How dare he. Just, well, how dare he. That’s the takeaway sense you get when you review the New York Times framing of a two hour ‘on-the-record’ interview with Donald Trump referencing a world-view and foreign policy outlook.
It is refreshing, and it is bizarre we can even use the word “refreshing“, to see an American candidate for the American Presidency, say their goal is to actually put America-first in all policy decisions.
It’s not protectionism, it’s patriotism.
It’s not isolationism, it’s common sense.
Almost all of Europe and most of Asia are capable of spending Trillions of dollars on their infrastructure, Airports, bullet-trains, high-speed rail, bridges, ‘Chunnels’, and the list goes on…. quite simply because they don’t spend much on their own national defense, and prefer to hide behind our military apron when needed.
To pay for this enomorus international military/police force, and overly generous commitment, we, in turn, put ourselves into debt and can’t spend on our own domestic needs. This is not international economic theory, it’s a reality – and for the first time in decades a politician is saying enough is enough. Charity begins at home!
(New York Times) – […] Mr. Trump’s views, as he explained them, fit nowhere into the recent history of the Republican Party: He is not in the internationalist camp of President George Bush, nor does he favor President George W. Bush’s call to make it the United States’ mission to spread democracy around the world. He agreed with a suggestion that his ideas might be summed up as “America First.”
“Not isolationist, but I am America First,” he said. “I like the expression.” He said he was willing to reconsider traditional American alliances if partners were not willing to pay, in cash or troop commitments, for the presence of American forces around the world. “We will not be ripped off anymore,” he said.
In the past week, the bombings in Brussels and an accelerated war against the Islamic State have shifted the focus of the campaign trail conversation back to questions of how the candidates would defend the United States and what kind of diplomacy they would pursue around the world.
Mr. Trump explained his thoughts in concrete and easily digestible terms, but they appeared to reflect little consideration for potential consequences. Much the same way he treats political rivals and interviewers, he personalized how he would engage foreign nations, suggesting his approach would depend partly on “how friendly they’ve been toward us,” not just on national interests or alliances.
At no point did he express any belief that American forces deployed on military bases around the world were by themselves valuable to the United States, though Republican and Democratic administrations have for decades argued that they are essential to deterring military adventurism, protecting commerce and gathering intelligence.
Like Richard M. Nixon, Mr. Trump emphasized the importance of “unpredictability” for an American president, arguing that the country’s traditions of democracy and openness had made its actions too easy for adversaries and allies alike to foresee.
“I wouldn’t want them to know what my real thinking is,” he said of how far he was willing to take the confrontation over the islands in the South China Sea, which are remote and lightly inhabited but extend China’s control over a major maritime thoroughfare. But, he added, “I would use trade, absolutely, as a bargaining chip.” (read more)