http://thefederalist.com/2016/
Donald Trump is the only candidate seeking to put America’s interests first, especially in the areas of trade, defense, and immigration.
Do Trump’s positions on these areas alone define him as an unabashed
conservative? No. As enumerated above, several other categories need to
be added when determining whether an individual is decidedly
conservative or liberal. But are Trump’s positions on trade, defense,
and immigration not conservative? Absolutely not!
Pat also reminded us that, on more than one occasion, Bush 43
emphatically denounced the populist platform long before Trump’s
candidacy. Bush defined populist positions on defense, trade, and
immigration as “isolationist,” “protectionist,” and “nativist,”
respectively. In 1991, shortly after the Gulf War, his father, George H.
W. Bush, proudly announced to the entire world that we were entering a
“new world order” (Bush’s words, not mine).
Mitt Romney tells us Trump’s position would incite a trade war.
Really? Since ‘91, our trade deficit with China alone exceeds $4
trillion, and he’s afraid of a trade war? Can he not see that we have
been in the middle of a trade war for decades, but one we simply choose
not to fight? It’s clear by now that fair-minded Americans on both sides
of the aisle understand you can’t have true free trade without true
fair trade.
Read more...http://thefederalist.Why I Support Donald Trump
Donald Trump is the only candidate seeking to put America’s interests first, especially in the areas of trade, defense, and immigration.
Since
I consider myself a traditional conservative, many friends of mine, on
both the Right and the Left, are puzzled by my unwavering support for
Donald Trump.
Their bewilderment is understandable. Trump is often rude and
obnoxious. His demeanor can be arrogant and dismissive. At times, he
comports himself as reckless and willing to lash out prematurely, prior
to fully understanding all of the facts at hand. To put it simply, he is
a “wrecking ball.”
Furthermore, Trump isn’t even a pure conservative in terms of policy;
he is a populist. His statements over the years regarding such areas as
limited government, religious liberty, states’ rights, and abortion
have been inconsistent at best, and in some cases, have steered firmly
to the left.
Still, given all of this baggage, I have my feet planted firmly in
Camp Trump. But why? How can a principled, pragmatic, deliberate
conservative be drawn to such a candidate? It is because I believe
conservatism doesn’t stand a chance in this country without first
delivering a very heavy dose of populism.
Populism Versus Conservatism
Populism, at least Trump’s version of it, is a platform built largely on the principle of economic nationalism. It focuses on three primary policy areas: trade, defense, and immigration.
Trump’s description of the problem for each is very clear: 1) our
trade policy has decimated our manufacturing base, leaving millions of
Americans economically stranded; 2) our defense policy has engaged us in
conflicts around the globe that in many cases have actually made the
United States less secure, and have added considerably to our bloated
national debt; and 3) in 1986, Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to
approximately 3 million illegal immigrants, on the condition that our
borders would be secured and illegal immigration would be dramatically
curtailed. Since that time, at least 11 million (and likely many more)
illegal aliens have entered the United States, effectively suppressing
wages for many working Americans, and adding tremendously to the cost of
our education and public assistance programs.
Since our nation’s founding, the principle of
national sovereignty has been the preeminent and driving force for what
it means to be an American conservative.
His stance on these issues, when taken together, represent the most
important plank in the history of American conservatism. That is the
vital importance, and in fact primacy, of national sovereignty. In fact,
since our nation’s founding, the principle of national sovereignty has
been the preeminent and driving force for what it means to be an
American conservative.
It is the position that as “one nation, under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all” we are not only entitled but obligated to
define and protect our own country, our own principles, and our own
culture, independent of those nations and societies that claim the same
rights and obligations.
This is where this author believes the battle line needs to be drawn
within the Republican Party:
between those true conservatives who consider national sovereignty preeminent, and those who profess to be conservative, only to advance their own ideological or avaricious priorities.
between those true conservatives who consider national sovereignty preeminent, and those who profess to be conservative, only to advance their own ideological or avaricious priorities.
Stop Tarring Us for ‘Isolationism,’ ‘Protectionism,’ and ‘Nativism’
No individual has done a better job of articulating the schizophrenic dilemma the Republican Party finds itself in today than Pat Buchanan. In fact, it was Pat, who, when running for president himself in ’92 and 2000, accurately predicted what we are facing today. He summed up perfectly the forces that have driven America into its current state of hopelessness when he described the culprits as “two wings on the same bird of prey,” that being the established power structures of both the Republican and Democratic parties.
We have spent trillions of dollars and lost thousands
of American lives in foreign conflicts that have done little in securing
order and peace.
Since that time, under two Republican and two Democrat administrations, Americans have witnessed the following:
1) In the name of national defense and America’s obligation to lead
the free world, we have spent trillions of dollars and lost thousands of
American lives in foreign conflicts that have done little in securing
order and peace, particularly in the Middle East. In fact, our
intervention in places like Iraq and Libya has done a great deal to
foster chaos, and create avenues through which malicious regimes and
terrorist groups continue to grow and thrive.
In an effort to revive Woodrow Wilson’s mission to “democratize the
world,” we have taken the presumptive and arrogant position that the
United States has the right to dictate the political make-up of cultures
and countries different than our own. We are doing all of this with
money the country doesn’t have, and largely at the behest of other
nations that refuse to participate, financially or otherwise. Americans
of nearly every political and philosophical persuasion have come to
realize what a misguided policy this has been.
Is this really a position of “isolationism,” or one of simple common sense?
2) In the name of free trade, since Bush 41 both parties have worked
closely together to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement,
establish the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade II, form the World
Trade Organization, and grant Communist China most favored nation status
in trade. What has this gotten us? Well, since 1991, our accumulated
trade deficit approaches $12 trillion!
Tens of thousands of manufacturing plants have closed, and millions of American jobs have been sacrificed for the sake of globalism. Now establishment Republicans and Democrats are locking arms once again to promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Tens of thousands of manufacturing plants have closed, and millions of American jobs have been sacrificed for the sake of globalism. Now establishment Republicans and Democrats are locking arms once again to promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
The overwhelming majority of Americans
understand that what truly lacks compassion is when a society attempts
to absorb people it cannot properly and effectively assimilate in a fair
and just manner.
Is this really a position of “protectionism,” or one of simple common sense?
3) In the name of compassion and human rights, today, our southern
border has become a piece of Swiss cheese. The argument to secure our
borders and deport, at least temporarily, those who are here illegally,
stems from the simple fact that we are a nation of laws, which, everyone
is required to abide by.
Bushes 41 and 43, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama would all consider
this position as lacking in compassion. But the overwhelming majority of
Americans understand that what truly lacks compassion is when a society
attempts to absorb a group or groups.--------
No comments:
Post a Comment