Andrew C. McCarthy calls Trump’s foreign policy speech “incoherent and shallow”
Here’s the article.
McCarthy also points out tremendous inconsistencies in Trump’s present and past positions, inconsistencies Trump doesn’t even attempt to explain away. Trump must think the American public illogical and shallow, and he just might have a point there.
I also assume that Trump’s speech was written by speechwriters. Nothing wrong with that; politicians do it all the time. But the disconnect between Trump’s speeches and his own ability to describe the details of his positions represents a canyon-like gap.
[Hat tip: commenter “expat.”]
Also too late. Trump’s going to be the nominee. Best we can do is try to get some grownups in there as advisors.
I’d rather hear YOUR personal reaction to it, Neo, without the analysis from someone who most likely doesn’t like Trump. I found David Horowitz’s reaction to is, and he liked it a lot:
http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/horowitz-quick-reaction-trumps-speech
So did I. I thought it was incredibly fresh, incredibly “America First,” and repudiated many of the mistakes we’ve made since Clinton, Bush and Obama have been in charge.
But what do I know? I am not a foreign policy expert. Guess regular folks like me are just too dumb to give an opinion?
Because McCarthy has been so right and absolutely consistent about everything in his career? And a politician who is inconsistent? No, tell me its not so. Throw the man out on the street.
I do realize that everyone else who might disagree with you and McCarthy are “illogical and shallow” … lordy this blog has descended into the quagmire. But truly, why should we believe that either you or McCarthy have the great insight the rest of the country, or at least the Republicans you turn your nose up to, seem to lack?
K-E:
“the mistakes we’ve made since Clinton, Bush and Obama have been in charge.”
Odd grouping that omits President HW Bush yet conflates the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, despite that current events are related to Obama’s deviation from Bush, especially with Iraq.
K-E:
“But what do I know?”
Tell us.
K-E,
Horowitz seemed to have like Trump’s speech because it was critical of Obama. He doesn’t say much about the Clintons and Trump’s former support of them. He also doesn’t seem to realize that presidential rhetoric needs to be a little more balanced and refined than anything Trump is capable of.
Alex:
Trump’s inconsistencies, and his lack of willingness to acknowledge or explain them, are light years ahead of all politicians I’ve ever seen (and I’ve been around a while) with the possible exception of Obama, and I think Trump is far worse in that regard even than Obama, who is plenty bad enough.
If you don’t see that, you are in denial.
Your ad hominem attack on Andrew McCarthy—as though in order to call someone on major and enormous and unacknowledged inconsistencies requires a person to have never been inconsistent and never changed his/her mind, is both absurd and impossible because it is absurd. What’s more, interestingly enough, you haven’t seen fit to point out any of McCarthy’s inconsistencies, although I’m sure he’s had some, like all humans.
I have not turned my nose up at Republicans who vote for Trump. I have criticized them and disagreed with them. Like many Trump supporters, you equate that with “turning one’s nose up.” Chip on the old shoulder, anyone?
When I wrote “Trump must think the American public illogical and shallow, and he just might have a point there,” note I most definitely did not say “the Republican voters.” I said what I meant and I meant what I said: “the American public.” All demagogues rely on that idea, both Trump and (for example) Obama, who is a demagogue with a different style but a demagogue nevertheless. Trump’s supporters acknowledge that Trump is counting on a lot of support from Democrats, so my “illogical and shallow” charge is most definitely not limited to or even primarily aimed at Republicans. But yes, it’s aimed at many Trump supporters (not all; it depends on their argument for supporting him and their ability to hear what he’s actually been saying and doing, and their knowledge of his history).
You are now officially a troll, mostly for the “descended into the quagmire” remark. See this.
I liked Trumps speech. I thought it was refreshing & honest
And far removed from the *tripe* we get from HRC or Obama.
I especially liked how he called those 2 inept shallow posers,
HTC & Obama, out for their callous disregard for the Christian carnage going on in the ME.
HTC is HRC
Neo:
“You are now officially a troll”
They mimic the Left and perhaps also are the Left.
K-E:
It would take hours for me to listen to the speech and do the research to critique it properly. Fortunately, I’m not chained to my computer, and actually sometimes want to do other things. So I didn’t listen myself.
Another reason is that over many many many years I’ve been extremely impressed with Andrew McCarthy’s articles, and find them well-reasoned for the most part and very often agree. So although I don’t know I’d agree with him here, I think it’s likely.
What’s more, I have noticed that Trump’s written speeches by speechwriters don’t really seem to make much of an impression on him, and he’s had trouble following-up on them with coherent thoughts on the same subject. (As I already indicated in this post).
And what’s up with this ” Guess regular folks like me are just too dumb to give an opinion?” No one here has ever stopped you from giving an opinion or suggested anything of the sort, at least as far as I can recall. What’s up with the victim stance?
(See paragraphs 4 and 5 of this, as well.)
Mollynh, I apolgize for singling you out; but, you construct the same old straw man that all of Trump’s supporters throw into the discussion.
That is comparing Trump to HRC and Obama. He is not yet running against HRC, and will never run against Obama. We all know that Trump is superior to those two, although it is not obvious that he could beat HRC. Trump is running against Ted Cruz. The only legitimate comparisons at this point are what Trump has said, and done, against what TC has said and done; and who would be the most likely to win the general.
Trump’s rhetoric has a nice sound. Oh, if the world were only as simple as the one he fantasizes. Extraordinarily intelligent and accomplished people have wrestled with the issues that Trump so blithely shrugs off.
KT McFarland: liked the speech
Trump’s foreign policy speech was very Reaganesque
Andrew C. McCarthy is knowledgeable, specially on the War on Islam. He’s always been worth reading or, listening to: [ Lee Rodgers’s interviews.]
Need to ponder his piece over the w/e.
I read Trump’s transcript. His points are fine with me. To address McCarthy ‘concerns’, the guy has ‘evolved’ as Libtards are wont to say…
Fact is, we’re broke and need retreat to the center.
We.are.broke.
And, we have been importing corruption, on top of our corruption.
There is no excuses for our corruption.
Fraudulent subprime loans, H1B visas, degenerate media, etc…
All it means is: we are no longer in this together.
I am afraid the likes of McCarthy/Bush and placid ‘conservatives’ have messed up their turn at the tiller …. and brought us the Obamanation.
Now we have FUD and… Trump.
A yuuuge flashing TRUMP sign on the White Hut would be kinda cool.
We deserve the government we have.
I read the transcript. IMO it was not incoherent as much as it was filled with contradictory ‘bullet points’. At least it avoided the all too familiar, typical djt bombast. Well, almost.
I have changed from never trump. If he is the nominee and it looks like the race come late October is close (astronomically unlikely) I will vote for the fake republican. If he should actually win it will be great sport to ridicule the trumpians when no wall is built, there is no immigration or visa reform, there is no new deal with Iran, trump supports further attacks on the 2nd, partial birth abortion is the new sacriment, men in women’s restrooms and locker rooms is instituted by EO, no tariff war occurs, etc., etc. I promise to give no quarter and show no mercy.
But, parker, it will be a fabulous non-wall. And world-class unisex bathrooms. Plus it will be the cuckservatives’ fault. Trump supporters are like Obamanauts: it’s always great, and it’s never their man’s fault.
Oldflyer sorry I can’t agree that my remarks equate to a *strawman *. H RC & Obama are part of the Global Left, you need to expand your view & understand that they & their ilk are *always on*. Look at O bama, he shows up in the UK to lobby them to stay in THE EU. He showers effusive praise on Merkel
Like some wise, experienced, Elder Statesman, he sent his political hacks to Israel to derail Netanyahu. I’m comparing Trump to the Leftists, right now those are HRC & BHO a new crop will emerge after these two. Like David Horowitz points out to the Left it is always about advancing the agenda.
Oldflyer:
“Trump is running against Ted Cruz.”
In terms of foreign affairs in the GOP nomination race, Trump is running against the GOP, which means he’s largely running against President Bush or, more precisely, the prevailing narrative of Bush’s foreign affairs.
Obama’s foreign affairs failings relate to Obama’s course change from Bush, yet Trump conflates Bush and Obama’s records – K-E’s comment is an example – which is conspicuous because that approach is consistent with Russian propaganda. Trump’s approach is also compatible with the Democratic tack of blaming the Obama administration’s failings on Bush.
With Trump’s narrative grouping of Bush and Obama, criticism of Obama is also a criticism of Bush and, by extension, GOP candidates including Cruz. Countering mollynh’s “same old straw man” and K-E’s Russian conflation in the public discourse necessitates distinguishing Bush’s foreign affairs from Obama’s foreign affairs and setting the record on Bush’s decisions and Obama’s deviation from Bush.
For example, see the answer to “Was Operation Iraqi Freedom a strategic blunder or a strategic victory?”.
y81,
Thanks, I forgot to mention the non-wall will be a YUGE non-wall.
parker:
“IMO it was not incoherent as much as it was filled with contradictory ‘bullet points’.”
I believe by “incoherent”, he means “contradictory”, not incoherent in the drunk rambling sense.
Oops. Fix:
Countering mollynh’s “same old straw man” and K-E’s Russian conflation in the public discourse necessitates distinguishing Bush’s foreign affairs from Obama’s foreign affairs and setting the record straight on Bush’s decisions and Obama’s deviation from Bush.
1) Donald does not attract big money donors.
2) He’s in no position to fund his Fall campaign — should he get that far.
3) There is no way that he’ll carry his home state — which happens to be Hillary’s adopted state, too.
4) He maintains epic negative ratings across major demographics — putting him in Goldwater’s ‘corner.’
5) He’s plainly the nominee that Hillary and the MSM want for the GOP…
Because their oppo research is over ripe with clips and gaffs.
&&&
I once placed Trump as a 19:1 underdog; then faded his odds to 99:1.
Looking at the state of his ‘campaign disorganization’ — and the size of his war chest — I now deem him to be 999:1 the ultimate underdog.
There is no way that Trump will be able to suck the oxygen out of Hillary’s campaign.
Near as I can figure, she’ll buy up practically every available broadcast slot in all of the key states — the purples — and then blanket the rest of the nation.
The MSM is joined at the lip with Hillary — so most outlets will not carry any ‘-gate’ stories.
( She has so many ‘-gates’ it’s absurd. )
&&&
Trump is performing an LBO on the GOP.
( Leveraged Blow Out )
&&&
And in other news, Kasich has proved himself to be unbalanced.
blert,
I will see your 999:1 and raise you 9,999:1. Care to call. 😉
Eric,
DJT is also incoherent, but not in the rambling drunk sense; he is incoherent in the know nothing sense. He makes it up by pulling something out of where the sun does not shine.
I find this process to be most fascinating to watch from a step back. especially watching how people are coming up with these collections of ideas about what qualities are important or not, or matter or not. this despite that most of them actually have little bearing at all, with most of them being assumption or tradition but not empirical, and some classical.
and on the other end there is the expression of these things that lead to such conviction until the reasoning is sooooo desperate and silly and without any regard to history, or actual leaders. again its assumptive and not empirical, beliefs vs knowing.
an amazing show…
Art:
Less coherent than usual at 11:21, Get some sleep.
The incoherence, the contradictions, the posturing with menacing WrestleMania facial expressions from beneath Cheetos dust makeup, the schoolyard taunts, the mindless following hanging on every substance-less word, the allusions to a forthcoming mythical “pivot” to rationality and coherence…
Donald’s clownish presentation completely overwhelms any attempt to take him seriously.
Civilized conservatives look on aghast at the Trumpists’ inconceivable willingness to toss our society into an unsavory cesspool.
Deck chairs on the Titanic.
parker,
I was going to say something about teaching Trumpkins a lesson, but y81 beat me to it. Trumpkins won’t learn a damned thing because they’re trapped in a cult of personality. Obama supporters never learned anything either.
Laura Ingraham says the sky is the limit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKZdxBxC2cc
Reading the teleprompter script today does not make us forget yesterday’s crudity, nor will it mitigate heavy doses of unrefined verbal barbarism in the days to come.
Let us make short work of him in Cleveland, lest MoveOn ignoramuses and cretinous MSM goad us with their brand of repugnancy into voting for him in November.
Supposedly Trump had a speechwriter. Hard to believe.
Trump can contradict himself in one speech all day long and it will make no difference. People hear what they want to hear. That’s how the con works. See the movie “America Hustle.”
once again, the spaminator is preventing posting..
It took me a while to think of what the issue here is and what is the underlying reasoning, sans things like gobblygook, and contradiction, and so on, and once I realized it the light came on.
So I ask people to bear with me on this thesis as its difficult to believe or understand as it asks question of whether something is normal because its good, or normal because its done so many times that we assume its ok, and never question it?
The main problem with Trumps speech as the left has coordinated is that to them its garbage because it does not draw them in and give them warm fuzzies and the feeling of being part of the team by exposing the details of a plan with them. the left are globalists that favor the other states in the world for redistribution of wealth from the US, they do NOT favor the people of the US over externals.
In the old days, you needed spies to sit someplace in an administration and then relay the plans of that administration to your bosses in another place. Ultimately, the goal was known, but the methods or path to that goal was usually kept on the QT for the most part. Ie. hold your cards close to your chest because of the opposition.
But today, the left uses the idea of telling you what they are going to do way ahead of it to play a psychological game with their voters who never realize that this intimacy creation by exposure is basically the selling point for something else and that something else is TELEGRAPHING. By being big and magnanimous to tell us their goal as well as how they will seek it, they give opposition time to negate it, they lose the value of surprise, they lose the value of the unknown, they lose the point as the opposition now sits there and works on the plan for a long while before the time comes for it to happen.
They have played this so much that we think its normal for them to get the other side, not just them, to expose the goal, methods and plan as a way to buy votes through intimacy and the idea that blocking FOIA requests is ok, but that this is transparency that is good. even worse, the people have been spoon fed so many methods and things that they think they can judge this without realizing that being informed kills any chance of a success in most cases.
Even daily news this morning rants that trump speech amounts to noting but goals and as far as methods its trust me. but what you have is a nation of idiots who want Trump, or really any other leader to tell you what they are thinking, planning, and the methods. Then all opposition will have over a year to have rooms full of analysts and planners figure out how to counter, and how to set up a counter, and who to bribe to block and all those things way before the day of any such plan being able to be implemented.
Imagine a football game… side A vs Side B… they get into a huddle so the quarterback can call the plays, and the defense huddles to call an opposition plan. Then, when done, a microphone is turned on, we pretend the defense does not hear, and the quarterback tells the stadium what the plan is to draw them in and make them feel like they belong and are insiders. While he is doing this, the defensive huddle is changing their plans. The microphone is turned off and the huddle breaks and the exposed play is tried.
giving up, everyone is happy, spaminator wins.
thesis conclusion killed…
Eric, and excellent point:
Obama’s foreign affairs failings relate to Obama’s course change from Bush, yet Trump conflates Bush and Obama’s records — K-E’s comment is an example — which is conspicuous because that approach is consistent with Russian propaganda. Trump’s approach is also compatible with the Democratic tack of blaming the Obama administration’s failings on Bush.
The Russian propaganda is all over the place, from the usual expected places like Counterpunch to article after article at zerohedge and the trolls who comment there. Trump is in the same camp as far as foreign policy goes.
The dilemma conservatives face grows clearer every day. We won’t be voting for the unreconstructed Marxist who is firing up enthusiasm in the Democrat party, nor will we be voting for the venal woman who think she is owed the office.
Yet the alternative appears more and more likely to be Donald Trump, who is selling his candidacy on anger.
I don’t believe he’s a Republican, and I’m not even sure he knows what a Republican is. Nor do I believe he’s a conservative. I guess I could charitably label him a populist, although the suggestion that he could represent “the ordinary people” is far fetched.
I like Cruz and wish there were a way to transport him and Carly to the Oval Office, but I don’t see that happening. I say that only 12 hours after having made another donation to his campaign. I just don’t think he’s electable: too wonkish, too easy to caricature, too few friends inside the beltway.
America needs a white knight. General Mattis’ name has been mentioned a lot, but it’s late in the process for him to get involved and he professes no interest in the office. I can’t say I blame him.
References to the fall of the Roman Empire abound, but I think America is better than that. We’ve just come through 7+ years that show how resilient we are and I suppose we can survive 4 years of Hillary, but she will bring about structural changes that will be devastating (as if having a huge percentage of Americans out of the workforce and millions of Third World immigrants moving into the US is not already devastating).
None of the above is startlingly original analysis: I just wanted to put it all in one comment to realize what a mess we’re in. Obama pulled off his “fundamental transformation”. I wonder if enough voters will even remember in four more years what America used to be and want to move it back toward that point, or if we are irretrievably changed?
Or maybe, if I can learn to say “eh?” after declarative sentences I would be happy in Canada. Man, what a terrible situation to find ourselves in.
Someone needs to convince Mattis to change his mind.
to those of us that have paid attention the last 30 years or so, the plain fact of the matter is that the average American is dumb as a sack of rocks. Witness the odd fear of GMO crops. More than 50% of Americans believe that their foods contain no DNA. Imagine that! Dumb as rocks, I tell ya. Dumb as rocks..
time to realize that Trump will be the nominee. So it is either Hillary, the crony crook, or Trump, the populist.
Time to decide.
And not voting is a vote for Hillary.
On this very narrowly defined issue of Trump’s recent speech, I feel like the child of two arguing divorced parents. Is it worth trying to make some peace?
Trump is always inconsistent, incoherent, and illogical. I also think he’s a dangerous buffoon. But I don’t think that this speech was too bad. Does Trump believe his own speech? In a few days, will he even remember what he said? Is it just part of the con? Is there anything to Trump beyond the con? And what about Kim Kardashian for VP? Well, Trump is a miserable swamp of confusion, but this particular speech wasn’t so far from some of my own views.
Here’s a link to the text http://tinyurl.com/jogexd7 that I read. I can’t stand listening to the man.
I suppose I find it strange that many analysts loved Trump’s speech, some did not like it. I would rather see that here in your blog than another dump on Trump post.
Once again, this morning on the news I heard ‘experts’ completely bungle the analysis by out-and-out lying. They discussed tiny pieces of his speech as if there were inconsistencies. I read the whole of his words and there weren’t any inconsistencies that I could see at all.
That is why I made my comment about me being too dumb to give my analysis. Because I had a feeling if I even tried to point out that your chosen analyzer was wrong, I would be accused of not knowing what I was talking about, not understanding this stuff, etc. It doesn’t help that you chose an analysis that was posted at the National Review, which had a cover dedicated to Trump haters. Is that really a fair analysis then?
To me, his main point was: America First. Everything else comes out of that. I am 100% that kind of policy.
Having read it, the Trump speech doesn’t seem bad or incoherent to me, just bombastic and light on specifics. Obviously, the country will be stronger if the economy does better, but there is no evidence that a Trump administration will do better in that regard than any other. Neither Bush nor Obama set out to damage the economy. Obviously, it would be nice if the NATO allies all met their obligation to spend 2% of GDP on defense, but it wouldn’t be a world-changing event. And obviously, we should be willing to negotiate with the Russians, but willing to walk from the table if we aren’t getting anything. That’s been pretty much the course followed by the two previous administrations. Bush looked into Putin’s eyes and trusted him, Obama and Hillary had “the reset.” In each case, after some initial happy talk, the relationship soured steadily over the next eight years. Where’s the new thinking in all this?
Neo I’ve been lurking since early in your “Mind” series, redirected to you by the original Froggie and have been thoroughly entertained and impressed by all who post here.
I just realized who/what the Donald reminds me of. Many years ago when my kids were kids, the family and I went to the local zoo. We were at the hippo enclosure when one of the hippos emerged from their pool and proceeded to defecate. As the critter relieved itself it twirled its tail, flailing fecal matter all over the ground, talk about “oscillating ventilation device” and fecal matter! Anyway, that’s the Donald, except he does a better job than the hippo did.
I didn’t hear anything the Donald said that was inconsistent with his previous remarks. It was always clear he wanted a non-interventionist foreign policy, it was always clear that he would demand what he calls “fair trade,” it was always clear that he would, if possible, make deals with Russia and China, and it has been recently clear that he will demand that NATO members and the “Seven Tigers” will have to pull their weight or they won’t get our defense of them.
In other words, perfectly consistent with what he has been saying all campaign long, albeit in a more organized and adult fashion.
He also seems to be aware, which I haven’t seen any signs of the other candidates (I’m not saying they’re not, I just haven’t seen it), that China has no way to make up the YUGE hole in its economy that would be left if the US stopped buying their stuff, which gives us great power over them.
While I happen to be an “interventionist” on foreign policy (what’s now called a neo-con, even though I’ve been one since 1963) I have to admit that whether Trump arrived at his opinion consciously, unconsciously, or accidentally, he may be right — under the relentless pressure from the left and their propaganda arm, the MSM, it is now impossible for the American people to support a long period of occupation and nation-building. (Hell, we didn’t even let the Germans FORM a government for nine years after the war, and didn’t treat them as a sovereign country until years after that. When I arrived in Germany in 1970, we had just reduced our troop strength in half – to 300,000! And please don’t tell me we weren’t there to occupy Germany — when I got there, I was told, and I’m sure every other GI was told, we were there “to keep the Russians out, the US in, and the Germans down.”)
Don’t get me wrong — I despise Donald Trump. But compared to Hillary, he’s a saint. The Evil Empress accused the families of the Benghazi victims (of her malfeasance) of lying when they reported that she and the rest of the Administration told them, over the coffins of their loved ones, that the attack was caused by the video and they “would get the guy who made it.”
There are simply no depths to which this woman (and I use the term advisedly) will not descend. Therefore, instead of #StopTrump, it now has to be #StopHillary.
For a different point of view on Trump’s speech, I recommend The Diplomad, a conservative, retired from having served in the State Department:
http://www.thediplomad.com/2016/04/trumps-foreign-policy-address-not-bad.html
In the comments to that post, I asked his opinion on the McCarthy article and he responded.
I don’t understand the desire to make our allies “pull their weight.” Obviously, if we refuse to defend them, they will Finlandize. What else could they do, not being suicidal? That certainly won’t make us stronger, and it will greatly impair our ability to get tough with Russia or China. E.g., if the Europeans refuse to go along with sanctions against Russia, what will we do? Send troops to liberate Crimea? But that will clash with the whole non-interventionist impulse. So I guess we will meekly acquiesce in the next Russian annexation.
To expect consistency from Trump is, IMO to fundamentally misunderstand the man.
Trump does not reach his opinions through reason, logic or ideology. He reaches them through his gut and whatever in the moment his gut is telling him is where he is right now. And his gut tells him that, left unchecked, certain major societal trends are a threat. Trump does not ignore threats, he forcefully reacts to them.
His gut tells him that illegal immigration en mass is a grave threat to America’s culture, a culture he supports because he senses that politics are downstream from culture.
His gut tells him that unvetted Muslim migration is a grave threat to America. His gut tells him that because he understands on a gut level that Islam is incompatible with our freedoms.
His gut tells him that our trade imbalance with China is a grave threat to America. His gut tells him that a ‘service’ economy is unsustainable and thus a grave threat to America’s middle class, without which America cannot survive.
Trump has no idea how he’ll accomplish what he wants to see happen but he is certain that it can be done because success starts with the right attitude. As with a ‘can do’ attitude, ‘failure’ is simply a temporary setback, rather than proof that something cannot be done.
Because Trump has no comprehensive philosophy, if elected he will not be consistent to either the left or right. He will be socially liberal and appoint liberals. Think S.C. Justice Kennedy.
He will defend America because that’s necessary to his own survival. I don’t think he’ll renege on his major issues and while possible, I don’t think he’s a democrat planted to sway the election to Hillary. As he’s too passionate on his major issues.
I deeply hope that Cruz/Fiorina is the Republican ticket. I’m doubtful as to that happening.
If Trump gains the nomination, he’ll probably lose to Hillary, though Rasmussen’s latest poll shows Trump tied with Hillary…
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/24_opt_out_of_a_clinton_trump_race
y81 — May I take it that you don’t do much negotiating?
Richard Saunders:
Did you actually read McCarthy’s piece? The inconsistencies he describes are between Trump’s pre-campaign positions and present positions, such as on LIbya, and on the Iraq War (he misrepresents his earlier position there, as well).
K-E:
I’m not a reporter, and I’m not reporting on the reaction of the press to Trump’s speech.
Many liked it, many didn’t—why, fancy that! What an amazing thing!!
Sorry for the sarcasm, but really. It is hardly news—nor does it especially interest me—that some people love Trump, some hate him, and that some liked the speech and some didn’t. As I wrote in my earlier comment to you, over the years (actually many many many years, including before I began to blog) I’ve developed a deep respect for McCarthy’s clear, logical writing, and find I very often agree with him. He’s one of my very few go-to writers (the others are Victor Davis Hanson, and Thomas Sowell, and a couple of others). As a blogger I’ve often linked to their articles and discussed them approvingly. Nothing whatsoever new about that.
Cornflour:
I think that McCarthy meant that the speech contradicted Trump’s own earlier positions. And the “incoherence” was apparently in the delivery, according to articles such as this one from the decidedly Trump-unfriendly RedState.
As for me, I can’t bring myself to listen to him, either.
F:
I agree about the mess we’re in.
But I’d say the “fundamental transformation” was accomplished before Obama, though the mechanism of the Gramscian march through our institutions, particularly education. That set the stage for Obama and especially his re-election. What’s happening now is just more of that playing out.
Banned Lizard at
April 28th, 2016 at 7:07 am
Thank you, Banned Lizard, for expressing my thoughts so perfectly. I have been searching for the proper way to describe the tone of DJT’s skin – Cheetos dust makeup is so utterly, beautifully, perfect.
Richard Saunders: Funnily enough, I’ve negotiated with Trump. In the end, my client didn’t like the deal, and walked. He found another lender, we found another borrower. Not sure how that analogizes to geopolitics, though, where the number of players is much lower, so you can’t always find another counterparty so readily.
Neo –Oh, inconsistency with his past positions? That goes without saying! You see, one day Trump was walking up 5th Avenue, on his way to shoot someone, when he was suddenly met by the ghost of Barry Goldwater, who converted him to conservatism. Didn’t you see that on his website?
(Just for the record, McCarthy does talk about internal inconsistencies, as in the Donald’s position on Syria.)
y81 — As you obviously know, Trump is a real-estate guy. That was just his opening offer.
Banned Lizard
“the posturing with menacing WrestleMania facial expressions from beneath Cheetos dust makeup, the schoolyard taunts, the mindless following hanging on every substance-less word, the allusions to a forthcoming mythical “pivot” to rationality and…..”
Yes! I have watched a few of the videos of Trump and Vince McMahon from his WrestleMania days. Their shtick worked well on the Wrestlemania fans. Trump seems to think, “Well, it worked there, why not in politics?” IMO, it shows in what low regard he holds the average citizen.
I thought Trump’s Ameica First, no foreign entanglements foreign policy speech could have been delivered by Rand Paul. Except for the part where he wants to increase our military strength.
His ideas about NATO and our Asian alliances are just blind to the fact that both Russia and China are still adversaries. We might not want them to be, but look at what both have done in the way of overt aggression since Obama has been in office. Maybe the Donald can find a way to calm the expansive ambitions of both nations. Withdrawing from NATO and the Asian treaties is certainly not going to make that easier.
He doesn’t want to get involved in the ME, but then brags that ISIS will be crushed and quickly. Okay, I agree that that can be done. But what’s the plan after that?
I like the idea of putting America’s interests first when making policy. Surely, securing our borders and controlling illegal immigration is a great America first policy. But getting into trade wars through punitive tariffs is not necessarily putting America first. Putting America first is making the environment here so welcoming for businesses that they all want to come here or stay here.
He seems to be saying, although in not any specific words, that he will try to follow a policy of making America a country that others look at as no better friend, if they are our friends, and no worse enemy, if they chose to be our enemies.
I hope that’s what he’s driving at.
Trump is about my 17th choice to be the Republican nominee. I liked all of the other candidates better than him. That said, if he is the nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for him as being superior to Hillary, the crony capitalist crook, who will assuredly appoint liberal Supreme Court Justices and continue to make the same kinds of policy decisions as Obama – all very bad for the country.
J.J.,
“His ideas about NATO and our Asian alliances are just blind to the fact that both Russia and China are still adversaries.”
Agreed.
“look at what both have done in the way of overt aggression since Obama has been in office.”
When the sheep have no sheepdog, wolves gather.
“Maybe the Donald can find a way to calm the expansive ambitions of both nations.”
Reagan showed the way. As did Cicero, “If you would have peace, prepare for war”
“Withdrawing from NATO and the Asian treaties is certainly not going to make that easier.”
We’ll NEVER get them to agree to start to pay their fair share for their defense, if we don’t convince them that the alternative to not paying their fair share is to have no defense. That applies much more to Europe than Asia. They fully recognize the Chicom threat.
Trump is obviously unable to skillfully articulate any of this but it is equally obvious that in his gut he gets it.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
April 29th, 2016 at 8:12 am
“We’ll NEVER get them to agree to start to pay their fair share for their defense, if we don’t convince them that the alternative to not paying their fair share is to have no defense. That applies much more to Europe than Asia. They fully recognize the Chicom threat.
%%
The simplistic idea that our allies are not paying their fair share for the collective defense is entirely false.
Due to the very structure of Pax Americana, the rest of the planet ends up paying for the United States Department of Defense.
The mechanism is Bretton Woods and its establishment of the US dollar as the global universal currency — at the time — literally as good as gold.
We generate billions of dollars every year — at the cost of a digital keystroke — not printing press — and ‘export’ them to the rest of the planet. ( The massive float of US currency — overseas — is but the tail end of this export flood. )
It astounds all, but the net export of US dollars — since WWII mates up VERY close to the US DoD budget — cumulative — since Bretton Woods.
THAT’S how our allies find it so impossible to spend large on their own militaries. They’re compelled to IMPORT digital dollars at a phenomenal tempo.
This convoluted mechanism is well understood in Moscow and Beijing — to their fury. Even our rivals// enemies find themselves funding the US DoD via this mechanism. (!!!)
Which is why ZeroHedge, Moscow’s propaganda–finance arm is constantly harping on the need to dethrone the US dollar and end the Bretton Woods currency regime.
&&&&&
Next, whenever the Europeans actually do spend large on their self-defense they produce a dud — usually — as they mimic the American practice of spreading the production action across every nation.
In every case, this means design compromises — and a very lengthy prototyping tempo.
Since such European assets are useless outside of Europe – which is where all of the fighting occurs — exception for Balkans –European self-manufacture is even more futile.
&&&&&
This tit-for-tat financial — military — arrangement occurred under the British Empire.
When London (Atlee) wound down the Royal Navy so as to fund his socialism crusade… he found that all of the previous debt that Britain had exported was coming back as a flood.
The outer world was cashing in British ‘gilts’ — to purchase US Treasuries.
No navy — no debt exports.
It really is that simple.
He, Atlee, had not the wit to realize that the Royal Navy was his export powerhouse.
Note the irony. The Royal Navy was the ultimate in socialist enterprise — always being state owned and operated — and he was shutting it down.
The sole and only reason for America’s outstanding financial situation is Bretton Woods and the legacy structure — which is still humming along.
Witness KSA’s mass liquidation of US assets — and nary a bleep on Wall Street — or in the bond market.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-29/unmasking-the-men-behind-zero-hedge-wall-street-s-renegade-blog
“By April 2–the day Lokey left Zero Hedge–their relationship had deteriorated significantly, according to the messages provided by Ivandjiiski.
“I can’t be a 24-hour cheerleader for Hezbollah, Moscow, Tehran, Beijing, and Trump anymore. It’ s wrong. Period. I know it gets you views now, but it will kill your brand over the long run,” Lokey texted Ivandjiiski. “This isn’t a revolution. It’s a joke.”
Chances that ZeroHedge is getting kickbacks from Moscow = 100%.
blert,
The establishment of the US dollar as the global universal currency, which at that time was literally as good as gold… is entirely separate from disconnecting the US dollar from an actual physical standard (Gold). That is what allowed us to generate billions of worthless currency.
Nor is that the reason why our European allies have not created a military commensurate with their needs. They haven’t done so because they can’t pay for their defense AND have a welfare State.
It’s that simple.
Nor have we done so simply to pay for the Pax Americana. We’ve done so in order to live beyond our means. Pumping worthless currency into the economy, both domestic and global results in currency devaluation, which ultimately results in both the need for two earner households and the loss of manufacturing jobs.
The rich get richer with artificial wealth, the poor get “bread and circuses” and it’s all paid for off the backs of the middle class… until it all collapses.
Look at what a dollar buys today in food and what it once did, then look at our 17 trillion in official debt and its near perfect correlation with the 17 trillion we’ve paid in the “War on Poverty” welfare programs.
It’s really that simple.
Europe has long had an aging population, low birth rates and to pay for their socialism, imported low wage workers from the ME, while ‘letting’ America ‘pay’ (greater indebtedness) for protection from the Soviet threat.
It’s really that simple.
GB…
They can’t afford to import billions upon billions of dollars — AND spend large on their militaries.
It’s THAT simple.
GB…
They can’t afford to import billions upon billions of dollars — AND spend large on their militaries.
It’s THAT simple.
The only nation that does not fit this pattern is Israel — which is famously given about $3,000,0000,000 most years by treaty.
&&&&&
Based on centuries of history, does anyone seriously WANT Europeans making the Big Decisions on military events ?
The universal answer is no.
Why is Russia our advisary? Why do we care what they do in the Crimea or Ukraine? What are American interests in those regions and why do we care who rules them? How much trade do we have in those regions? How does spending money against Russia help the average American worker or corporation?
Nation building is an abject failure as shown in Iran and Iraq, and democracy in our own country is failing. And why would anyone want anyone want Americans to bring gay marriage, unisex bathrooms, Christian intolerance, political correctness, open borders, massive obesity, tattoos and body piercing to their country?
I hate modern American culture and don’t wish it on anyone in the world.