America First. R U Sure?

OldLady

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2015
69,568
19,600
2,220
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].
 
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.
untitled.png

:dunno:
 
“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.
 
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.
I'll float a theory here that may just be wishful thinking:

Look at how Trump communicates, and what his followers seem to prefer: Very basic communication, simple, straight ahead thoughts, little nuance, very black & white. It may (yes, may) be that he's purposely leaving out nuance for them, but in actuality willing to use it behind closed doors. If that is the case, then these conversations he's having with world leaders may be more nuanced and comprehensive than we know.

An example is the very smart thing that British PM Theresa May did at the press conference after meeting with Trump - she went out of her way to look directly at him and point out that, during their meeting, he said he's "100% behind NATO", even though (a) he has never said that publicly, and (b) he never referred to it afterwards. That moment really boxed him in for future meetings with European leaders.

This is a terribly dangerous game he's playing, pandering to his crowd in public and being more serious behind the scenes. But, looking for a silver lining, I'm guessing he's not being this simplistic when it matters. Uh, hopefully.
.
 
I quit listening to that asshole months ago. He was wrong about everything during the race. He's a waste of time these days. Provocative cabinet picks? Why, because they aren't RINOs? Globalism is what's killing us, I guess Charlie is sitting pretty but many Americans are not.

Well said. Krauthammer is a smart dude, but he obviously only likes to play defense. While I don't like everything Trump is doing, the things I do like overwhelm that which I don't. The libturds are falling backwards off their heels. Krauthammer would lend them a hand.

I hate commies and I want to push them.

Then kick them in the face.


 
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.
 
I quit listening to that asshole months ago. He was wrong about everything during the race. He's a waste of time these days. Provocative cabinet picks? Why, because they aren't RINOs? Globalism is what's killing us, I guess Charlie is sitting pretty but many Americans are not.

I stopped watching cable news shows about two years ago, and ironically, I've been predicting every major election since with stunning accuracy.

Amazing what tuning out the people telling you how to think can do for a person.
 
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.

:eusa_think:
 
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.”

...


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


Except that it was not Trump that collapsed the world into a zero sum game, it was our trade partners and allies who have repeatedly advanced their interests at the expense of ours.

We could have had mutually beneficial trade. Our partners choose to fuck us.


We could have had an alliance of equals, instead most of our allies let US carry the majority of the burder.

Trump is just the US getting tired of playing the fool.
 
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.
I'll float a theory here that may just be wishful thinking:

Look at how Trump communicates, and what his followers seem to prefer: Very basic communication, simple, straight ahead thoughts, little nuance, very black & white. It may (yes, may) be that he's purposely leaving out nuance for them, but in actuality willing to use it behind closed doors. If that is the case, then these conversations he's having with world leaders may be more nuanced and comprehensive than we know.

An example is the very smart thing that British PM Theresa May did at the press conference after meeting with Trump - she went out of her way to look directly at him and point out that, during their meeting, he said he's "100% behind NATO", even though (a) he has never said that publicly, and (b) he never referred to it afterwards. That moment really boxed him in for future meetings with European leaders.

This is a terribly dangerous game he's playing, pandering to his crowd in public and being more serious behind the scenes. But, looking for a silver lining, I'm guessing he's not being this simplistic when it matters. Uh, hopefully.
.
I think it is wishful thinking, considering the hack job he just did on the refugee/Visa ban. And his insistence on the southern wall. And his promise that crime in our inner cities will Stop. Now.
I'm afraid he really is that simple. But I'll keep my fingers crossed that you're right.
 
I quit listening to that asshole months ago. He was wrong about everything during the race. He's a waste of time these days. Provocative cabinet picks? Why, because they aren't RINOs? Globalism is what's killing us, I guess Charlie is sitting pretty but many Americans are not.

Well said. Krauthammer is a smart dude, but he obviously only likes to play defense. While I don't like everything Trump is doing, the things I do like overwhelm that which I don't. The libturds are falling backwards off their heels. Krauthammer would lend them a hand.

I hate commies and I want to push them.

Then kick them in the face.


What exactly don't you like that Trump is doing?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
 
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
 
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.
I'll float a theory here that may just be wishful thinking:

Look at how Trump communicates, and what his followers seem to prefer: Very basic communication, simple, straight ahead thoughts, little nuance, very black & white. It may (yes, may) be that he's purposely leaving out nuance for them, but in actuality willing to use it behind closed doors. If that is the case, then these conversations he's having with world leaders may be more nuanced and comprehensive than we know.

An example is the very smart thing that British PM Theresa May did at the press conference after meeting with Trump - she went out of her way to look directly at him and point out that, during their meeting, he said he's "100% behind NATO", even though (a) he has never said that publicly, and (b) he never referred to it afterwards. That moment really boxed him in for future meetings with European leaders.

This is a terribly dangerous game he's playing, pandering to his crowd in public and being more serious behind the scenes. But, looking for a silver lining, I'm guessing he's not being this simplistic when it matters. Uh, hopefully.
.
I think it is wishful thinking, considering the hack job he just did on the refugee/Visa ban. And his insistence on the southern wall. And his promise that crime in our inner cities will Stop. Now.
I'm afraid he really is that simple. But I'll keep my fingers crossed that you're right.
Why is that a hack job?
 
“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 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].
/---- Chuck is wrong on this one.
 
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.
I'll float a theory here that may just be wishful thinking:

Look at how Trump communicates, and what his followers seem to prefer: Very basic communication, simple, straight ahead thoughts, little nuance, very black & white. It may (yes, may) be that he's purposely leaving out nuance for them, but in actuality willing to use it behind closed doors. If that is the case, then these conversations he's having with world leaders may be more nuanced and comprehensive than we know.

An example is the very smart thing that British PM Theresa May did at the press conference after meeting with Trump - she went out of her way to look directly at him and point out that, during their meeting, he said he's "100% behind NATO", even though (a) he has never said that publicly, and (b) he never referred to it afterwards. That moment really boxed him in for future meetings with European leaders.

This is a terribly dangerous game he's playing, pandering to his crowd in public and being more serious behind the scenes. But, looking for a silver lining, I'm guessing he's not being this simplistic when it matters. Uh, hopefully.
.
I think it is wishful thinking, considering the hack job he just did on the refugee/Visa ban. And his insistence on the southern wall. And his promise that crime in our inner cities will Stop. Now.
I'm afraid he really is that simple. But I'll keep my fingers crossed that you're right.
Why is that a hack job?
Different thread.
 
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.
I'll float a theory here that may just be wishful thinking:

Look at how Trump communicates, and what his followers seem to prefer: Very basic communication, simple, straight ahead thoughts, little nuance, very black & white. It may (yes, may) be that he's purposely leaving out nuance for them, but in actuality willing to use it behind closed doors. If that is the case, then these conversations he's having with world leaders may be more nuanced and comprehensive than we know.

An example is the very smart thing that British PM Theresa May did at the press conference after meeting with Trump - she went out of her way to look directly at him and point out that, during their meeting, he said he's "100% behind NATO", even though (a) he has never said that publicly, and (b) he never referred to it afterwards. That moment really boxed him in for future meetings with European leaders.

This is a terribly dangerous game he's playing, pandering to his crowd in public and being more serious behind the scenes. But, looking for a silver lining, I'm guessing he's not being this simplistic when it matters. Uh, hopefully.
.

Yes indeed...it does sound a lot like

wishful-thinking-fingers-crossed.jpg
 
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].
/---- Chuck is wrong on this one.
Okay. Why?
 

Forum List

Back
Top