The "Donroe" doctrine.

[forkup]

For years I’ve wondered what the “again” in Make America Great Again was actually referring to.

“Again” implies a specific historical moment that MAGA considers ideal.

I used to think it meant the post, World War II era: white dominance, women confined to the home, and Black Americans expected to “know their place.” That interpretation still has merit, but I think it’s incomplete.

Increasingly, it looks like Trump and parts of the MAGA movement are reaching even further back, toward the era of the Monroe Doctrine. An era Trump, being Trump, now wants to rename after himself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/12/31/year-donroe-doctrine/

Historically, the Monroe Doctrine belonged to a time when the United States was not a global power, but a regional one. The world was dominated by competing “Great Powers,” each enforcing their interests through spheres of influence and the threat, or use, of force.

That system didn’t end well. As competition intensified, small conflicts stopped being sufficient. The result was catastrophic, world-encompassing war.

The irony is that the United States eventually became a true Great Power precisely by moving beyond that model, by shaping global trade, building international institutions, and exporting influence through culture and economics rather than raw coercion alone.

Yet MAGA rhetoric increasingly rejects that framework. Multilateralism is treated as weakness. Trade dominance is dismissed. Global influence is seen as a burden rather than an asset.

What’s left, then, is a return to zero-sum power politics, where disputes are settled not through integration and influence, but through pressure, dominance, and force.

If that’s the “again” being promised, history gives us a pretty clear preview of where it leads.

 

[Mac1958]

For years I’ve wondered what the “again” in Make America Great Again was actually referring to.

“Again” implies a specific historical moment that MAGA considers ideal.

I used to think it meant the post, World War II era: white dominance, women confined to the home, and Black Americans expected to “know their place.” That interpretation still has merit, but I think it’s incomplete.

Increasingly, it looks like Trump and parts of the MAGA movement are reaching even further back, toward the era of the Monroe Doctrine. An era Trump, being Trump, now wants to rename after himself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/12/31/year-donroe-doctrine/

Historically, the Monroe Doctrine belonged to a time when the United States was not a global power, but a regional one. The world was dominated by competing “Great Powers,” each enforcing their interests through spheres of influence and the threat, or use, of force.

That system didn’t end well. As competition intensified, small conflicts stopped being sufficient. The result was catastrophic, world-encompassing war.

The irony is that the United States eventually became a true Great Power precisely by moving beyond that model, by shaping global trade, building international institutions, and exporting influence through culture and economics rather than raw coercion alone.

Yet MAGA rhetoric increasingly rejects that framework. Multilateralism is treated as weakness. Trade dominance is dismissed. Global influence is seen as a burden rather than an asset.

What’s left, then, is a return to zero-sum power politics, where disputes are settled not through integration and influence, but through pressure, dominance, and force.

If that’s the “again” being promised, history gives us a pretty clear preview of where it leads.

It's "might makes right". Virtually overnight we have become an international bully, a predator nation.

It makes some people feel strong and in control for a change, but it's sad to see us become The Bad Guy when it's not necessary.

 

[1srelluc]

Meh, I saw it as Big Stick diplomacy.

Maduro was asked to step down, didn't, and had the stick applied to him.

Done and done.

 

[Crepitus]

It's "might makes right". Virtually overnight we have become an international bully, a predator nation.

It makes some people feel strong and in control for a change, but it's sad to see us become The Bad Guy when it's not necessary.

Only weak people feel "strong and in control" by being bullies.

Case in point right here.

Meh, I saw it as Big Stick diplomacy.

Maduro was asked to step down, didn't, and had the stick applied to him.

Done and done.

 

[Oddball]

Hang on here...So the Warshton Compost is endorsing US globalist hegemony, but western hemispheric dominance is a relic?

I'm used to waiting at least a few months before the shitlibs try to get it both ways.

 

[kyzr]

It's "might makes right". Virtually overnight we have become an international bully, a predator nation.

Nope. We just stopped being chumps for everyone, putting a priority on our national defense for a change.

It makes some people feel strong for a change, but it's sad to see us become The Bad Guy when it's not necessary.

Feel strong is correct, always have been strong, but Trump is the first president to insist on fairness.
We spent $trillions since WW2 protecting the EU from the USSR and then Russia, while the EU bought Russian oil and gas supporting the military we were protecting the EU from, while not meeting NATO commitments. Trump said this is nuts.

Similarly regarding the drug traffic, my brother was a radar operator in FL and said they could track the drug planes flying up but were not allowed to notify law enforcement. Trump changed that. Now its all out war on the drug cartels. During Biden more than 400,000 Americans died from drugs, Trump will cut that number by more than half.

We are never the "bad guy", we're the Clint Eastwood guy with his .44 Magnum......feel lucky punk? Do ya?

 

[forkup]

It's "might makes right". Virtually overnight we have become an international bully, a predator nation.

It makes some people feel strong and in control for a change, but it's sad to see us become The Bad Guy when it's not necessary.

It's also self-defeating. I'm European. He's openly threatening to take territory from Norway. And the reasons cited for it are laughable.

The US has the biggest Navy in the world and Greenland is in their backyard. Not only that but they already have a military precense. So the idea that Greenland not being in US hand is a national security threat is laughable.

Unless of course the national security interest is ownership of Greenland's recourses. But if that's what is meant then all recourses in ANY nation can be deemed in the US' security interests. It would justify war with anyone.

Now Trump and the Maga movement thinks they can simply bully through and that none of it will have consequences, but that's simply folly.

I don't doubt the US military can take Greenland by force. I also don't doubt that from that moment on the US will be considered a threat to Europe and it's allies and trade will probably cease altogether.

It would cost trillions to Europe and the US alike if not cause outright war.

In fact, of I'd be in the shoes of European, Australian, Japanese, and Canadian leaders I would seriously consider how to quickly divest from America and see what retaliatory options there are even now.

 

[forkup]

Hang on here...So the Warshton Compost is endorsing US globalist hegemony, but western hemispheric dominance is a relic?

I'm used to waiting at least a few months before the shitlibs try to get it both ways.

Western hemispheric dominance was a relic. To be replaced by GLOBAL dominance, just not militarily.

This shit is a NET LOSS to America's position.

 

[Oddball]

Western hemispheric was a relic. To be replaced by GLOBAL dominance, just not militarily.

This shit is a NET LOSS to America's position.

meh.....

 

[Mac1958]

It's also self-defeating. I'm European. He's openly threatening to take territory from Norway. And the reasons cited for it are laughable.

The US has the biggest Navy in the world and Greenland is in their backyard. Not only that but they already have a military precense. So the idea that Greenland not being in US hand is a national security threat is laughable.

Unless of course the national security interest is ownership of Greenland's recourses. But if that's what is meant then all recourses in ANY nation can be deemed in the US' security interests. It would justify war with anyone.

Now Trump and the Maga movement thinks they can simply bully through and that none of it will have consequences, but that's simply folly.

I don't doubt the US military can take Greenland by force. I also don't doubt that from that moment on the US will be considered a threat to Europe and it's allies and trade will probably cease altogether.

It would cost trillions to Europe and the US alike if not cause outright war.

In fact, of I'd be in the shoes of European, Australian, Japanese, and Canadian leaders I would seriously consider how to quickly divest from America and see what retaliatory options there are even now.

The ends of the spectrum appear to take exactly zero (0) time or effort in carefully examining the potential downsides of their actions. What Trump is hastening here is the end of America's time as "The Indispensable Nation". The world will only deal with us now like a business might have to deal with the Mafia -- only when absolutely necessary.

And we'll just hide over here, giving up our title of "Leader of the Free World".

It won't be long before the dollar loses its reserve status, for starters.

 

[forkup]

meh.....

View attachment 1202137

Great rebuttal..

 

[kyzr]

It's also self-defeating. I'm European. He's openly threatening to take territory from Norway. And the reasons cited for it are laughable.

What Norway territory????

The US has the biggest Navy in the world and Greenland is in their backyard. Not only that but they already have a military presence. So the idea that Greenland not being in US hand is a national security threat is laughable.

Says who? What if we want a bigger military presence there, or mine there, or whatever? If our joint chiefs say we need Greenland, we're taking Greenland, laugh at that.

Unless of course the national security interest is ownership of Greenland's resources. But if that's what is meant then all resources in ANY nation can be deemed in the US' security interests. It would justify war with anyone.

The US generally negotiates for mineral rights.

Now Trump and the Maga movement thinks they can simply bully through and that none of it will have consequences, but that's simply folly.

Folly? Watch.

I don't doubt the US military can take Greenland by force. I also don't doubt that from that moment on the US will be considered a threat to Europe and it's allies and trade will probably cease altogether.

Fine.

It would cost trillions to Europe and the US alike if not cause outright war.

Over Greenland? Get over it. Its a big ice cube.

In fact, of I'd be in the shoes of European, Australian, Japanese, and Canadian leaders I would seriously consider how to quickly divest from America and see what retaliatory options there are even now.

Empty threats, look at whose economies would suffer more.

 

[forkup]

The ends of the spectrum appear to take exactly zero (0) time or effort in carefully examining the potential downsides of their actions. What Trump is hastening here is the end of America's time as "The Indispensable Nation". The world will only deal with us now like a business might have to deal with the Mafia -- only when absolutely necessary.

And we'll just hide over here, giving up our title of "Leader of the Free World".

It won't be long before the dollar loses its reserve status, for starters.

There are plenty of other things.

Most Americans don't really understand the absolutely dominant and preferential position they enjoy today. It's a position given in the understanding that America as a (sometimes broken) rule, won't abuse that position too badly.

That's why American companies have such dominant positions. That's why I grew up watching shows like Full house, or Family Matters. Hell it's why I learned to speak English well enough to meet my wife.

Trump and his base are willing to throw that stuff away, for well... I don't know...hubris, ego, malignant narcissism?

 

[forkup]

What Norway territory????

Says who? What if we want a bigger military presence there, or mine there, or whatever? If our joint chiefs say we need Greenland, we're taking Greenland, laugh at that.

The US generally negotiates for mineral rights.

Folly? Watch.

Fine.

Over Greenland? Get over it. Its a big ice cube.

Empty threats, look at whose economies would suffer more.

Lol. Saying you give us what we want or we'll take it is not a negotiating. It's extortion.

And as who would suffer more. I don't know who would. What I do know is that American's would suffer.
And unlike Europeans, the reason for that suffering would be considered actions of your president.

I'm pretty sure elections are about economics .
So let's see how the American's would react to the argument " well I know you're suffering but it's ok Europeans are suffering more."

 

[Zincwarrior]

Meh, I saw it as Big Stick diplomacy.

Maduro was asked to step down, didn't, and had the stick applied to him.

Done and done.

Now the US taxpayer is paying to rebuild Venezuela's oil industry for oil company profit apparently.

 

[berg80]

For years I’ve wondered what the “again” in Make America Great Again was actually referring to.

“Again” implies a specific historical moment that MAGA considers ideal.

I used to think it meant the post, World War II era: white dominance, women confined to the home, and Black Americans expected to “know their place.” That interpretation still has merit, but I think it’s incomplete.

Increasingly, it looks like Trump and parts of the MAGA movement are reaching even further back, toward the era of the Monroe Doctrine. An era Trump, being Trump, now wants to rename after himself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/12/31/year-donroe-doctrine/

Historically, the Monroe Doctrine belonged to a time when the United States was not a global power, but a regional one. The world was dominated by competing “Great Powers,” each enforcing their interests through spheres of influence and the threat, or use, of force.

That system didn’t end well. As competition intensified, small conflicts stopped being sufficient. The result was catastrophic, world-encompassing war.

The irony is that the United States eventually became a true Great Power precisely by moving beyond that model, by shaping global trade, building international institutions, and exporting influence through culture and economics rather than raw coercion alone.

Yet MAGA rhetoric increasingly rejects that framework. Multilateralism is treated as weakness. Trade dominance is dismissed. Global influence is seen as a burden rather than an asset.

What’s left, then, is a return to zero-sum power politics, where disputes are settled not through integration and influence, but through pressure, dominance, and force.

If that’s the “again” being promised, history gives us a pretty clear preview of where it leads.

Perhaps Dotard wants a return of an era of regional hegemony with China, Russia, and the US each controlling their parts of the world. A new axis of evil.

 

[Independent thinker]

For years I’ve wondered what the “again” in Make America Great Again was actually referring to.

“Again” implies a specific historical moment that MAGA considers ideal.

I used to think it meant the post, World War II era: white dominance, women confined to the home, and Black Americans expected to “know their place.” That interpretation still has merit, but I think it’s incomplete.

Increasingly, it looks like Trump and parts of the MAGA movement are reaching even further back, toward the era of the Monroe Doctrine. An era Trump, being Trump, now wants to rename after himself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/12/31/year-donroe-doctrine/

Historically, the Monroe Doctrine belonged to a time when the United States was not a global power, but a regional one. The world was dominated by competing “Great Powers,” each enforcing their interests through spheres of influence and the threat, or use, of force.

That system didn’t end well. As competition intensified, small conflicts stopped being sufficient. The result was catastrophic, world-encompassing war.

The irony is that the United States eventually became a true Great Power precisely by moving beyond that model, by shaping global trade, building international institutions, and exporting influence through culture and economics rather than raw coercion alone.

Yet MAGA rhetoric increasingly rejects that framework. Multilateralism is treated as weakness. Trade dominance is dismissed. Global influence is seen as a burden rather than an asset.

What’s left, then, is a return to zero-sum power politics, where disputes are settled not through integration and influence, but through pressure, dominance, and force.

If that’s the “again” being promised, history gives us a pretty clear preview of where it leads.

It’s ridiculous to let thugs take over countries and then we take in their refugees, leaving the thugs in charge of entire countries. The refugees would rather be in their own countries than in the US. It’s about time we got rid of the thugs so we wouldn't gave to take in their refugees and then support them as well.

 

[Blaster]

 

[kyzr]

Lol. Saying you give us what we want or we'll take it is not a negotiating. It's extortion.
And as who would suffer more. I don't know who would. What I do know is that American's would suffer.
And unlike Europeans, the reason for that suffering would be considered actions of your president.
I'm pretty sure elections are about economics .
So let's see how the American's would react to the argument " well I know you're suffering but it's ok Europeans are suffering more."

We're about to find out, so buckle-up buttercup.

 

[kyzr]

Perhaps Dotard wants a return of an era of regional hegemony with China, Russia, and the US each controlling their parts of the world. A new axis of evil.

...with democrats on Russia's and China's side.