Donald Trump's foreign policy: 'America first'


#1

Washington (CNN)Donald Trump on Wednesday delivered a major foreign policy speech in Washington, laying out his vision for a foreign policy that will put “America first.”

Trump opened his speech Wednesday vowing to “shake the rust off America’s foreign policy” and said he would outline a vision for a U.S. foreign policy “that replaces randomness with purpose, ideology with strategy and chaos with peace.”
He added, “My foreign policy will always put the interests of the American people and American security first.”

cnn.com/2016/04/27/politics/donald-trump-foreign-policy-speech/index.html

His speech is here:
donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-foreign-policy-speech

You can watch it here:
youtube.com/watch?v=XW8RqLN3Qao


#2

We will no longer surrender this country, or its people, to the false song of globalism.

The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. :thumbsup:


#3

If someday it comes to it, I would fully expect America to defend me and my family. I would certainly not entertain the fantasy that anyone else in the world would do it.

At present, I am not persuaded the current administration would. After all, Obama wants to bring tens of thousands of Middle Eastern “refugees” to this country knowing full well there are ISIS terrorists among them and further knowing the government can’t possibly vet them.

Nor is there any good reason to think Hillary Clinton would be more anxious to defend citizens of this country than she is of aiding terrorist groups. I would not expect her to care much about defending me here.

Which leaves Trump.


#4

I understand where you are coming from on some of this, but the refugee thing always strikes me as silly. We have been bringing tens of thousands of refugees in a year for decades. It isn’t a new process and it doesn’t happen quickly. The refugee fear is completely manufactured and if ISIS wanted to sneak in it would be easier and MUCH faster to do using other methods.

People come in on visas, passports, greencards, etc all the time. I had lots of middle-eastern people taking classes with me when I was in college. For some reason people just decided to randomly be scared of refugees specifically and arbitrarily decided that the screen process wasn’t as good as it is for other functions without knowing anything about it.


#5

**Would the Donald use the B61-12 against Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities? Or Against those of North Korea?
Suppose Iran already has a nuclear armed missile. Would Iran nuke Jerusalem in retaliation?
I don’t like the “America First” idea. It’s time to put the world first. **

nukewatch.org/B61.html


#6

I think Obama, Hillary Clinton, Trump, Cruz or any other President or presidential candidate would do all in their power to defend the U.S. against our adversaries.


#7

I liked what he said and how he said it.

Heck, I was listening to the PBS Boston Station, and the liberal hosts, even thought Trump’s policy was gppd, especially when it came to the Middle East.

Jim


#8

The most apparent difference is in “how” he said it - lacking any of his usual bravado.

Clearly, he feels confident enough that he is a shoe-in for the nomination and is now trying to adopt a more presidential style.

The new mask.

That said the substance hasn’t radically changed from his old mask. Still the same populism designed to appeal to anti-free trade folk who feel hard done from the march of globalisation, the same digs at the establishment positions in both parties.

He made a few gaffes - such as mispronouncing Tanzania and sending a very confused message about nukes: at the start saying he was going to modernise and renew the nuclear arsenal, while later on in the speech stating the seeming opposite - that high-powered weapons were the biggest threat to the world. Seems to be a logical disconnect there.

I don’t expect coherency and consistency of argument from Trump though.


#9

I appreciate that you do not pretend to objectivity when it comes to Trump.

Being concerned about the danger of nuclear weapons (e.g. Iran, NoKo and other rogue states, perhaps potentially including ISIS’ “caliphate”) and wanting to upgrade our own nuclear arsenal are in no way inconsistent. In fact, doing the latter might well reduce the hazard of the former.

And what makes you think what you call his “populism” is a mask? Perhaps he believes in it, and doesn’t wish to pretend he doesn’t.

And he isn’t “anti free trade”. “Free trade” does not preclude working to ensure 'fair trade". His whole thrust regarding trade is getting fair deals, which he claims (and not without some justification) predecessors have not gotten accomplished.

I’m not anti free trade either, but I have long suspected that some of our trade arrangements are “political diplomacy by other means”. Are we, for example, attempting to buy peace with China by allowing free import of their goods while they make it almost impossible for us to export ours to them? If so, the whole thing needs to be re-examined.

Worse, was Bill Clinton’s granting “most favored nation” status to China motivated by Chinese donations to his campaign coffers?

I, for one, believe it a good thing for a nation to re-evaluate its trade agreements from time to time, particularly when they’re not working well. Your country seems to be doing it at present, so why can’t ours?


#10

My thought all along about the Don is that no one sane would vote this guy into office, that America can’t be that crazy to elect someone like him, and then I remember I said the same thing about Obama. And then there is Hillary. It is all so depressing.


#11

Sometimes not so’s you can tell.

I fail to see how turning Libya and Iraq over to terrorists enhanced the defense of the United States. I fail to see how aiding the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt enhanced the defense of the U.S.

And selling American uranium to Russia (therefore likely to Iran which gets its uranium from Russia) How does that enhance our defense?

Quite possibly Obama and Clinton believe that reducing America’s ability to defend itself somehow enhances that same ability. But whether they believe it or not, it makes no sense whatever to me.


#12

This is the problem: the rest of the world relies on the US. The US dollar is the foundation of the world economy. The US provides most of the military support for UN and other endeavors. When there is a crisis, Americans privately send the most money per capita.

The world relies on us, so we actually need to have a strong and healthy nation. When families are on a plane getting emergency instructions, they say the parents should put their oxygen masks on first, so they won’t collapse while helping their children. having the US fall apart would be very destructive for the rest of the world, not helpful.


#13

former Lt. General Mark Hertling said that he was ready and eager to seriously analyze Trump’s foreign policy speech as a former military member, but Trump lost him completely in the first five minutes

Read more: therightscoop.com/it-was-as-painful-for-trump-to-give-that-speech-as-it-was-for-us-to-hear-it-military-analyst/#ixzz475K9gqAB


#14

I feel safer already! :wink:

But still, it proves that he’s good with a teleprompter. That’ll help.


#15

Me too, MB. Thanks for saying it. To believe otherwise is nonsense, imho.


#16

trump is a flip flopper on foreign policy too

nationalreview.com/article/434660/donald-trump-foreign-policy-incoherent-shallow


#17

Whoa, the National review doesn’t like it. Maybe we can check the Huffington Post or Daily Kos next.


#18

The main problem is that it looks like he’ll be running against Hillary…


#19

You can say that again :smiley:

You’ll recall my mentioning that he used to be an ambassador for Scotland. I have reasons closer to home for disliking him, on top of his populist, demagogic political persona. So you can consider it sort of personal. Needless to say the bar for my expectations of Trump is set very low and he is yet to surpass it with anything remotely encouraging for me.

Being concerned about the danger of nuclear weapons (e.g. Iran, NoKo and other rogue states, perhaps potentially including ISIS’ “caliphate”) and wanting to upgrade our own nuclear arsenal are in no way inconsistent. In fact, doing the latter might well reduce the hazard of the former.

I am not a believer in unilateral disarmament either and I certainly wouldnt want the US, of all places, to let its guard down at a time like this. I believe in the need for a deterrent.

I was merely pointing out that it’s kinda silly to praise nukes in one vain - making their upgrade an explicit promise - and then calling them the gravest threat to humanity in another, without qualification. He could have used far more careful language - but of course that’s not the way of the Donald. Had he the intellect and acumen to explain it as you just did Ridge - would I have even flagged it up? Problem is, he doesn’t. He could barely read the autocue properly - hence his Tanzania fumble. Perhaps he needs contact lenses but I doubt it.

There were other logical disconnects - such as him saying that Obama let down overseas allies so badly and he was going to reassure us that “America is going to be a reliable friend and ally again”, when later on (or was it in that interview? I can’t recall), he contradicts himself again by arguing that South Korea - already paying half of non-personnel costs - should pay more, indeed in that interview he said 100%.

That supposed to be reassurance? Gosh, that will be enough to make them miss Obama and then some.

Then there is the colossal conflict, as glaring as the clash of the titans, between his support for both isolationism and interventionism.

At times, you’d think Charles Lindbergh and the America First Committee of 1940 had come back from the dead. At other times, he’s got more than a whiff of Wilson style “make the world safe for democracy”. I honestly don’t have a clue what he actually believes or wants. It’s so muddled I feel it must have been cobbled together by a host of different advisors who didn’t bother to read the draft in its totality.


#20

And what makes you think what you call his “populism” is a mask? Perhaps he believes in it, and doesn’t wish to pretend he doesn’t.

The evidence from the past indicates to me that Trump is a man who looks for openings wherever he can find them. He’s spent his whole career watching for market fluctuations and partaking in risk management - although I’m sure he gets a lesser being to do the detailed, painstaking graft on his behalf - and he has used those “traits” to good effect in this case. He - or whoever has been helping him - saw an opening in the GOP base amongst white, blue-collar Americans feeling distanced from the establishment and longing for someone to provide an alternative trade policy in tandem with a stab at political correctness. Trump jumps right in there with populism, nativism and his own brand of protectionism. Voila.

Call me cynical but if such an opening had been available to him from a totally different political vantage point, I’d have no doubt that he could willingly spout progressive values that would be so liberal as to make Sanders look tame. As you conceded before, he’s all process and no ideology.

We’ve seen his notorious flip-flipping between pro-choice and pro-life. Or that hilarious episode when he was trying to woo Evangelical voters in the South and appeared on a talk show, where they asked him to state his favourite bible verse. He was in the process of putting on the “most pious man in America” mask at that point, to get away from his playboy image. He pointedly refused to name his favourite verse, opining “there are so many and its just too personal for me” or words to that effect. I’ve just got to laugh at his flagrant insincerity and double-dealing.

And he isn’t “anti free trade”. “Free trade” does not preclude working to ensure 'fair trade". His whole thrust regarding trade is getting fair deals, which he claims (and not without some justification) predecessors have not gotten accomplished.

I agree that free trade must also be fair, that is to say ‘reciperocal’. But he goes flat out and says NAFTA has been a disaster. Now, I know he derides the Mexicans - because his support base do - but are we forgetting that bilateral trade between the U.S. and Mexico totals at about $500 billion annually? And yet he promises to slap tariffs on them and force their government to build a wall. I hardly doubt that would be fair to the Mexicans, nor are they likely to see it that way. Unless they are complete *******, I’d expect them to respond in kind with tariffs - which sparks off a trade war. With your southern neighbour. What happens to that $500 billion figure?

Is that a pro-free trade policy?

I’m not anti free trade either, but I have long suspected that some of our trade arrangements are “political diplomacy by other means”. Are we, for example, attempting to buy peace with China by allowing free import of their goods while they make it almost impossible for us to export ours to them? If so, the whole thing needs to be re-examined.

On China, I do concur. You know this. Over here, the EU tried to protect European steel from Chinese dumping of cheap exports. The UK government vetoed the EU proposal because our government had just signed a deal with them. The result? Our steel industry in Port Talbort collapsed and the company is now looking for a buyer. The government has had to step in to help salvage it or hundreds of thousands of British workers will be laid off. Trust me, your not alone with this on your side of the pond.

Thing is though, while we must respond to this effectively, we can’t possibly turn the clock back on China - entirely. That would be impractical in the extreme.

Worse, was Bill Clinton’s granting “most favored nation” status to China motivated by Chinese donations to his campaign coffers?

The UK government has done worse. Believe me.

I, for one, believe it a good thing for a nation to re-evaluate its trade agreements from time to time, particularly when they’re not working well. Your country seems to be doing it at present, so why can’t ours?

:smiley:

As you well know and as the world’s financial institutions keep reminding us, the UK doesn’t have to do this because we are presently in an advantageous trading position. But that’s a topic for a different thread.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.