The Trump Doctrine: What Ukraine Says About Trump’s Foreign Policy

by with 5 Comments FeaturedGlobalPolitics

One of the biggest stories of 2019…  

In the latest episode of The D.C. Apprentice reality show, we unpeeled another layer of the onion that is the Trump Doctrine. Whether it’s Brexit, Afghanistan, Jamal Khashoggi, summits with North Korea, tariffs and trade deals, Putin, and now, Ukraine, we bear witness to a convoluted set of policies without specific details and a heavy emphasis on maximizing publicity and attention. Trump’s foreign policy is based on minimizing or eliminating long-term military engagements, renegotiating agreements that play into his deal-making reputation, and provoking diplomatic altercations that further establish Trump as the Commander-in-Chief of Red State America.

Trump vocally embraces the paleoconservative philosophy championed by Patrick Buchanan, Steve Bannon, Lou Dobbs, and numerous contributors to Fox News and Breitbart News. It embraces traditional social positions and nationalism while strongly opposing trade agreements, immigration, and international organizations. It also has a strong isolationist influence that opposes military interventions. Between the trade wars, ICE raids, border wall funding, immigration and asylum reductions, NATO criticisms, and troop withdrawals in Afghanistan, Trump is reliably committed to Paleoconservative orthodoxies. 

Trump’s reputation as a deal-making businessman from his real estate business in New York to his TV show to his book, ‘The Art of the Deal,’ is built on maximizing publicity by making grandiose, must-see-tv gestures that consumes all oxygen from other competitors. Whether it’s the summits with the North Korean dictator, renegotiating NAFTA, and imposing tariffs on trading partners like China, Trump uses each opportunity and/or manufactured diplomatic crisis to further burnish his perceived deal-making reputation. 

Perhaps most importantly, Trump’s foreign policy is dependent on cementing his status as the Commander-in-Chief of red-state America. The President has gone all-in on being the war-time commander in the new cold war between red and blue America. Withdrawing from the Paris climate treaty is the perfect example. The trade wars with Mexico and China appeals to the rural working-class voters in Midwest and Southern states who see their manufacturing tradition threatened by globalization. Trump’s coalition swapped out college-educated middle-class voters in suburban counties for working-class voters in rural areas. He relishes any attack from blue-state America because it further establishes his war-time credentials with red-state America. Therefore, the Ukraine news only solidifies his support from his fans. In the mind of his supporters, they are at war, and all is fair in love and war. That might seem drastic, but his supporters love that there is no line he won’t cross to defend them against their enemy. Trump has nearly 3 years of history proving himself to his supporters that he will fight every fight that they believe his predecessors were too weak to engage, and this is no different.

This article was originally published on 27 September 2019.

Your Opinion, Please LEAVE Home Without It

by with No Comment Uncategorized

On June 26, 2015, my birthday by the way (shameless plug I know), the United States Supreme Court decided to amend the US Constitution and grant same-sex couples the right to marry. I think it’s important to note that this decision was made despite the United States Supreme Court being headed by Chief Justice John Roberts, who was a George W Bush appointee and very conservative. Even if a particular state did not have gay marriage, all states had to recognize gay marriage. In its aftermath, contrary to the opposition belief, civilization and traditional marriage hasn’t faltered in the two years since the Supreme Court decision. Despite the world turning out just fine, some people’s opinion on the idea of legalized same sex marriage is an issue that must take precedence over stuff that actually matters. Unfortunately, those same people have real power and influence.  

On Friday June 30, a mere two years and a few days removed from the watershed Supreme Court decision, the nine-member Texas Supreme Court unanimously reversed a lower court’s ruling favoring the city of Houston’s decision to extend health and life insurance benefits to the spouses of city employees in same-sex marriages. The court ordered the case sent back to the trial court in Houston. In summary, the Texas Supreme Court said that while same-sex marriage is legal, the reach and ramifications of the rights of gay couples have yet to be determined. Whatever that means. Here’s the thing, if the United States Supreme Court states same-sex couples have the right to marry, that would mean there aren’t any contingencies. Right? So what is the issue?

I can tell you. Sexual orientation and the opposition to it in any fashion is usually wrapped in someone’s “faith”. I really don’t buy that, I think its pure bigotry, but I’ll go with “faith” for the sake of argument. Even still, that’s your opinion. Your faith is your own theological taking, not the worlds. More importantly, no one should suffer or have their life altered because of your faith, especially when those alterations come via the hands of the government. There are real world consequences when someone’s benefits are altered.

A common phrase people throw around when stating off the wall political references is “well it’s just my opinion”. No it’s not just an opinion. An opinion is Pepsi or Coke. LeBron or Jordan. Nas or Jay Z. A political opinion is a DECISION, its impactful, it’s alerting. A kneejerk political opinion has real world consequences. In our country, political opinions have gone unchecked, more extreme, polarizing, and caused national issues to become stagnate.  

A viewpoint and an opinion is worthless when a same sex couple walks into a doctor’s office in Houston next week and unbeknownst to them, their coverage is frozen and they have to pay out of pocket. That $250 out of pocket cost now causes them to be able to get a part on their car fix, and have to only use one car. And then and then and then (in my “Dude where’s my car” voice), but in all seriousness, one unneeded decision on the part of the Texas Supreme Court alters countless lives. For what? There’s nothing wrong with having an ideology, we all have them. From taxes to foreign aid, we must have different viewpoints to have lively debates and discussions. There’s something very dangerous when that ideology becomes fixated on stances that are non-secular, separatist, denies access to services, and quite frankly wastes time.