“It was a bad week for right-wing non-interventionists. The hodgepodge group of libertarians, pacifists, alt-righters, and paleocons had, for the part, latched onto Donald Trump’s campaign as a vehicle to smash the stranglehold of neoconservatives on the GOP and advance a stay-at-home foreign policy: no more wars in the Middle East, no interventions in the name of democracy or human rights or vengeance. …
In their desperation to find like-minded candidates, principled non-interventionists have repeatedly made strategic alliances, ones that ignore party lines, governing philosophies, and odious forms of racism and tribalism. Thus the embrace of Lindbergh and Buchanan and Trump. Thus the refusal of many right-wing non-interventionists to distance themselves in any meaningful way from the alt-right, whose white nationalism is often non-interventionist as well as racist. …
Embracing questionable political figures as a way of advancing legitimate foreign-policy critiques is a trade-off right-wing non-interventionists have made again and again. They did so with Lindbergh, with Buchanan, with Trump. And now that Trump has shown how little his non-interventionist rhetoric meant, they are back in the wilderness — an exile they share with troubling allies like Richard Spencer”
So, Trump won the Republican primary and the general election on a non-interventionist foreign policy message, but he failed because the Alt-Right supported him? That’s absurd.
“The Syrian missile attack was only the most obvious example that Trump is a neocon who just came out of the closet.
1. Soon after he took office he okayed a mindless raid in Yemen.
2. As he took office, thousands of American soldiers were arriving in Germany to occupy new bases on Russia’s border. Trump could have ordered them to return home, but no, they are now in the Baltic.
3. Rather than pull our few troops out of Syria to focus on ISIS in Iraq, Trump ordered hundreds more into Syria and announced that Assad would have to cede Eastern Syria. More troops were sent to Iraq from the USA.
4. Rather than trim excessive military spending, Trump demands a 10% increase, to be paid for by slashing domestic programs. …”
Syria is the latest example of Trump showing his true colors on foreign policy. There have been a number of things which have flown under the radar like troop deployments to the Baltic.
“The world is agog at Donald Trump’s head-snapping foreign-policy reversal. He runs on a platform of America First. He renounces the role of world policeman. He excoriates parasitic foreigners that (I paraphrase) suck dry our precious bodily fluids — and these are allies! On April 4, Trump declared: “I don’t want to be the president of the world. I’m the president of the United States. And from now on, it’s going to be America First.” A week earlier, both his secretary of state and his U.N. ambassador had said that the regime of Bashar Assad is a reality and that changing it is no longer an American priority. …
This is not to say that things could not change tomorrow. We’ve just witnessed one about-face. With a president who counts unpredictability as a virtue, he could well reverse course again. For now, however, the traditionalists are in the saddle. U.S. policy has been normalized. The world is on notice: Eight years of sleepwalking is over. America is back. …”
We had an election cycle that dragged on for a year and a half but as far as our foreign policy is concerned nothing changed and “the traditionalists are in the saddle.”
“Donald Trump campaigned as an outsider who would upend years of Washington orthodoxy in matters of both war and peace — an approach that helped him assemble the unconventional coalition that ultimately won him the presidency.
But in recent days, the president has done an about-face and embraced many of the policy positions he once scorned as the trappings of a foolhardy establishment. …
Among those heartened by the changes is a former critic Elliott Abrams, who was later considered for a post at the State Department but was rejected for a senior post in Trump’s State Department because he was considered too much of an “establishment Republican.”
“I would say this is looking more now like a more conventional Republican administration,” said Abrams, who served as a foreign policy adviser in the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations. “To me, that’s a very good thing.” …
But Trump’s backers say that, from the beginning, the president assembled a Cabinet of military leaders, establishment Republicans and business leaders who would be at home in the Cabinets of more traditional Republicans. And he has pursued policies in other areas — on immigration, the budget, taxes, and rolling back the Affordable Care Act — that have left many conservatives content with the direction his administration is headed. …”
As Richard Spencer said, Trump’s Cabinet represents the failed thinking of his generation which we voted to repudiate in both the primary and general election.
“It’s tempting to ridicule every Donald Trump flip-flop, of which there have been several in just the past few days. The president’s sudden shifts deepen the impression that he is a pliable ignoramus with no core convictions, a man who will parrot whatever the last of his handlers whispered in his ear or whatever will earn him favorable coverage on Morning Joe. In some rare cases, however, Trump’s flip-flops might represent a shift toward coherence. Consider his recent reversals on trade policy.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, the president stated that his administration will not label China a currency manipulator, this despite his repeated promises on the campaign trail to do just that. And though Trump had previously expressed support for abolishing the U.S. Export-Import Bank, a cherished cause among Tea Party activists, he now says it does a lot of good for U.S. exporters and—because other countries have similar agencies—getting rid of it would amount to unilateral disarmament. If these arguments sound familiar, that might be because you’ve heard them come out of the mouth of Barack Obama. …
Alas, try as he might, he can’t turn back the clock on globalization. Bashing countries with which we run bilateral trade deficits is a fool’s errand, for a whole host of reasons.”
We’re not going to do anything about China’s industrial policy. Trump has already sacrificed changing our trade policy to advancing the Empire’s geopolitical goals in North Korea.
“After Donald Trump addressed a joint session of Congress last month—a high-water mark for the president’s popularity with elite political pundits—conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks penned a piece titled “Trumpism at Its Best, Straight Up.” Brooks attempted to define Trump’s political philosophy as an “utter repudiation of modern conservatism,” which he defined as foreign policy hawkishness, social conservatism, and fiscal hawkishness. “For the last 40 years, the Republican Party has been a coalition of [these] three tendencies,” he wrote. “Trump rejected or ignored all of them.” …
But it’s early yet. Trump may become more conventional, or reverse his positions anew, putting him at odds with conservative orthodoxy again. David Brooks may have been wrong about Trumpism, but he was right when he wrote, “We’re in a state of radical flux.” What Trump does next is anyone’s guess. His decisions, though, won’t be guided by a unique, coherent ideology—because it doesn’t exist. He cares only about winning, and his best hope of doing so is to continue to cave to the Republican Party.”
It was The Flight 93 Election.
The fate of our civilization itself was supposed to be at stake. It was all about taking down the corrupt and failed political establishment so that Trump could sit inside the White House and carry out the same standard R policies that we would have gotten if Jeb Bush was president.
“WASHINGTON—The Trump administration is signaling to Congress it would seek mostly modest changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement in negotiations with Mexico and Canada, a deal President Donald Trump called “a disaster” during the campaign.
According to an administration draft proposal being circulated in Congress by the U.S. trade representative’s office, the U.S. would keep some of Nafta’s most controversial provisions, including an arbitration panel that lets investors in the three nations circumvent local courts to resolve civil claims. Critics of these panels said they impinge on national sovereignty. …
The draft, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, talks of seeking “to improve procedures to resolve disputes,” rather than eliminating the panels. …
Mr. Schott noted that a number of the proposed negotiating objectives echo provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 12-nation trade pact among Pacific Rim countries. Mr. Trump campaigned heavily against the TPP. The president pulled the U.S. from the deal on his first working day in office. …”
I’m just going to leave this one here.