Why 'America First' Is A Lie

  • Thread starter Thread starter CFordUNC
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 120
  • Views: 1K
  • Politics 
CFordUNC

CFordUNC

Inconceivable Member
Messages
4,381
I thought this might be worthy of a separate thread topic, but absolutely understand if folks think this should be merged with an existing thread. I read this piece in the Bulwark over lunch a little while ago and it really struck me. I wanted to share it here for discussion.

It really resonated with me, as I read this piece, and as I considered some of the conversations we've been having on this board lately with a few of our Trump-supporting friends, how much the general American public simply does not comprehend how our current actions are threatening to upend 8 decades of American-led, unprecedented, unfathomable prosperity across the globe. So many people simply view things in an un-nuanced "dollars and cents" manner without considering that the dollars spent over the last 80 years on Pax Americana have resulted in *America* becoming the greatest economical, cultural, and influential entity that has ever existed on the planet for mere pennies on the dollar compared to the ROI.

My primary hope in posting this is to give some of our board Trump supporters some food for thought. This piece, as far as I know, isn't behind a paywall and it's easily one of the best pieces I've ever read on the Bulwark.

www.thebulwark.com

‘America First’ Is a Lie

America has *always* been about putting America first. Trump’s “America First” movement is about something else entirely.
www.thebulwark.com www.thebulwark.com
 
"Donald Trump and Republicans explain their worldview by calling it “America first.” That’s a lie.

American foreign policy has always put America first. That’s what nations do. It’s axiomatic. Why did the United States do Lend-Lease with Britain before we entered World War II and bankroll the Marshall Plan afterwards? Why did we airlift supplies into West Berlin? Why did we spend trillions of dollars on nuclear weapons that have never been used? Why do we police the global shipping lanes and ensure stability in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East?

It’s not because we’re nice.

It’s because these actions further our interests. They make America safer and wealthier. They check the rise of rival powers. They put America first.

Leadership is how we have put America first from the time we became a global superpower.

Trump and Republicans want to retreat from that leadership not because they want to put “America first,” but because they want to elevate Russia and China to peer status.

And why do they want to do that? Because they think that Russia and China can be helpful with Trump’s internal political project of dismantling democracy and establishing permanent rule.

Trump’s “America first” policy is actually about selling out America’s interests in exchange for foreign assistance in putting Trump first."
 
"In the roughest possible terms, there have been two American eras: Pre- and Post-Hyperpower.

From her Founding to World War I, America was weak. This fundamental fact was why our leaders in that era were wary of foreign entanglements. Geography provided us with a formidable moat, but we were not a great power with the ability to shape events on the world stage. So we tended our own garden and tried to grow according to the rule sets developed by Europeans.

Those rules were quite congenial to us; our population and industrial base grew. After Europe set itself on fire in 1914, we emerged as a peer—a great power, but one in its infancy and unsure of how to leverage its newfound position.

The original “America First” caucus emerged during this period, made up of people whose conception of America was still rooted in her past weakness. They did not have the mental framework to understand that as America’s relative position in the world had changed, so should her approach to the world. She no longer had to work within rule sets imposed by others; she could make the rules for everyone else.

The isolationist movement did not accept this shift and could not see the advantages America would reap by assuming the role of global superpower.

These men were wrong; but at least they were honestly wrong.1 The world was changing and they simply couldn’t adjust to it.

We all know what happened next: America became a dominant global power. Then, after the Second World War, we became the dominant global power. For the next 75 years we ruled the world.

During this Pax Americana, America was the indispensable nation. What does that mean, really?

It meant that no country, anywhere on earth, could act without considering our interests.

Could Sweden pursue nuclear weapons? Could Russia put missiles in Cuba? Could Egypt attack Israel?

In every case, the thought process in foreign capitals went like this:

  1. Thesis: Identify what they wanted.
  2. Antithesis: Determine if America would permit this objective.
  3. Synthesis: Figure out how to pursue their objective in such a way as would be amenable to the Yankees. Or, at least, wouldn’t be likely to arouse too much Yankee ire.
That, my friends, is a power so vast you can’t even conceive of it. And it didn’t just apply to our adversaries—it applied to our friends, too."
 
"Part of the way the United States leveraged our commanding position was by creating new types of alliances. For the most part, before 1945 allies were countries that agreed to fight wars together . . . and that’s about it. The United States had (and still has) plenty of these kinds of alliances—but after 1945 we also developed a deeper, more important kind of relationship.

The relationships in NATO, and among the Five Eyes, and with America’s other really close allies—Japan, South Korea—aren’t merely military agreements. They’re kinships. They transcend peace and war; they’re diplomatic, political, cultural, and economic.

Again: This is leverage. It means that when we go to war, we bring a huge crew with us. Other countries are willing to expend resources, and even shed blood, to stay aligned with us. Even for a contentious war like Iraq, we got nearly 40 countries to participate in some way or another.

This makes things cheaper for us. The Soviet Union and China and Iran have to spend money to dominate and subjugate their clients. Our allies spend money on our behalf, pursuing our interests, because we have shaped them in our image.

That’s what the “kinship” stuff is about. Our allies aren’t just allies. They adopted our rule-sets and hitched their interests to ours."
 
"This multiplication of power wasn’t “good” for America—it was amazing for America. Over the course of 75 years we became wealthier than any civilization has ever been. Our influence over the globe became more far-reaching than that of any empire from the pages of history. Our lead over our next closest rivals expanded by the year.

Our currency became the world’s reserve currency, which allows us to accumulate debt and spend money more cheaply than everyone else. Our markets became the most valuable markets. Global systems of trade were built to our specifications.

And our security became impregnable. It wasn’t just that the American homeland was secure. We were able to turn former adversaries into allies. First Germany and Japan and then the former Eastern bloc nations of Europe and even, for a time, Russia.

Did the exercise of such awesome power cost us anything? Sure. There were some small and savage wars—Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. America paid some of the costs in blood; but mostly we paid with treasure. Which was—again—an excellent deal for us. Because we have more treasure than any nation in history.

Here is the thing you must understand: America will win any contest determined by the ability to spend money.

Rightly understood, this is just another example of how America created rules to benefit ourselves: Of course the richest country in history would build a system in which it could exert influence on the global order by spending money: Because the ability to spend money is one of our key advantages.

And yet today’s “America First” class thinks that spending money in order to shape the world is some kind of weakness."
 
"People have a hard time understanding soft power.

Why do we spend $10b a year fighting HIV/AIDS in foreign countries? I have to keep saying this: It’s not because we’re nice.

We spend that money in order to stabilize the global order. If AIDS runs wild in one country, that creates ripple effects. It destabilizes the local economy, risking political instability, which in turn risks regional instability. All of which poses some small danger to the established order which—QED—benefits America.

We spend that $10 billion to preserve the system which benefits us.

That’s what soft power is.

If that doesn’t make sense to you, think about hard power. Consider the ballistic missile submarine.

In 1959 America deployed the first ballistic missile sub (commonly referred to as a “boomer”). The USS George Washington was designed for one purpose: to launch nuclear missiles at the Soviet Union.

In the ensuing decades, our boomer fleet multiplied. We developed three new classes of SSBN before launching the vaunted Ohio-class, which is now nearing the end of its service. We have a new program, the Columbia-class boat, the first of which is currently under construction.

In the 66-year history of the SSBN program, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars even though none of our boomers has ever fulfilled their designed purpose of launching a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile.

Is that wasteful spending? Does that make us “suckers”?

No. The boomers forced the Soviet Union into another money fight with us and—see above—money fights are the contests in which America always holds the biggest advantage. Thus the boomer program contributed to the peaceful fall of communism. Today our boomers are part of the triad which deters Russia and China’s use of nuclear weapons while forcing them to spend their relatively scarce resources in competition with us.

Spending money on nuclear ballistic missile subs is the same as spending money on AIDS prevention in Africa. Power is power is power. And any time America can exert power simply by spending money it’s a win for us.

Because we have the most money."
 
"This stuff isn’t quantum mechanics. American leadership in the world benefits America. First and foremost. To the extent that it also benefits other countries, that’s great. Good for us.

But it’s not why we do it. That’s never been why we do it.

The people who want to pull back America’s leadership in the world under the pretense of being for “America First” are making us weaker, poorer, and less secure. They are giving away our long-term strategic advantages. They are making a world in which other countries do not have to ask themselves, “But how will the Americans respond?” before they act.

And for what? For saving a few hundred billion dollars? The whole point of being the strongest, wealthiest country on the planet is so that you have resources to deploy. That’s what the money’s for."
 
"So what are these people up to? Are they just stupid? Does JD Vance not understand that, in giving away America’s leadership advantage, he is making us smaller and more vulnerable? Do these people not get that they are hastening into existence a multi-polar world in which America is not the dominant power, but merely a regional player who then becomes hostage to the interests of other countries?

In the 1930s some people in the America First movement just couldn’t get their heads around the new world order. Their mental model for foreign affairs was stuck in 1900 when America was a second-rate power.

But others in the America First movement were not so innocent. They were “America First” because they liked the Nazis. Adopting the pose of isolationism was the way they could further the interests of Nazism abroad and—they hoped—eventually at home.

That’s what going on with our “America First” movement today.

Trump and Vance want to trade away America’s leadership position in the world not because they think it will benefit our country, but because they think it will benefit them domestically. In the long term. If you catch my drift.

As last week’s events made clear, it is not the case that the Trump administration is retreating into isolationism from world events.

No.

The Trump administration has switched sides. Trump now sees himself as allied with Vladimir Putin against Ukraine and Europe.

Why?

Because Trump isn’t concerned with the interests of the United States. He’s concerned with the interests—and the power—of Donald Trump.

And Trump understands that Putin has already—and can in the future—help him maintain power in America.

That’s it. That’s the ballgame. Trump is on the side of dictators because he hopes to become a dictator—and he believes that if he helps further their interests, they will help him further his.

The goal of “America First” isn’t “America First.”

It’s “Trump Forever.”
 
That is a great article.

It's an impressive bit of writing where I already roughly know everything the article tells me, but I also feel like I am learning as I read it.

I wish the folks that matter could understand the depth of that article.
 
SnoopRob said:
That is a great article.

It's an impressive bit of writing where I already roughly know everything the article tells me, but I also feel like I am learning as I read it.
Click to expand...
That might be because it's full of gross exaggerations and inaccuracies. I mean, the overall point isn't wrong, but the history is . . . well, suspect. In particular, the US was never reluctant about foreign entanglements. It was reluctant about getting too involved in Europe -- because why would we? In the 19th century, the European powers were scouring the globe looking for conquest and territory. So was the US, except the US didn't have far to look. Merely across the Mississippi river. It's true that the US was not as strong, and militarily we were weak in the 19th century, but Netherlands wasn't exactly a military powerhouse and they did OK.

And that whole thesis/antithesis thing is ludicrous, as if the history of the developing world has been what America has allowed to happen. I don't think it needs much comment. The bit about Egypt attacking Israel is particularly comical, because Egypt did in fact attack Israel without our blessing. The reason that Sadat had to sue for peace was that the IDF was considerably better than his military. Part of that was American support, perhaps, but there were other causes as well -- including the fact that the IDF always saw itself as fighting for Israel's survival in a way that was never true for its neighboring countries, and existential struggles tend to focus the mind.
 
superrific said:
That might be because it's full of gross exaggerations and inaccuracies. I mean, the overall point isn't wrong, but the history is . . . well, suspect. In particular, the US was never reluctant about foreign entanglements. It was reluctant about getting too involved in Europe -- because why would we? In the 19th century, the European powers were scouring the globe looking for conquest and territory. So was the US, except the US didn't have far to look. Merely across the Mississippi river. It's true that the US was not as strong, and militarily we were weak in the 19th century, but Netherlands wasn't exactly a military powerhouse and they did OK.

And that whole thesis/antithesis thing is ludicrous, as if the history of the developing world has been what America has allowed to happen. I don't think it needs much comment. The bit about Egypt attacking Israel is particularly comical, because Egypt did in fact attack Israel without our blessing. The reason that Sadat had to sue for peace was that the IDF was considerably better than his military. Part of that was American support, perhaps, but there were other causes as well -- including the fact that the IDF always saw itself as fighting for Israel's survival in a way that was never true for its neighboring countries, and existential struggles tend to focus the mind.
Click to expand...
As they say, "If you're not Dutch, you're not much".
 
CFordUNC said:
"So what are these people up to? Are they just stupid? Does JD Vance not understand that, in giving away America’s leadership advantage, he is making us smaller and more vulnerable? Do these people not get that they are hastening into existence a multi-polar world in which America is not the dominant power, but merely a regional player who then becomes hostage to the interests of other countries?

In the 1930s some people in the America First movement just couldn’t get their heads around the new world order. Their mental model for foreign affairs was stuck in 1900 when America was a second-rate power.

But others in the America First movement were not so innocent. They were “America First” because they liked the Nazis. Adopting the pose of isolationism was the way they could further the interests of Nazism abroad and—they hoped—eventually at home.

That’s what going on with our “America First” movement today.

Trump and Vance want to trade away America’s leadership position in the world not because they think it will benefit our country, but because they think it will benefit them domestically. In the long term. If you catch my drift.

As last week’s events made clear, it is not the case that the Trump administration is retreating into isolationism from world events.

No.

The Trump administration has switched sides. Trump now sees himself as allied with Vladimir Putin against Ukraine and Europe.

Why?

Because Trump isn’t concerned with the interests of the United States. He’s concerned with the interests—and the power—of Donald Trump.

And Trump understands that Putin has already—and can in the future—help him maintain power in America.

That’s it. That’s the ballgame. Trump is on the side of dictators because he hopes to become a dictator—and he believes that if he helps further their interests, they will help him further his.

The goal of “America First” isn’t “America First.”

It’s “Trump Forever.”
Click to expand...
I appreciate you saying all this now. But it's too little, too late. Like UNC basketball, I wanted Hubert to press nonstop this season to exploit our guard advantages. Now we have to improbably beat dook, or get lucky in the ACC tournament just to make the tourney.

Without you ever addressing your conservative bias as to why we are currently in this fucking shithole, it is beyond disingenuous.

Trump represents who you were. Address that, and convince some rednecks, please, to help themselves.
 
Shenanigans said:
I appreciate you saying all this now. But it's too little, too late. Like UNC basketball, I wanted Hubert to press nonstop this season to exploit our guard advantages. Now we have to improbably beat dook, or get lucky in the ACC tournament just to make the tourney.

Without you ever addressing your conservative bias as to why we are currently in this fucking shithole, it is beyond disingenuous.

Trump represents who you were. Address that, and convince some rednecks, please, to help themselves.
Click to expand...
This seems productive.
 
superrific said:
This poster has done that in spades. One of the more thoughtful and self-reflective people I interact with.
Click to expand...
I agree he is very, very thoughtful, but you must question your ingrained biases for progress to happen.

Progress must happen immediately. I need idealistic conservatives ready to confront trumpers
 
Shenanigans said:
I appreciate you saying all this now. But it's too little, too late. Like UNC basketball, I wanted Hubert to press nonstop this season to exploit our guard advantages. Now we have to improbably beat dook, or get lucky in the ACC tournament just to make the tourney.

Without you ever addressing your conservative bias as to why we are currently in this fucking shithole, it is beyond disingenuous.

Trump represents who you were. Address that, and convince some rednecks, please, to help themselves.
Click to expand...
Kind of a BS post on multiple fronts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top