The Ideological Challenge at the Core of Donald Trump's Radical Presidency
Jan 26, 2017
In
addition to a loaded slogan--"America First"--and a questionable
demeanor, it is now apparent that President Donald J. Trump actually has
a governing ideology. His Inaugural Address, the strongest and most
coherent speech he's ever delivered, was a clear statement of that
philosophy. It may change the shape of domestic politics. It may
overturn the international order that has existed for 70 years. It
certainly deserves more than the "divisive" dismissal it received from
liberals--and more than the puerile crowd-size diversion that its
perpetrator stumbled into during the days after he delivered it.
Here's
the crucial paragraph: "For many decades, we've enriched foreign
industry at the expense of American industry; subsidized the armies of
other countries, while allowing for the very sad depletion of our
military. We've defended other nations' borders while refusing to defend
our own; and spent trillions of dollars overseas while America's
infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay."
The
amazing thing about this litany is that most of the policies Trump
criticizes had been peripheral to our recent political battles, at least
until he came along. Indeed, the only one that had raised any heat--the
"depletion" of the military--is a political fiction. The others,
though, have been core assumptions of the leadership in both parties.
And Trump is right. It may be time to test them and see if they still
apply.
The
two most important ones are subsidizing foreign industry and protecting
other nations' borders. The first is about free trade; the second,
about overseas alliances. Both are more complicated questions than
they've been made to appear by those of us in the establishment
commentariat.
The
traditional argument against free trade is myopic and simple: American
jobs are going to Mexico and China. The traditional counterargument is
more abstract: the price of children's clothing at Walmart
is much lower now that shirts are made in south China instead of South
Carolina. Free trade, it is convincingly argued, has been a financial
net plus for the U.S. But there has been a spiritual cost in a
demoralized middle class, which leads to an existential question: Is the
self-esteem inherent in manufacturing jobs long considered
obsolete--think of those grand old steel mills--more important than the
lower prices that the global market provides? Have we tilted too far
toward market efficiency and too far away from social cohesion? Is there
a middle ground? Trump's insistence on changing the equation brings a
long-neglected issue to the center of our political debate. He may be
wrong, but the alienation that seems like a by-product of globalization
needs to be addressed. A happier people may be worth the cost of higher
prices.
The
second policy question, on overseas alliances, also rests on shaky
ground. No one can gainsay the brilliance of the international
architecture that Harry Truman and his Wise Men created, but it rested
on two assumptions that may be out of date: the threat of communism and
the scourge of European nationalism that created the carnage of the 20th
century. There was a real fear of German militarism; even the Germans
seemed to fear it. That the U.S. would protect Germany and the rest of
Europe seemed an elegant solution--and it was, so long as the threat
came from Russia. But the threat now is the tide of immigrants coming
from the Middle East. It is fair to ask: Shouldn't the Europeans spend
more on their own defense? Shouldn't they take a more active role in
solving the Syrian crisis? Shouldn't their militaries be protecting
their borders? America's inability to conduct land wars against militant
Islam is manifest. (And perhaps the Europeans should do more to protect
themselves against Russian jingoism as well.)
These
are crucial questions, without clear answers. It is good that Trump has
raised them. It is unfortunate, however, that he is such a defective
messenger. His deficiencies were never more apparent than in his
grotesque performance at the CIA on the day after the Inauguration. If
his vision is to repair the country and stop trying to police the world,
what are we to make of this ridiculous statement: "We should have kept
the [Iraqi] oil. But, O.K., maybe you'll have another chance"? And how
many American brigades will you need to protect those oil fields, Mr.
President?
There
is a chance for a badly needed conversation about American priorities
now, but only if we're led by a President who understands what his own
priorities should be.
No comments:
Post a Comment