Category Archives: Foreign Policy

Trump’s America First Policy: Remarkably Sophisticated

Classical Liberalism, Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, Neoconservatism, Political Economy, Political Philosophy

“Trump’s America First Policy: Remarkably Sophisticated” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

Unsophisticated rambling,” “simplistic,” “reckless.”

The verdict about Donald J. Trump’s foreign policy, unveiled after his five-for-five victory in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island and Connecticut, was handed down by vested interests: Members of the military-media-think tank complex.

People like Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. People Dwight Eisenhower counseled against, in his farewell address to the nation:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”

Naturally, Albright wants U.S. foreign policy to remain complex, convoluted; based not on bedrock American principles, but on bureaucratically friendly talking points, imbibed in the “best” schools of government, put to practice by the likes of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Like so many D.C. insiders who move seamlessly between government and the flush-with-funds think-tank industry, Albright has worked for CFR. (Yearly revenue: $61.0 million. Mission: Not America First.)

Neo-Wilsonian foreign policy is big business.

Wait for the Brookings Institution, RAND Corporation and the Center for American Progress to pile on Trump’s “unsophisticated,” America-centric foreign policy.

Like an invasive, foreign Kudzu, these anti-American forces are everywhere. What Trump’s advocating translates into a reduced profile for them: less demand for their neo-Wilsonian schemes, promulgated in focused blindness by think tank types and by most tele-tarts.

Reduced demand for American agitation abroad will mean fewer “media references per year,” less “monthly traffic” to monetize on websites, less influence in the halls of power and, ultimately, reduced revenues.

We might even see fewer color-coded revolutions around the world.

Trump’s promised change to American foreign policy can’t sit well with the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Freedom House. These have been described by the press as “Washington-based group[s] that promote democracy and open elections.”

More like Alinskyite agitators. …

…Read the rest. “Trump’s America First Policy: Remarkably Sophisticated” is the current column, now on WND.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Gary Johnson Conjures The Very Old SCOTUS Definition Of Pornography

Donald Trump, Elections, Foreign Policy, Freedom of Religion, Hillary Clinton, libertarianism, Welfare

Gary Johnson: A Free-Trade Bernie Sanders?
By Myron Pauli

I’ve never limited myself to Republican and Democratic nominees since I cast my first presidential vote writing in Barry Goldwater in 1972. No regrets on rejecting the decent but too-leftist George McGovern or reelecting “the president!” that imposed wage and price controls, killed the gold Standard, increased domestic spending, installed OSHA and the DEA, expanded the war in Indochina, etc.

Trump, Cruz, Sanders and Clinton all have their bad points to me but the first three occasionally say things I agree with. Trump has the best understanding of national identity, Cruz had the most detailed domestic spending cuts, and Sanders may be best on foreign/military restraint.

As for Hillary: Like the old Supreme Court definition of pornography, I find her “utterly without redeeming social value.” I am not “in the tank” for anyone, so I listened with interest to the person I supported in 2012, Gary Johnson, at the Libertarian Party Debate on the Fox Business Network. Keeping in mind that the Libertarian Party’s own website says, “The Party of Principle: Minimum Government Maximum Freedom.”

So imagine my consternation when I heard Johnson say about the welfare state: “I want to support those truly in need.” Now, I have met libertarians who wanted to cold turkey everything immediately – stop Social Security checks to 85 year-olds tomorrow! OK, maybe too drastic to people who paid into the system. Others would phase out the Nanny State over 50 years. But I’ve never heard an answer in favor of the Welfare State from a “Libertarian” until now. And I heard Governor Johnson talk about states running Medicare/Medicaid as if he were Governor Kasich advocating a “more efficient” Welfare State.

Where’s the “Principle”?

Then came the old “force people to bake Lesbian-Nazi wedding cakes” issue. Certainly, one could distinguish between the Park Service, Amtrak, the utility company, or even an internationally held corporation like Starwood Hotels having less “freedom of association” than an individual – but Gary Johnson did not. He would apparently call up the Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, Air Force, FBI, CIA, DEA, INS, and TSA to make sure you made that floral arrangement! OK – not the most cosmologically important issue, but where is the “Minimum Government Maximum Freedom”?

When John Stossel quoted Milton Friedman that open borders were not compatible with a Welfare State, all that Johnson had were platitudes about Mexico’s best coming here to do jobs that “Americans won’t do.”

Dear Gary – if we really had no Welfare State -– e.g. “Live Free of Die” — is there not a wage at which whereby Americans would “do” the work? I was almost tempted to ask whether one has to actually cross the border to be a citizen since libertarians are net-savvy, can’t we have Chinese, Pakistanis, Congolese, etc. just apply “on-line” to be a citizen and vote in our elections? If Trump goes overboard on “drug dealing rapists” or “terrorists,” Gary Johnson seems to think the rest of the world are all angels completely compatible with “American citizenship.” ZERO admission criteria other than “no criminal record” into a Welfare State Democracy.

Not only must the Bears admit Goldilocks but also house her, feed her, and bake her Nazi-Lesbo wedding cake! In fact, Gary Johnson said that the candidate he was closest to was Bernie Sanders and was pressing to get the disaffected Bernie voters when Hillary wins the Democratic nomination. That may be fine – but are these angry Bernie voters “libertarians,” or just a bunch of social-leftists protesting crony capitalism? From Gary Johnson’s website, there is nearly nothing on programs to cut compared with Cruz, and virtually zero for “socially conservative libertarians.” Johnson emphasizes more a “dope smoking abortion-lovers for free trade” than a more consistent Ron-Paul type libertarianism.

All in all, I still have my personal dilemma: Who to vote for on November 8th? I have a choice of rather flawed candidates and, if I do vote Libertarian, is that to be interpreted as a disgruntled Sanders-independent opposition to Madame Defarge? Do I go with the demagogic braggart Donald “Believe Me” Trump or Carpetbombing Cruz? Muddled Gary? Do I write-in Jim Webb or Ron Paul? Do I just oversleep and forget to vote?

**************

Barely a Blog (BAB) contributor Myron Pauli grew up in Sunnyside Queens, went off to college in Cleveland and then spent time in a mental institution in Cambridge MA (MIT) with Benjamin Netanyahu (did not know him), and others until he was released with the “hostages” and Jimmy Carter on January 20, 1981, having defended his dissertation in nuclear physics. Most of the time since, he has worked on infrared sensors, mainly at Naval Research Laboratory in Washington DC. He was NOT named after Ron Paul but is distantly related to physicist Wolftgang Pauli; unfortunately, only the “good looks” were handed down and not the brains. He writes assorted song lyrics and essays reflecting his cynicism and classical liberalism. Click on the “BAB’s A List” category to access the Pauli archive.

136_3665


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

‘Shahs of Sunset’ Christiane Amanpoor Mocks ‘Poor Me’ America

Celebrity, Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, Iran, Journalism, Media, Race

In ways intellectual, Christiane Amanpoor is impoverished. The famous CNN anchor, however, is not poor. Amanpoor’s net worth is $12.5 Million. She’s lived, loved and worked among the upper echelons her entire life, in her birth place of Iran, too. Amanpoor is more authentically “Shahs of Sunset” than ordinary America.

Read how Amapoor conflates America (“rich”) with Americans (many of whom are awfully poor).

Via Media Matters comes Christian Amanpoor’s take on Trump’s America. She apparently is unfamiliar with white, working-class demographics:

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: [Donald Trump] always comes back to the dollars and cents. So, America’s broke, therefore, America’s weak. These are not true, right, so everybody else has to pony up. This is a businessman’s view of the world, presumably. But it doesn’t make sense when he talks about, for instance, NATO. NATO is not obsolete. Yes, NATO was created 60-plus years ago in response to the Soviet threat. But still, NATO is the organizing principle by which American and the Western democracies’ security is taken care of. And NATO is not just about the United States putting money in. It’s about all the other countries putting in their two percent of GDP as well. Now, they don’t all, that’s true, and America wants them to put more than they do right now. But a good number, nearly half of the NATO countries, put their two percent of GDP in. And the other countries do certain things that America doesn’t do. Now, America, because it is the most powerful military in the world, does a lot of the heavy lifting. You know, you have a military operation and America will do the troop lifting, for instance. Or it will do, you know, many of those kinds of things. But many of the other countries, whether it’s in Afghanistan or elsewhere, pick up a huge lot of the burden as well.

BROOKE BALDWIN (HOST): What about his point on nukes, how he said specifically he would be open to allowing Japan and South Korea to build their own nuclear arsenals so they can protect themselves from North Korea and China?

AMANPOUR: Well again, that puts on its head decades of the United States and its Pacific allies’ security relationship, and this is one of the first times we’ve heard a serious candidate, if not the first time, who will probably be the nominee for the Republican Party, put that forward, and it’s not a Republican sort of point of view that I’ve ever heard in previous elections. This poor me, America’s weak kind of thing is not the way Republicans generally see their view, and Americans’ view in the world. So one of the reasons why Japan does not have a nuclear arsenal is because of the horror that Japan committed during the Second World War. So Japan has been kind of forced to be a pacifist, pretty much, state. It has a military but it’s not an offensive military capability. And so there was a tradeoff. OK, you trade that off. And if there’s a problem, we’ll come to your rescue. But in the meantime, you’ll help us keep the peace in many other ways in that region. So that’s one of the reasons why Japan doesn’t have nukes. And then of course, well, when it comes to ISIS and all the other things, you need allies to be able to go and help you. [CNN, CNN Newsroom with Brooke Baldwin, 3/28/16]


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

TRUMP’S ‘Bad Week’ Tweets: Silent Majority Rising, Says No To NATO, RNC, Neocons, Kasich, Cruz & Debt

Debt, Donald Trump, Economy, Foreign Policy, Republicans


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint