New World Order ? ( Trump Doctrine)

[anatta]

It’s worth recalling that Trump has been consistent in his opposition to the Cold War order for decades; since the 1980s, he has argued that our allies are playing us for suckers. That is, they are taking our money for their defense, and then taking more of our money as a result of lopsided trade relationships. Of course, all these assertions are fiercely debated and disputed, and yet it’s simply a fact, for example, that the U.S. spends multiples more on defense, as a percentage of GDP, than other NATO members. And it’s a fact, too, that the U.S. runs a trade deficit with the European Union of about $100 billion.

Thus in this time of populist ferment, the defenders of the status quo are thrown on the defensive. Establishmentarians must explain why the U.S. should always subsidize and protect countries and peoples on the many far pavilions, from South Korea to Estonia to Syria. We have known for three decades now that we’re not defending, any more, against communist ideology; instead, it sometimes appears that we are merely fostering a disastrous worldwide technology transfer to China.

So if we step back, we can see the ahistoricality of what we’re doing. Even the advocates of the status quo system have to admit that in the context of traditional statecraft, it’s simply not normal that one country should do all this defending, and oftentimes pay for the privilege of doing it. Thus the pressing question: With just four percent of the world’s population and barely more than a fifth of the world’s GDP, can the U.S. really afford to defend, seemingly, everyone against everybody? Indeed, in a world of drones, cyber-attacks, and migration-based terrorism, it’s not even clear that we know how to defend ourselves, let alone the rest of the world.

To be sure, many will argue that even if it’s not normal, and increasingly unworkable, that we bear these burdens, it’s still desirable, as part of a quest to build a newer world order. Thus the political battle is joined: Trump the nationalist, plus his Bannonite allies around the world vs. the received—some would say, congealed—wisdom of the internationalists.

So now we might ask: Does Trump have any sort of road map in mind? What is his vision? It would seem that he envisions a more autonomous—or perhaps, autarkic—U.S., protected against too many imports and too many immigrants. If we have our own sovereignty, our own internal market, and our own energy, then, Trump seems to think, the main thing is to keep it all intact, and not go the way of Western Europe.

In fact, it’s possible to espy at least the first glimmers of an articulated Trump Doctrine. As a further poetic coda to the final passing of the Cold War era, just on Monday an article appeared in The Atlantic, under the byline of Jeffrey Goldberg, a well-known foreign policy mandarin. Goldberg quoted one “senior official” in the White House saying that yes, indeed, there is a new line emerging: “The Trump Doctrine is ‘We’re America, Bitch.’ That’s the Trump Doctrine.” And for good measure, and a second “senior official” told Goldberg the same thing, using virtually the same language.

Not surprisingly, Goldberg is unimpressed, even horrified by these pronouncements; he scorns the phraseology as “delusional,” decrying “the gangster fronting, the casual misogyny, the insupportable confidence,” adding that it is “self-isolating and self-sabotaging.”

Of course, such harsh words sum up the establishment’s longstanding take on Trump himself, to say nothing of any new doctrine. And yet in the wake of these latest words, it’s a cinch that the white-hot heat of the foreign-policy debate will grow even hotter, up to the limits of what’s physically possible, as Trump critics take turns pounding on the unnamed aides (who will likely be named soon enough). In the meantime, Trump supporters will be scramble to express America First ideas using more conventional locutions.

The stakes are, after all, high; the basic geopolitical foundations of the last seven decades are being challenged and shifted—or, as critics would prefer to say, being subverted and betrayed.

Yet in the meantime, even as his myriad foes prepare their next political, legal, and punditical attacks, Trump is the man astride the world stage, smiling, shaking hands, signing deals—and unmistakably remaking the old order.
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...-war-for-good/

[Darth Omar]

We’re America, Bitch lol.

We are though. And we can’t defend everyone from everyone else and it’s insane to try. No, it’s suicide to try. And if you want us to do it, ante up.

Trump arrived on the scene in the Knick of time. To this day, I can’t get over how we dodged a bullet.

[anatta]

We’re America, Bitch lol.

We are though. And can’t defend everyone from everyone else and it’s insane to try. No, it’s suicide to try. And if you want us to do it, ante up.

Trump arrived on the scene in the Knick of time. To this day, I can’t get over how we dodged a bullet.

Goldberg is a chump globalist at all costs (ours).

It's a long article - mostly detailing how the Cold War was locked in by the Korean war if you want to read it
-but I pulled out the "Trump parts"

Goldberg as a establishment "mandarin" ROFL..ossified and out of touch!

[Darth Omar]

Goldberg is a chump globalist at all costs (ours).

It's a long article - mostly detailing how the Cold War was locked in by the Korean war if you want to read it
-but I pulled out the "Trump parts"

Goldberg as a establishment "mandarin" ROFL..ossified and out of touch!

Ossified is the right word.

Even the Cold War is dated. Time to move on.

[Micawber]

Nixon Agnew 2020

[anatta]

Ossified is the right word.

Even the Cold War is dated. Time to move on.

replaced by Cold War 2.0...the mandarins cling to the old world order.

[Nordberg]

WTF we have over 800 military bases stretched around the world. https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...e-world-119321 Nobody is taking advantage of the expansionist USA. We have troops in 70 countries. That is who we are.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

WTF we have over 800 military bases stretched around the world. https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...e-world-119321 Nobody is taking advantage of the expansionist USA. We have troops in 70 countries. That is who we are.

that overextended. it's a weakness.

[StoneByStone]

We’re America, Bitch lol.

We are though. And we can’t defend everyone from everyone else and it’s insane to try. No, it’s suicide to try. And if you want us to do it, ante up.

Trump arrived on the scene in the Knick of time. To this day, I can’t get over how we dodged a bullet.

Well, the first two lines aren't lies. So I give you credit there.

[BattleofHodow]

Trump America first, or Israel first?

[Hawkeye10]

Trump is not ideological, therefore there is no such thing as a Trump Doctrine.

Trump is all Problem/Solution, and he understands that everything changes with time.

[Stretch]

It’s worth recalling that Trump has been consistent in his opposition to the Cold War order for decades; since the 1980s, he has argued that our allies are playing us for suckers. That is, they are taking our money for their defense, and then taking more of our money as a result of lopsided trade relationships. Of course, all these assertions are fiercely debated and disputed, and yet it’s simply a fact, for example, that the U.S. spends multiples more on defense, as a percentage of GDP, than other NATO members. And it’s a fact, too, that the U.S. runs a trade deficit with the European Union of about $100 billion.

Thus in this time of populist ferment, the defenders of the status quo are thrown on the defensive. Establishmentarians must explain why the U.S. should always subsidize and protect countries and peoples on the many far pavilions, from South Korea to Estonia to Syria. We have known for three decades now that we’re not defending, any more, against communist ideology; instead, it sometimes appears that we are merely fostering a disastrous worldwide technology transfer to China.

So if we step back, we can see the ahistoricality of what we’re doing. Even the advocates of the status quo system have to admit that in the context of traditional statecraft, it’s simply not normal that one country should do all this defending, and oftentimes pay for the privilege of doing it. Thus the pressing question: With just four percent of the world’s population and barely more than a fifth of the world’s GDP, can the U.S. really afford to defend, seemingly, everyone against everybody? Indeed, in a world of drones, cyber-attacks, and migration-based terrorism, it’s not even clear that we know how to defend ourselves, let alone the rest of the world.

To be sure, many will argue that even if it’s not normal, and increasingly unworkable, that we bear these burdens, it’s still desirable, as part of a quest to build a newer world order. Thus the political battle is joined: Trump the nationalist, plus his Bannonite allies around the world vs. the received—some would say, congealed—wisdom of the internationalists.

So now we might ask: Does Trump have any sort of road map in mind? What is his vision? It would seem that he envisions a more autonomous—or perhaps, autarkic—U.S., protected against too many imports and too many immigrants. If we have our own sovereignty, our own internal market, and our own energy, then, Trump seems to think, the main thing is to keep it all intact, and not go the way of Western Europe.

In fact, it’s possible to espy at least the first glimmers of an articulated Trump Doctrine. As a further poetic coda to the final passing of the Cold War era, just on Monday an article appeared in The Atlantic, under the byline of Jeffrey Goldberg, a well-known foreign policy mandarin. Goldberg quoted one “senior official” in the White House saying that yes, indeed, there is a new line emerging: “The Trump Doctrine is ‘We’re America, Bitch.’ That’s the Trump Doctrine.” And for good measure, and a second “senior official” told Goldberg the same thing, using virtually the same language.

Not surprisingly, Goldberg is unimpressed, even horrified by these pronouncements; he scorns the phraseology as “delusional,” decrying “the gangster fronting, the casual misogyny, the insupportable confidence,” adding that it is “self-isolating and self-sabotaging.”

Of course, such harsh words sum up the establishment’s longstanding take on Trump himself, to say nothing of any new doctrine. And yet in the wake of these latest words, it’s a cinch that the white-hot heat of the foreign-policy debate will grow even hotter, up to the limits of what’s physically possible, as Trump critics take turns pounding on the unnamed aides (who will likely be named soon enough). In the meantime, Trump supporters will be scramble to express America First ideas using more conventional locutions.

The stakes are, after all, high; the basic geopolitical foundations of the last seven decades are being challenged and shifted—or, as critics would prefer to say, being subverted and betrayed.

Yet in the meantime, even as his myriad foes prepare their next political, legal, and punditical attacks, Trump is the man astride the world stage, smiling, shaking hands, signing deals—and unmistakably remaking the old order.
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...-war-for-good/

I prefer Trump's idea of "order". The left has their own version.
I posted this elsewhere today:


OK. I'll say it.

In the much ignored bigger picture, no ball was dropped. The WHO and China are married and the left along with the all powerful influential
media are the bridesmaids tending to them in the church of globalism with many extremely wealthy globalists officiating the ceremony.
I recall Bama dropping little tidbits like, "sometimes we just have to give granny a pill and make her comfortable." (paraphrased)
And regarding a more socialist approach to matters, "I thought the people would be more accepting of it. I was wrong. It might take a few more years." (paraphrased)

It turned out the climate change hoax just wasn't powerful enough to capture the full and cooperative attention of the entire planet. Yeah, we saw some reactions
globally. Protests gatherings here and there. Attempts at inducing an immediate panic after years of the same old, same old predictions and assumptions. So, that was dragging
on waaaaaaaaaaay too long. They're a impatient lot, the left. Gotta get this New World thing going here! Can't let a few thousand old sick people who will die anyway get
in the way of global progress!

A pandemic covers a lot of ground quickly, causes genuine immediate fear and panic. It has the potential to kill people, economies, freedom and peace (personal & global).
It takes care of the "granny" problem. It takes care of the weak & infirmed problem. It's easier for the left and media to push the need for bigger government to step in
and "take care" of everyone if folks would just relinquish (they'd probably prefer the word 'sacrifice'...sounds more noble) a few of their personal freedoms.

With a situation like this which induces so much fear, angst and panic in such a short time the natural inclination for a lot of people worldwide is to seek out
someone or something to care for them and meet their needs, pay their bills, even eliminate their bills, feed them, take their worries away, calm them down.
And, there are those out there who would readily and easily comply.

Biblical in many ways.

[Hawkeye10]

Trump America first, or Israel first?

America and useful friends first, the not useful can take a hike.

BTW This is exactly how China operates...China comes first, its friends next, the unobnoxious next, and China's enemies come last.

[Hawkeye10]

I prefer Trump's idea of "order". The left has their own version.
I posted this elsewhere today:


OK. I'll say it.

In the much ignored bigger picture, no ball was dropped. The WHO and China are married and the left along with the all powerful influential
media are the bridesmaids tending to them in the church of globalism with many extremely wealthy globalists officiating the ceremony.
I recall Bama dropping little tidbits like, "sometimes we just have to give granny a pill and make her comfortable." (paraphrased)
And regarding a more socialist approach to matters, "I thought the people would be more accepting of it. I was wrong. It might take a few more years." (paraphrased)

It turned out the climate change hoax just wasn't powerful enough to capture the full and cooperative attention of the entire planet. Yeah, we saw some reactions
globally. Protests gatherings here and there. Attempts at inducing an immediate panic after years of the same old, same old predictions and assumptions. So, that was dragging
on waaaaaaaaaaay too long. They're a impatient lot, the left. Gotta get this New World thing going here! Can't let a few thousand old sick people who will die anyway get
in the way of global progress!

A pandemic covers a lot of ground quickly, causes genuine immediate fear and panic. It has the potential to kill people, economies, freedom and peace (personal & global).
It takes care of the "granny" problem. It takes care of the weak & infirmed problem. It's easier for the left and media to push the need for bigger government to step in
and "take care" of everyone if folks would just relinquish (they'd probably prefer the word 'sacrifice'...sounds more noble) a few of their personal freedoms.

With a situation like this which induces so much fear, angst and panic in such a short time the natural inclination for a lot of people worldwide is to seek out
someone or something to care for them and meet their needs, pay their bills, even eliminate their bills, feed them, take their worries away, calm them down.
And, there are those out there who would readily and easily comply.

Biblical in many ways.

Did China bribe the American Elite to sell America down the river, and if so why did these Americans act so treasonously towards us ?

Does America have any reasonable ability to fend off the Chinese this late in the game?

[BartenderElite]

I prefer Trump's idea of "order". The left has their own version.
I posted this elsewhere today:


OK. I'll say it.

In the much ignored bigger picture, no ball was dropped. The WHO and China are married and the left along with the all powerful influential
media are the bridesmaids tending to them in the church of globalism with many extremely wealthy globalists officiating the ceremony.
I recall Bama dropping little tidbits like, "sometimes we just have to give granny a pill and make her comfortable." (paraphrased)
And regarding a more socialist approach to matters, "I thought the people would be more accepting of it. I was wrong. It might take a few more years." (paraphrased)

It turned out the climate change hoax just wasn't powerful enough to capture the full and cooperative attention of the entire planet. Yeah, we saw some reactions
globally. Protests gatherings here and there. Attempts at inducing an immediate panic after years of the same old, same old predictions and assumptions. So, that was dragging
on waaaaaaaaaaay too long. They're a impatient lot, the left. Gotta get this New World thing going here! Can't let a few thousand old sick people who will die anyway get
in the way of global progress!

A pandemic covers a lot of ground quickly, causes genuine immediate fear and panic. It has the potential to kill people, economies, freedom and peace (personal & global).
It takes care of the "granny" problem. It takes care of the weak & infirmed problem. It's easier for the left and media to push the need for bigger government to step in
and "take care" of everyone if folks would just relinquish (they'd probably prefer the word 'sacrifice'...sounds more noble) a few of their personal freedoms.

With a situation like this which induces so much fear, angst and panic in such a short time the natural inclination for a lot of people worldwide is to seek out
someone or something to care for them and meet their needs, pay their bills, even eliminate their bills, feed them, take their worries away, calm them down.
And, there are those out there who would readily and easily comply.

Biblical in many ways.

I believe in small government. But COVID absolutely shows us where gov't is needed.

We have known for years that a pandemic was inevitable. And guess what? Another one is inevitable. Our pandemic planning is atrocious. It's rock bottom.

We DO need government. We need the CDC, and WHO. We need to be better prepared for next time - because next time, maybe the mortality rate is in the double digits, and maybe we don't have much time.

We're very short-sighted that way. I'd bet that if Trump wins re-election and we get a vaccine for this one, we go right back to cutting funding for the CDC & the rest, and not worrying about the next one until it happens.