Donald Trump Says "No Thanks" to Most of the Republican Foreign Policy Establishment

3 Responses

1. Dear Ms. Bynum:
   You have helped convince me. Here are some of the things I have finally concluded about Mr. Trump’s efforts:

   1. Someone overtly arguing the case for the uniqueness and importance of American citizenship and Americanism properly defined (for that is what he is truly doing) was perhaps inevitable following the last 24 years of wrong-headed, lackluster leadership, false promises of cultural and societal integrity (Bush, the Overwhelmed), basic antagonism to America (Obama, the Entitled) and extraordinary mismanagement of the wonderful opportunities offered by the end of the Cold War (Clinton, the Squanderer – perhaps a song should be done about this to the tune of The Wanderer).

   2. I think it is important that Mr. Trump not let Bill Clinton off with a pass as he sometimes seems willing to do. Blessed with the best international climate in history, a vast and talented demographic moving through its most productive years, a stratospheric IQ, a Congress briefly willing to address big problems with innovative solutions, a burgeoning technology revolution and an economy humming along without the need for tinkering, President Clinton squandered it all. He was like the coach who guided the best team in the history of his sport to a slightly above .500, third place season – in other words, while arguably successful, he was, in reality, an abject failure. A big part of the entitlements crisis could have been addressed in part with a modified superannuation, privatization scheme such as that adopted by the most left-wing Australian PM in history (Paul Keating). The problems related to the blue collar demographic that Mr. Trump mentions – and which I see daily in my role with working trade unions (not the public trough unions! with which we are in sometimes quiet and soon open warfare) – were already apparent (see Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan) and in need of thoughtful solutions that could have been initiated. The Islamists were already bombing New York buildings.

   What did Clinton give us? 1) A mortgage industry that created an international economic disaster; 2) a burgeoning entitlements disaster unrestrained; 3) a trade policy out of control; 4) a banking industry that is now so hyper-regulated it is in danger of becoming a utility – without the ability to fulfill its entrepreneurial function; 5) a military declining in relative power; and 6) worst of all, a sense that our culture and its leadership was a freak show.

   Mr. Trump’s emphasis on border integrity, Islamic fascism and political (progressive?) correctness were brilliant interpretations of the underlying and barely articulated distress of the body-politic – which everyone else missed.

   We are blessed (once again, pace Bismarck). We could have ended up with a racist-fascist (of which Mr. Trump is neither).

   William Smith

   Reply

2. Thanks you, Mr. Smith. Our country is in such terrible shape, I pray Donald Trump will turn it around. It’s almost too late.

   Reply

3. The history of the 20th century demonstrates that any endeavor to combat military aggression demands an alliance of the defenders. The Second Word War, and the Korean War, and the Cold War —notably the creation of NATO—are proof. But attempts to go it alone, as we witnessed in Viet Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq, result in failure. We are now confronted with the dangers posed by the terrorist organization ISIL. The dangers face us in our own countries and on the battlefield. And again we would be wise to recognize that we in the West can only win this war if our countries come together in an alliance. What countries are those? In the first place, I would suggest that the other four countries of the Anglosphere, who have all been attacked in their homelands with one exception, need to concert their policies and defences. We need also to rejuvenate NATO, whose countries are threatened, notably France and Belgium, which have come under attack by terrorists. The alliances of the past were, I suggest, successful, because its leaders insisted on the necessity of speaking freely and bluntly about all issues, subject to the bounds of diplomatic niceties. Preponderance of size and power of the one does not necessarily confer wisdom or cleverness; but it necessarily commands respect and privilege, as being primus inter pares.
   What is Mr Trump’s position with regard to ISIL and the war in Syria? I seem to recall reading a short time ago that —if elected president—he will seek to parley with Mr Putin and to form a team to combat ISIL together. But is such a policy not exactly what he and many others have criticised his immediate predecessors for, namely, ignoring his allies and going it alone? If he does, he will be courting failure. America’s, and the West’s, strategic interests are at odds with those of Putin’s Russia. “Even some supporters of Mr Assad are wary of Russia’s growing control over their country. The West sees Russia’s talk of fighting terrorism as a smokescreen for supporting Mr Assad’s autocratic regime…Few believe Russiaa’s claim that it is working towards a fair political solution in Syria. But Russia is not concerned with winning over the West. Instead, by proving itself indispensable, Russia believes it can compel the West to collaborate on Russia’s terms.” (The Economist May 14th). What the West needs to do is to insist as an essential precondition of working with the Russians is the removal of Assad. He must step down and go into exile.

   Reply