Rarely if ever do I find myself in agreement with Justin "We Are The World, We Are The Children" Raimondo.....Raimondo hits the nail on the head on a couple of observations here!
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 8:44 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > January 25, 2016 > > *Nationalism and Its Discontents: The Meaning of Trump * > *The return of dreaded “isolationism” is cause for celebration *by Justin > Raimondo > > At the end of the cold war, a cadre of neoconservative intellectuals > surveyed the debris of the fallen Soviet colossus and boldly proclaimed “the > end of history <http://www.wesjones.com/eoh.htm>.” The West, said Francis > Fukuyama, writing in *The National Interest*, had won not only the cold > war but also the war of ideas – for all time. We were inevitably embarked > on a pathway to a “universal homogenous state,” and although the pageant of > History (always capitalized!) would continue to “unfold” along a rather > bumpy road, in the end it would prove to be a highway to US hegemony over > the entire earth. In a symposium commenting on Fukuyama’s thesis, the > ever-practical Charles Krauthammer nevertheless insisted that it would be > necessary for the United States to hurry History along by force of arms. In > a subsequent polemic in *Foreign Affairs*, he argued that we ought to > take advantage of “ the unipolar moment > <https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1991-02-01/unipolar-moment>” to > “integrate” the US, Japan, and Europe into a “super-sovereign” global > empire united by a “new universalism” – which, he averred, “is not as > outrageous as it sounds.” > > Blinded by hubris, enthralled by the possibilities of unlimited power, the > neocons – and their liberal internationalist doppelgangers on the other > side of the political spectrum – didn’t see the nationalist backlash coming. > > That rebuke was prefigured by a stinging rebuttal from the pen of Patrick > J. Buchanan in the pages of *The National Interest*, who wrote that > Krauthammer’s vision was “un-American,” pure and simple. In Buchanan’s > view, this militarized universalism was nothing less than treason. Invoking > the Founders, he wrote that this globalist fantasy failed “the fundamental > test of any foreign policy: Americans will not die for it.” A nation’s > purpose, he added, cannot be ascertained “by consulting ideologies, but by > reviewing its history, by searching the hearts of its people.” So what, if > not the “ benevolent global hegemony > <https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1996-07-01/toward-neo-reaganite-foreign-policy>” > dreamt of by the neocons, would and should Americans fight for? Buchanan’s > answer was to quote these stanzas from Lord Macaulay > <http://www.bartleby.com/360/7/158.html>: > > > > > > > *“And how can man die better That facing fearful odds, For the ashes of > his fathers, And the temples of his gods?” *Buchanan’s answer to > Krauthammer’s globalism was a foreign policy of “enlightened nationalism”: > “total withdrawal of US troops from Europe,” and a rejection of the idea – > nowhere authorized in the Constitution – that the President and/or Congress > has the power to sacrifice its sons on the altar of some crazed crusade for > “global democracy.” Prophesizing the declaration of President George W. > Bush some fifteen years later > <http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/radical-son/> that we > would seek to “end evil” in the world, Buchanan raised the banner of > non-interventionism in the pre-9/11 world: that is, in a country that was > primed to hear his message. > > He took that message to the Republican party, and the country, in three > campaigns for the White House, all the while warning that the “unipolar > world” dreamed of by Krauthammer and his fellow neocons was a dangerous > fantasy, and that the rising tide > <http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/05/18/the-return-of-nationalism/> > of nationalism, from Beijing to Biloxi, would make short work of it. A > multi-polar world was on the horizon, and the best we could hope for was to > adapt to the new reality by tending to our own garden, which had – after a > long global struggle with the (alleged) Soviet threat – by this time become > choked with weeds and in need of emergency care. > > The same nationalist tides that were sweeping the post-cold war world in > Europe and Asia were roiling the waters in America, but they took on a > different shape and coloration in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Whereas > Buchananism was inward-looking, anti-interventionist, and anti-globalist, > the ultra-nationalism > <http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/red-state-fascism.html> utilized > by the neocons to mobilize the American people behind a crusade to > transform the Middle East was and is aggressive, militaristic, and > explicitly hegemonist – a bid to create the “unipolar world” of > Krauthammer’s Napoleonic imagination. > > This interrupted and in effect reversed the natural tendency to return to > normalcy after the decades-long cold war struggle, and at a huge price in > blood and treasure. And yet eventually the pendulum swung back again, as > exhaustion – both emotional and financial – set in. America elected a > President who vowed to end the wars, and deal with our festering home front > crisis: that promise, however was not kept, and Barack Obama will leave > office with the US once again in the middle of at least three wars, and > with a hand in several others on their periphery. Yet the nationalist > impulse – which is, in part, an “isolationist” impulse – is stronger than > ever, laying just beneath the surface of the American political landscape, > waiting for someone to pick up its banner. > > That someone turned out to be Donald Trump. > > I have many disagreements with Trump, but unlike his many enemies on the > left and especially on the right I understand that his nationalism contains > elements that are useful, instructive, and even admirable. Unlike > Buchanan, he is certainly no intellectual, but then again the last > intellectual to inhabit the White House – Woodrow Wilson – was an > unambiguous disaster for the cause of peace and liberty, and so I don’t > hold that against The Donald. There is surely a demagogic element to his > astonishing rise, which his opponents – particularly those on the right – > make much of. The recent jeremiad > <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination> > against him launched by the neocons over *at National Review*was filled > with comparisons to Mussolini, Juan Peron, Hitler (of course!), and even > Andrew <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1qkt3nkZYE> Dice Clay > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1qkt3nkZYE>, this latter barb a direct > appeal to the smug snobbery that characterizes our urban elites. “He’s > “vulgar,” he’s “rude,” etc. etc., and those were some of the gentler ways > they characterized him personally. > > Yet demagoguery didn’t bother them when it was deployed by George W. Bush > as he marched us off to a disastrous war – a war Trump opposed > <http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/31/donald-trump-wanted-last-republican-president-impeached-for-foreign-policy-lies/>, > and continues to denounce today – and implied that his critics were in > league with America’s enemies. “You’re either with us or you’re with the > terrorists” – remember that one > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpPABLW6F_A>? Do you recall > <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/391772/unpatriotic-conservatives-david-frum>how > Bush’s partisans over at *National Review* tried to tar conservative and > libertarian opponents of the Iraq war – including this writer – as having > “turned their backs on their country”? Demagoguery in the service of mass > murder is fine with them: it’s only when their own methods are turned > against them <https://mises.org/library/defense-demagogues>that the War > Party starts to get religion. > > Yes, Trump rose to prominence initially on the strength of his > anti-immigration and protectionist stance – views he holds in common with > his predecessor, Buchanan – but this doesn’t account for the hysterical > opposition to his candidacy coming from the neoconservatives. *National > Review* has been a veritable fount of anti-Muslim propaganda, with the > writings of Andrew McCarthy > <http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/andrew-mccarthy-defends-trump-says-islam-not-religion>, > Mark Steyn > <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/299725/spirit-geert-wilders-mark-steyn>, > Kevin Williamson > <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/411956/slander-blowback-kevin-d-williamson>, > and a host of others all polemicizing against the idea that terrorism is > primarily due to US actions abroad and holding that the roots of Bin > Ladenism lie in the nature of Islam per se. Given the logic of their > longstanding position, how can they object to Trump’s proposal to > temporarily ban Muslim immigration? Yet there they were, breaking Godwin’s > Law <http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/godwins-law> and claiming that we’d be > facing an American Kristallnacht if Trump gets in the White House. What > chutzpah! > > No, the real motive behind the neoconservative holy war against Trump is > rooted in his foreign policy positions, which the neocons rightly view as a > direct threat to their internationalist project. Chris Matthews is on to > their game: please watch his confrontation with a neocon journalist below. > > > > *https://youtu.be/VM0zpfWhSS8 <https://youtu.be/VM0zpfWhSS8> *Discussing > the special we-hate-Trump issue > <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination> > of *National Review*, Matthews cornered poor *NR* writer Eliana Johnson, > who was reduced to stuttering incoherence as he hammered her on what he > rightly perceived as the overarching point of unity in “that crowd” on the > Trump question: “that’s why they don’t like Trump, because he’s the only > guy on the right wing who said [the Iraq war was] a stupid war.” When > Johnson denied this, he demanded to know who among the long list of > anti-Trump “intellectuals” wasn’t a war-hawk. “Can you answer me?” he > persisted. “Who is not a hawk in that group?” > > She couldn’t come up with one (although she might have stopped him by > mentioning David Boaz, of the Cato Institute). > > Boaz’s brief polemic, by the way, didn’t mention foreign policy: he > confined his critique to references to Mussolini, George Wallace, and other > comparisons seemingly ripped from the pages of Salon.com. Yet other > contributors made no secret of the source of their animus. Neocon Mona > Charen was appalled by Trump’s suggestion that “we let Russia fight ISIS.” > Trump is “oblivious” to the “global jihad,” fumed Andrew McCarthy, angered > by Trump’s vow to “stay out of the [Syrian] fray (leaving it in Vladimir > Putin’s nefarious hands).” Bill Kristol was one of the signers, a man whose > key role in ginning up the Iraq war is well-known to my readers. > > A recent piece > <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-foreign-policy-213546#ixzz3yBuNmXkY> > in *Politico* was more explicit about the danger Trump poses to the > internationalist-interventionist consensus that reigns supreme in the > Washington Beltway: > > > > > > > > *“One of the most common misconceptions about Donald Trump is that he is > opportunistic and makes up his views as he goes along. But a careful > reading of some of Trump’s statements over three decades shows that he has > a remarkably coherent and consistent worldview, one that is unlikely to > change much if he’s elected president. It is also a worldview that makes a > great leap backward in history, embracing antiquated notions of power that > haven’t been prevalent since prior to World War II. “It is easy to poke fun > at many of Trump’s foreign-policy notions – the promises to “take” Iraq’s > oil, to extract a kind of imperial ‘tribute’ from U.S. military allies like > South Korea, his eagerness to emulate the Great Wall of China along the > border with Mexico, and his embrace of old-style strongmen like Vladimir > Putin. But many of these views would have found favor in pre-World War II – > and even, in some cases, 19th century – America. ”In sum, Trump believes > that America gets a raw deal from the liberal international order it helped > to create and has led since World War II. He has three key arguments that > he returns to time and again over the past 30 years. He is deeply unhappy > with America’s military alliances and feels the United States is > overcommitted around the world. He feels that America is disadvantaged by > the global economy. And he is sympathetic to authoritarian strongmen. Trump > seeks nothing less than ending the U.S.-led liberal order and freeing > America from its international commitments.” *All this is heresy in the > circles in which the author – Thomas Wright, director of the Project on > International Order and Strategy at The Brookings Institution – travels. > Brookings is in hock to the Gulf emirate of Qatar to the tune of $14.8 > million > <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/us/politics/foreign-powers-buy-influence-at-think-tanks.html?_r=0>, > according to the *New York Times*. This accounts for Wright’s discomfort > with The Donald’s view of America’s expensive and often tragic commitments > to defending other nations “that would be wiped off the face of the earth > if not for us,” as the former real estate mogul puts it. > > Wright’s characterization of Trump’s attitude toward Putin as an “embrace” > is a typical ploy by the War Party, which always portrays a non-belligerent > stance as a love affair: what Trump actually said, however, is that “I > could get along with Putin” – a definite no-no in Washington, where the new > cold war is raging on both sides of the aisle. Contrast this with the > position taken by most of the other GOP candidates, such as Christie, > Rubio, and Bush, who proudly proclaim they’d confront Russian planes in the > skies over Syria, risking World War III. > > Examining Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements over the years – the GOP > frontrunner wonders why we are stationing 28,000 troops in South Korea, > complains that we’re defending Japan while they slap tariffs on our > products, and says we have no business stationing tens of thousands of > soldiers in Europe, which can damn well take care of itself – Wright trots > out the hate figures interventionists love to excoriate. Trump is like Robert > A. Taft <http://www.antiwar.com/stromberg/s071399.html>, who didn’t want > us to join NATO: he’s like Charles Lindbergh > <http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/>, a leader of the > anti-interventionist America First Committee > <http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j082302.html>, a particular hate-figure of > the interventionist-neocon foreign policy Establishment. And, of course, > Trump is an “isolationist,” because he’s sick of coddling our shiftless > “allies” while they rip us off and laugh at us behind our back, all the > while huddling under the protective wingspan of the American eagle. > > All of this is no doubt reassuring to Wright’s Qatari paymasters, who have > a lot to lose if Trump should win the White House and present them with a > bill for services rendered. But in reading Wright’s list of Trumpist > foreign policy heresies, one can’t help but think that the average American > would agree with each and every one of The Donald’s complaints about the > profligate paternalism involved in maintaining this precious “international > order” Wright would have us enforce for free. He maintains that “those > alliances also work to America’s benefit by providing it with prepositioned > forces and regional stability. It would actually cost more to station > troops in the United States and have to deploy them overseas in a crisis.” > But his rationale is a classic example of circular reasoning: he assumes it > is our sacred duty to intervene everywhere. A “crisis,” for him, is the > possibility that the Emir of Qatar will lose his throne, or that the Saudis > will one day be confronted with the consequences of their inveterate > barbarism. Ordinary Americans – i.e. Trump supporters – would consider that > turn of events a comeuppance waiting to happen. > > “Tax these wealthy nations,” says Trump, “not America” – a prospect that > no doubt horrifies Wright and his foreign sponsors, but delights Americans > to no end. Which is precisely why Trumpian nationalism has such resonance > this election season. > > In Wright’s view, Trump is not only unduly rude to our alleged “friends,” > he is far too friendly to our alleged enemies, i.e. Russia and China. > Wright admits, parenthetically, that these two pose no threat to the > American homeland, but rather to “the US-led order,” i.e. the albatross of > our global empire, where – as the Old Right > <https://mises.org/library/foreign-policy-old-right-0> writer Garet > Garrett <http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2004/08/18/rise-of-empire/> > put it – “everything goes out and nothing comes in.” > > As is routine for our war propagandists, Wright accuses Trump of having a > soft spot for authoritarian leaders. Since Trump doesn’t want to threaten > Putin and the Chinese with regime-change, this must mean he admires – and > even wants to emulate – their domestic policies. It’s an absurd position to > take, and, not coincidentally, the very same illogic that led to the Iraq > war. “He’s killing his own people,” went the refrain about Saddam Hussein – > and if you didn’t favor regime-change in Iraq, that must mean you approved > of Saddam’s dictatorship. We can see where that line “reasoning” led, but > Wright and his fellow policy wonks haven’t learned that lesson even if the > American people have. > > Wright gleefully cites Putin’s comments on Trump: > > > > *“He says he wants to move on to a new, more substantial relationship, a > deeper relationship with Russia, how can we not welcome that? Of course we > welcome that.” *This horrifies Wright, but what is wrong with getting > along with the leader of the Russian state – a person who has at his > command thousands of nuclear weapons and has often expressed wonderment at > Washington’s rebuke of every attempt at rapprochement? With the threat of a > new arms race looming large > <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-cirincione/arms-race-us-russia-nuclear_b_8557526.html> > and a new cold war on the horizon, the biggest danger to international > peace is our deteriorating relations with Russia. Trump realizes this: > Wright, not so much. And the American people are behind Trump in this: > asked by pollsters if we should get involved in a dispute with Russia over > Ukraine, the overwhelming answer was a resounding “No!” > <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/politico-poll-ukraine-middle-east-109155> > > “It’s not hard to imagine these two men sitting down to cut a deal,” says > Wright, but surely cutting a deal to reduce the nuclear arsenals of both > nations and resume cooperation in tracking down “loose nukes” floating > around the former Soviet Union is a good thing. Except it isn’t a good > thing as far as our new Cold Warriors are concerned. Wright derides Putin > and Trump for holding an “antiquated” view of world politics, but what > could be more antiquated than launching another cold war with Russia – a > quarter century after the fall of the Soviet Union? > > As for China, Wright is at his wit’s end because Trump seems unconcerned > with “its attempts to blunt US power projection capabilities or its > repression at home.” And yet “power projection” is just another word for > military aggression, which is bound to provoke a response from the highly > nationalistic Chinese. Are we supposed to go to war over the Spratly > Islands and a collection of artificial atolls > <http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-china-airstrip-idUSKCN0PC00Q20150702> > in the South China Sea – thousands of miles away from American shores? > Seriously? Wright pretends to be concerned about China’s repressive > domestic policies, but threatening behavior on our part will only empower > the sclerotic leaders of the Chinese Communist Party and strengthen their > position domestically. Wright fails to understand the power of rising > nationalism abroad, just as he disdains its manifestations here in America. > > It’s almost funny how Wright portrays the threat to his treasured “US-led > order”: > > > > *“There will be massive uncertainty around America’s commitments. Would > Trump defend the Baltics? Would he defend the Senkaku Islands? Or Saudi > Arabia? Some nations will give in to China, Russia and Iran. Others, like > Japan, will push back, perhaps by acquiring nuclear weapons. Trump may well > see such uncertainty as a positive. Putting everything in play would give > him great leverage. But by undoing the work of Truman and his secretary of > state, Dean Acheson, it would be the end of the American era.” *The idea > that Putin is raring to gobble up the Baltics is one of the cold warriors’ > talking points, but it is absurd on its face: does he really think Putin is > dumb enough to replicate the US invasion of Iraq in a European setting? > Don’t make me laugh. Crimea wanted union with Russia > <http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-after-russia-annexed-crimea-locals-prefer-moscow-to-kiev/#31e8505c5951>, > and that’s what the Crimeans got: given the way Ukraine is being governed > <http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/12/30/corruption-in-ukraine-is-so-bad-a-nigerian-prince-would-be-embarrassed-2/>, > who can blame them? But it is sheer fiction to imagine that Putin wants to > recreate the Warsaw Pact: he is playing defense to NATO’s game of offense > <http://www.moonofalabama.org/2014/03/george-f-kennans-prediction-on-nato-expansion-was-right.html> > . > > As for the Senkaku Islands > <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11341139> – what in the name > of all that’s holy is the US interest in defending these useless atolls? > Are we supposed to go to war with China over these five uninhabited specks > – which are also claimed by Taiwan > <http://www.dw.com/en/taiwan-wants-a-say-in-senkaku-talks/a-16684170>, > our ally? Let’s take a national poll over that burning question: I can > guarantee you the answer in advance. > > “To understand Trump, in the end, we have to go back to Taft and > Lindbergh,” avers Wright, and in this he is absolutely correct. It’s a pity > some of my libertarian friends fail to see this, but they are blinded by > cultural factors and held captive by political correctness: immigration > matters more to them than foreign policy. What they don’t understand is > that the question of war and peace is the central issue of modern times. > They fail to appreciate the foreign policy paradigm shift represented by > Trump’s political success. However, Wright *does* understand it, along > with his neoconservative comrades over at *National Review* and the *Weekly > Standard*. > > For Wright, Trump is Taft and Lindbergh all rolled up into one: > > *“The difference is that, unlike Trump, Taft was not outside the > mainstream of his time. Many people believed America was safe and that it > did not matter who ran Europe. Also, unlike Trump, Taft was boring and > struggled to break through the noise in several nomination battles. The > more bombastic and controversial figure was Lindbergh, the man who became a > household name as the first person to fly across the Atlantic. Lindbergh > led a national movement that was divisive, xenophobic and sympathetic to > Nazi Germany.” * *(see correction below)* > <http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/01/24/nationalism-and-its-discontents-the-meaning-of-trump/#ref> > > Of course, the America First antiwar movement, which opposed US entry into > the European war, reflected the overwhelming majority sentiment of the > American people, who opposed intervention before Pearl Harbor. So what > Wright is saying is that most Americans in the year 1940 were “sympathetic > to Nazi Germany.” This was the line of the Communist Party at the time, > which – along with the Party’s liberal-left fellow-travelers – was eager to > see us get into the war in order to save Stalin’s bacon. That this nonsense > is now gospel among the foreign policy mavens who inhabit the corridors of > power in Washington should tell us everything we need to know about what’s > wrong in the Imperial City. > > What scares Wright – and the Establishment of both parties – is that Trump > is changing what it means to be “mainstream.” When Lindsey Graham, who > wants to invade Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Ukraine – for a start – gets less > than 1 percent in the polls, and Trump gets 40 percent, the War Party > panics. As well they should. I for one take enormous pleasure in imbibing > the naked fear Wright and his fellow warmongering wonks exude as the > triumph of Trump approaches. Here is Wright, shaking in his boots: > > > > *“The Republican primary of 2016 is shaping up to be the most important > party primary since 1940. Lindbergh did not run, of course. But Taft was in > with a strong chance. Only the fact that the field was badly divided > created an unexpected opening for Wendell Willkie, an internationalist, to > emerge as the nominee at the convention. Some of Roosevelt’s advisers were > so relieved at Willkie’s nomination that they advised their boss he no > longer had to run for an unprecedented – and controversial – third term.” *Ah, > but this time there will be no Wilkie – imposed by the Eastern > Establishment <http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1995/nov95/col11-16.html> > after Taft’s delegates were disqualified by party bosses – to save the > internationalists from the fate they so richly deserve. And that’s what has > Wright in a panic: > > > > *“The reason we must revisit 1940 is that Republicans have struggled to > find a new north star after Iraq. Except for Rand Paul – whose own brand of > libertarian isolationism, unlike Trump’s, didn’t sit well with voters – the > establishment candidates were not sure whether they still supported Bush > 43’s strategy or opposed it. Most tried to muddle through with a critique > of President Barack Obama. Marco Rubio stuck to the ambitious Bush 43 > approach but found a declining market. Some, like Ted Cruz, tried to deal > with the shift in sentiment by cozying up to pro-American dictators and > abandoning support for democracy promotion. Cruz even used the isolationist > term America First to describe his foreign policy. But Cruz seems to have > thought little and said even less about America’s global role outside the > Middle East. Ironically for someone with the reputation of being > exceptionally smart, he lacks Trump’s detail and substance.” *Poor > Wright! The combined poll numbers of the two top candidates for the GOP > presidential nomination – one of whom is hated by the neocons, and the > other who has openly attacked > <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428452/ted-cruz-foreign-policy-gop-leaders-suspicious> > the neocons – equal *over half* of Republican primary voters. And the > most consistently “isolationist” of the top two is the frontrunner, with > his poll numbers rising with every effort to dislodge him. You’ll pardon me > if I indulge the temptation to chortle in print: I haven’t had this much > fun since Buchanan toppled King George off his pedestal > <http://buchanan.org/blog/1996-victory-speech-manchester-nh-183> in New > Hampshire and declared war on the “New World Order.” > > “It is in this vacuum that the long-dormant Taftian foreign policy has > made an unexpected comeback in the hands of Trump,” says Wright, in > despair. “What happens next is anybody’s guess.” > > What’s an internationalist to do when the rising tide of American > nationalism washes over his foreign-subsidized sandcastle? Cry? Write long > articles for *Politico*? Perhaps both. > > I have to say, however, that Trump is hardly the consistent “isolationist” > Wright portrays in his piece. He is flighty, and therefore unpredictable. > Although his views on trade limn (somewhat) those of the late Chalmers > Johnson > <https://books.google.com/books?id=MrV7dCG5S0YC&lpg=PP1&dq=chalmer%20johnson%20trade%20empire&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q=chalmer%20johnson%20trade%20>, > who saw the American empire as a tradeoff between Washington and its > overseas clients – we would lift trade barriers if they allowed us to > station troops on their soil – Trump lacks Johnson’s intellectual solidity, > to say the least. Slapping tariffs on Chinese goods would start a trade war > that would be disastrous for us, and the world. In short, I don’t give one > iota of political support to Trump because he is simply not to be trusted. > If he overcomes the odds and does win the White House, “what happens next > is anybody’s guess,” as Wright puts it. > > Yet Trump’s personal shortcomings are beside the point. The lesson to be > taken from this episode is *the centrality of foreign policy* in the > political life of our country. The doggedness with which the > internationalists are attacking Trump, the nature of their criticisms, and > the viciousness of their tactics is an indication of how hard it will be to > dislodge them – just as Trump’s popularity shows how eager Americans are to > hear someone tell them that we don’t have to continue being the policeman > of the world, and that we’re paying through the nose for something that > doesn’t benefit us in the least (although it does benefit outfits like the > Brookings Institution, which takes in millions from its foreign sponsors). > No matter how inconsistent and even obnoxious Trump may be – and his crazy > plan to deport millions of undocumented immigrants is certainly a noxious > fantasy that will never happen no matter who is elected – it would be a > mistake to dismiss him as a random anomaly, or as a “fascist” demagogue as > some of the more brainless > <https://tucker.liberty.me/trumpism-the-ideology/> libertarians have done. > > The meaning of Trumpism is that Americans want to rid themselves of the > burden of empire: Wright is right about that. Trump’s rise augurs a seismic > shift in the foreign policy debate in this country, marking the end of the > interventionist consensus that dominates both parties. And it certainly > means the final defeat and humiliation of the neoconservatives, who are > busy spewing vitriol at him and his “plebeian” supporters. And that alone > is worth whatever price we have to pay for the triumph of Trump. For the > neocons are the very core of the War Party: their demise as a politically > effective force inside the GOP is an event that every person who wants a > more peaceful world has been longing for and should celebrate. > > When the Republican-controlled Congress in the Clinton era threatened to > pull the funding from Bill Clinton’s war in the former Yugoslavia, Bill > Kristol threatened to walk out of the GOP. Today, as Trump appears to be > the likely Republican presidential nominee, Kristol is threatening to > start his own party > <http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gops-kristol-semi-serious-talk-about-third-party-initiative>. > Which strikes me as a brilliant ploy: let him run Lindsey Graham as the > candidate of the aptly-named War Party – and when America’s foremost > warmonger does worse than he did in the primaries, let the > chickenhawk-in-chief > contemplate the majesty of cosmic justice. > > *Correction*: I wrote “So what Wright is saying is that most Americans in > the year 1940 were ‘sympathetic to Nazi Germany.’ This was the line of the > Communist Party at the time.” Actually, the CP’s line didn’t change until > 1941, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union. Thanks to Paul W. Lovinger of > the War and Law League for the heads up. > > > http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/01/24/nationalism-and-its-discontents-the-meaning-of-trump/ > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
