those? No? Shocking...

 

[Iceweasel]

If conservative has any meaning, which seems as unlikely as ever, then Charles Krauthammer doesn't qualify. He's a textbook neoconservative, which means there's not a war on the planet he doesn't want the U.S. in the middle of, even if it has to start them. Regardless, "America First" was a non-interventionist organization that did want the U.S. to remain neutral in WWII, which is what most of the country wanted at that time as well. Unfortunately for everyone FDR had no interest in neutrality and favored the Allies all along and always intended to enter the war. Lindbergh was a member of the America First Committee, yes, but so were JFK and Gerald Ford and other notable people as well. Neocons love to bring up the dreaded specter of "isolationism," but the U.S. has been hyper-interventionist since the Spanish-American War. They also love to bring up Nazism and compare anyone not fuming for war to Neville Chamberlain. Forgive me if that's not a convincing argument.

Furthermore, it's clear that Trump is using the slogan America First without any of the principles that guided the America First Committee. If he actually shared their values he wouldn't be continuing Obama's drone war or having commandos do raids into Yemen.

This has nothing to do with WW2 or isolationism. You are as ignorant as possible. Making fair trade agreements for foreign countries is not the definition of isolationism. All you know how do is ejaculate leftist talking points.

 

[miketx]

I wanted to share this conservative's view on Trump's foreign policy.

Charles Krauthammer: Trump's foreign-policy revolution

• 
  
  
  • By Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post
  • Jan 29, 2017

WASHINGTON — The flurry of bold executive orders and of highly provocative Cabinet nominations (such as a secretary of education who actually believes in school choice) has been encouraging to conservative skeptics of Donald Trump. But it shouldn’t erase the troubling memory of one major element of Trump’s inaugural address.

The foreign policy section has received far less attention than so revolutionary a declaration deserved. It radically redefined the American national interest as understood since World War II.

Trump outlined a world in which foreign relations are collapsed into a zero-sum game. They gain, we lose. As in: “For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry; subsidized the armies of other countries” while depleting our own. And most provocatively this: “The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world.”


JFK’s inaugural pledged to support any friend and oppose any foe to assure the success of liberty. Note that Trump makes no distinction between friend and foe (and no reference to liberty). They’re all out to use, exploit and surpass us.

No more, declared Trump: “From this day forward, it’s going to be only America First.”

Imagine how this resonates abroad. “America First” was the name of the organization led by Charles Lindbergh that bitterly fought FDR before U.S. entry into World War II — right through the Battle of Britain — to keep America neutral between Churchill’s Britain and Hitler’s Reich.

Not that Trump was consciously imitating Lindbergh. I doubt he was even aware of the reference. He just liked the phrase. But I can assure you that in London and in every world capital they are aware of the antecedent and the intimations of a new American isolationism. Trump gave them good reason to think so, going on to note “the right of all nations to put their own interests first.” America included.

Some claim that putting America first is a reassertion of American exceptionalism. On the contrary, it is the antithesis. It makes America no different from all the other countries that define themselves by a particularist blood-and-soil nationalism. What made America exceptional, unique in the world, was defining its own national interest beyond its narrow economic and security needs to encompass the safety and prosperity of a vast array of allies. A free world marked by open trade and mutual defense was President Truman’s vision, shared by every president since.

Until now.

Some have argued that Trump is just dangling a bargaining chip to negotiate better terms of trade or alliance. Or that Trump’s views are so changeable and unstable — telling European newspapers two weeks ago that NATO is obsolete and then saying “NATO is very important to me” — that this is just another unmoored entry on a ledger of confusion.


But both claims are demonstrably wrong. An inaugural address is no off-the-cuff riff. These words are the product of at least three weeks of deliberate crafting for an address that Trump said would express his philosophy. Moreover, to remove any ambiguity, Trump prefaced his “America first” proclamation with: “From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.”

Trump’s vision misunderstands the logic underlying the far larger, far-reaching view of Truman. The Marshall Plan sure took wealth away from the American middle class and distributed it abroad. But for a reason. Altruism, in part. But mostly to stabilize Western Europe as a bulwark against an existential global enemy.

We carried many free riders throughout the Cold War. The burden was heavy. But this was not a mindless act of charity; it was an exercise in enlightened self-interest. After all, it was indeed better to subsidize foreign armies — German, South Korean, Turkish and dozens of others — and have them stand with us, rather than stationing even more American troops everywhere around the world at greater risk of both blood and treasure.

We are embarking upon insularity and smallness. Nor is this just theory. Trump’s long-promised but nonetheless abrupt withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership is the momentous first fruit of his foreign policy doctrine. Last year the prime minister of Singapore told John McCain that if we pulled out of TPP “you’ll be finished in Asia.” He knows the region.

For 70 years, we sustained an international system of open commerce and democratic alliances that has enabled America and the West to grow and thrive. Global leadership is what made America great. We abandon it at our peril.


Charles Krauthammer writes for The Washington Post. Email: [email protected].

The Washington Post is filled to the brim with libstain liars.

 

[TNHarley]

“The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world.”
Damn right! We got less rich, so poor countries could get less poor. Fuck exceptionalism.

And why did we do that, TN? What does Krauthammer say is behind it? Is the reason for that now gone? I guess we'll find out.
I don't agree with Krauthammer much of the time, but I respect his smarts. He's been studying this stuff a long, long time and he doesn't form his opinion based on the latest fad from the Republican party.

I said fuck exceptionalism. And if you think what we have now is "free trade", you are mistaken. Our trade deals are corporate whores.
Our rich get richer and our middle class gets poorer. No thanks.

I'm more concerned about the foreign relations piece and how it effects us if there is a serious military threat. Of course trade deals enter into that, I realize they do. But I don't think Krauthammer is primarily talking about trade, is he?

I'm more concerned about the foreign relations piece and how it effects us if there is a serious military threat.
Who comes to the aid of the top dog?
Also, even if we pissed off the entire EU and we got invaded by Russia AND China (only way we would get messed up) they would STILL come to us. If we fell like that, they would be next.
The entire OP is a biased hack job.
But I will give the hack credit.. the markets crashed just like he said they woul.....
oh wait, nevermind
Boom: Dow hits 20,000 for first time ever

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I like Kraut but he's wrong on this one, he was wrong on a lot of things during the election

Is the reason for our many alliances and bolstering the free world no longer existent? Are we safe to withdraw? I am not afraid of Muslim refugees, but I AM afraid of losing our alliances around the world. Maybe Trump is capable of keeping our friends while no longer paying for that friendship. But I can't imagine why they would.

Any friend you have to pay to be your friend is no friend

So I guess that translates that if you have to pay to have supporters, they aren't supporters?

FEC Filing Proves Trump Paid Actors to Pose as Supporters at Campaign Announcement

When you can whine about Sonos paying protesters you may have a legitimate gripe

Got the FEC filings for those? No? Shocking...

What office was Soros running for dumbass

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If conservative has any meaning, which seems as unlikely as ever, then Charles Krauthammer doesn't qualify. He's a textbook neoconservative, which means there's not a war on the planet he doesn't want the U.S. in the middle of, even if it has to start them. Regardless, "America First" was a non-interventionist organization that did want the U.S. to remain neutral in WWII, which is what most of the country wanted at that time as well. Unfortunately for everyone FDR had no interest in neutrality and favored the Allies all along and always intended to enter the war. Lindbergh was a member of the America First Committee, yes, but so were JFK and Gerald Ford and other notable people as well. Neocons love to bring up the dreaded specter of "isolationism," but the U.S. has been hyper-interventionist since the Spanish-American War. They also love to bring up Nazism and compare anyone not fuming for war to Neville Chamberlain. Forgive me if that's not a convincing argument.

Furthermore, it's clear that Trump is using the slogan America First without any of the principles that guided the America First Committee. If he actually shared their values he wouldn't be continuing Obama's drone war or having commandos do raids into Yemen.

This has nothing to do with WW2 or isolationism. You are as ignorant as possible. Making fair trade agreements for foreign countries is not the definition of isolationism. All you know how do is ejaculate leftist talking points.

You have no grasp of history or reading comprehension. Try again.

 

[Virginia Mom]

I wanted to share this conservative's view on Trump's foreign policy.

Charles Krauthammer: Trump's foreign-policy revolution

• 
  
  
  • By Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post
    
  • Jan 29, 2017
    

WASHINGTON — The flurry of bold executive orders and of highly provocative Cabinet nominations (such as a secretary of education who actually believes in school choice) has been encouraging to conservative skeptics of Donald Trump. But it shouldn’t erase the troubling memory of one major element of Trump’s inaugural address.

The foreign policy section has received far less attention than so revolutionary a declaration deserved. It radically redefined the American national interest as understood since World War II.

Trump outlined a world in which foreign relations are collapsed into a zero-sum game. They gain, we lose. As in: “For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry; subsidized the armies of other countries” while depleting our own. And most provocatively this: “The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world.”


JFK’s inaugural pledged to support any friend and oppose any foe to assure the success of liberty. Note that Trump makes no distinction between friend and foe (and no reference to liberty). They’re all out to use, exploit and surpass us.

No more, declared Trump: “From this day forward, it’s going to be only America First.”

Imagine how this resonates abroad. “America First” was the name of the organization led by Charles Lindbergh that bitterly fought FDR before U.S. entry into World War II — right through the Battle of Britain — to keep America neutral between Churchill’s Britain and Hitler’s Reich.

Not that Trump was consciously imitating Lindbergh. I doubt he was even aware of the reference. He just liked the phrase. But I can assure you that in London and in every world capital they are aware of the antecedent and the intimations of a new American isolationism. Trump gave them good reason to think so, going on to note “the right of all nations to put their own interests first.” America included.

Some claim that putting America first is a reassertion of American exceptionalism. On the contrary, it is the antithesis. It makes America no different from all the other countries that define themselves by a particularist blood-and-soil nationalism. What made America exceptional, unique in the world, was defining its own national interest beyond its narrow economic and security needs to encompass the safety and prosperity of a vast array of allies. A free world marked by open trade and mutual defense was President Truman’s vision, shared by every president since.

Until now.

Some have argued that Trump is just dangling a bargaining chip to negotiate better terms of trade or alliance. Or that Trump’s views are so changeable and unstable — telling European newspapers two weeks ago that NATO is obsolete and then saying “NATO is very important to me” — that this is just another unmoored entry on a ledger of confusion.


But both claims are demonstrably wrong. An inaugural address is no off-the-cuff riff. These words are the product of at least three weeks of deliberate crafting for an address that Trump said would express his philosophy. Moreover, to remove any ambiguity, Trump prefaced his “America first” proclamation with: “From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.”

Trump’s vision misunderstands the logic underlying the far larger, far-reaching view of Truman. The Marshall Plan sure took wealth away from the American middle class and distributed it abroad. But for a reason. Altruism, in part. But mostly to stabilize Western Europe as a bulwark against an existential global enemy.

We carried many free riders throughout the Cold War. The burden was heavy. But this was not a mindless act of charity; it was an exercise in enlightened self-interest. After all, it was indeed better to subsidize foreign armies — German, South Korean, Turkish and dozens of others — and have them stand with us, rather than stationing even more American troops everywhere around the world at greater risk of both blood and treasure.

We are embarking upon insularity and smallness. Nor is this just theory. Trump’s long-promised but nonetheless abrupt withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership is the momentous first fruit of his foreign policy doctrine. Last year the prime minister of Singapore told John McCain that if we pulled out of TPP “you’ll be finished in Asia.” He knows the region.

For 70 years, we sustained an international system of open commerce and democratic alliances that has enabled America and the West to grow and thrive. Global leadership is what made America great. We abandon it at our peril.


Charles Krauthammer writes for The Washington Post. Email: [email protected].

Eight years of Obama?

I thought the world was supposed to be great now.

And to think, people didn't start screaming "BLACK LIVES MATTER!" until over halfway through a black President's term.

I wanted to share this conservative's view on Trump's foreign policy.

Charles Krauthammer: Trump's foreign-policy revolution

• 
  
  
  • By Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post
    
  • Jan 29, 2017
    

WASHINGTON — The flurry of bold executive orders and of highly provocative Cabinet nominations (such as a secretary of education who actually believes in school choice) has been encouraging to conservative skeptics of Donald Trump. But it shouldn’t erase the troubling memory of one major element of Trump’s inaugural address.

The foreign policy section has received far less attention than so revolutionary a declaration deserved. It radically redefined the American national interest as understood since World War II.

Trump outlined a world in which foreign relations are collapsed into a zero-sum game. They gain, we lose. As in: “For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry; subsidized the armies of other countries” while depleting our own. And most provocatively this: “The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world.”


JFK’s inaugural pledged to support any friend and oppose any foe to assure the success of liberty. Note that Trump makes no distinction between friend and foe (and no reference to liberty). They’re all out to use, exploit and surpass us.

No more, declared Trump: “From this day forward, it’s going to be only America First.”

Imagine how this resonates abroad. “America First” was the name of the organization led by Charles Lindbergh that bitterly fought FDR before U.S. entry into World War II — right through the Battle of Britain — to keep America neutral between Churchill’s Britain and Hitler’s Reich.

Not that Trump was consciously imitating Lindbergh. I doubt he was even aware of the reference. He just liked the phrase. But I can assure you that in London and in every world capital they are aware of the antecedent and the intimations of a new American isolationism. Trump gave them good reason to think so, going on to note “the right of all nations to put their own interests first.” America included.

Some claim that putting America first is a reassertion of American exceptionalism. On the contrary, it is the antithesis. It makes America no different from all the other countries that define themselves by a particularist blood-and-soil nationalism. What made America exceptional, unique in the world, was defining its own national interest beyond its narrow economic and security needs to encompass the safety and prosperity of a vast array of allies. A free world marked by open trade and mutual defense was President Truman’s vision, shared by every president since.

Until now.

Some have argued that Trump is just dangling a bargaining chip to negotiate better terms of trade or alliance. Or that Trump’s views are so changeable and unstable — telling European newspapers two weeks ago that NATO is obsolete and then saying “NATO is very important to me” — that this is just another unmoored entry on a ledger of confusion.


But both claims are demonstrably wrong. An inaugural address is no off-the-cuff riff. These words are the product of at least three weeks of deliberate crafting for an address that Trump said would express his philosophy. Moreover, to remove any ambiguity, Trump prefaced his “America first” proclamation with: “From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.”

Trump’s vision misunderstands the logic underlying the far larger, far-reaching view of Truman. The Marshall Plan sure took wealth away from the American middle class and distributed it abroad. But for a reason. Altruism, in part. But mostly to stabilize Western Europe as a bulwark against an existential global enemy.

We carried many free riders throughout the Cold War. The burden was heavy. But this was not a mindless act of charity; it was an exercise in enlightened self-interest. After all, it was indeed better to subsidize foreign armies — German, South Korean, Turkish and dozens of others — and have them stand with us, rather than stationing even more American troops everywhere around the world at greater risk of both blood and treasure.

We are embarking upon insularity and smallness. Nor is this just theory. Trump’s long-promised but nonetheless abrupt withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership is the momentous first fruit of his foreign policy doctrine. Last year the prime minister of Singapore told John McCain that if we pulled out of TPP “you’ll be finished in Asia.” He knows the region.

For 70 years, we sustained an international system of open commerce and democratic alliances that has enabled America and the West to grow and thrive. Global leadership is what made America great. We abandon it at our peril.


Charles Krauthammer writes for The Washington Post. Email: [email protected].

Eight years of Obama?

I thought the world was supposed to be great now.

And to think, people didn't start screaming "BLACK LIVES MATTER!" until over halfway through a black President's term.

Yep, and women didn't march for all their woes that President Trump had nothing to do with, until President Obama was out of office, maybe they were afraid of being of being called racist? Myself, my sister, my 2 nieces, my dil, my 2 great nieces, have not lost a single right since President Trump has been in office, nor are we scared we will. For some reason tampons and Viagra were an issue? What did Trump have to do with that? I'm sure women will still have the right to murder their babies, and wear "pussy" hats on their heads and dress like giant vaginas if they want to without fear of being jailed like they would be in some other countries. Yay freedom!

 

[Iceweasel]

If conservative has any meaning, which seems as unlikely as ever, then Charles Krauthammer doesn't qualify. He's a textbook neoconservative, which means there's not a war on the planet he doesn't want the U.S. in the middle of, even if it has to start them. Regardless, "America First" was a non-interventionist organization that did want the U.S. to remain neutral in WWII, which is what most of the country wanted at that time as well. Unfortunately for everyone FDR had no interest in neutrality and favored the Allies all along and always intended to enter the war. Lindbergh was a member of the America First Committee, yes, but so were JFK and Gerald Ford and other notable people as well. Neocons love to bring up the dreaded specter of "isolationism," but the U.S. has been hyper-interventionist since the Spanish-American War. They also love to bring up Nazism and compare anyone not fuming for war to Neville Chamberlain. Forgive me if that's not a convincing argument.

Furthermore, it's clear that Trump is using the slogan America First without any of the principles that guided the America First Committee. If he actually shared their values he wouldn't be continuing Obama's drone war or having commandos do raids into Yemen.

This has nothing to do with WW2 or isolationism. You are as ignorant as possible. Making fair trade agreements for foreign countries is not the definition of isolationism. All you know how do is ejaculate leftist talking points.

You have no grasp of history or reading comprehension. Try again.

Wipe the neocon hate ejaculate off of your keyboard and try again.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

Krauthammer is a rabid Establishment Republican NeoCon and a "Never Trumper". I seldom pay much attention to him. While he occasionally he comes up with a diamond, they are few and far between.