I suspect that Donald Trump will take a more skeptical view of the benefits of a close relationship with Israel than any other candidate in the race. Trump is a realist. He’s an American-firster like Charles Lindberg.<\/p>\n
From Politico, Jan. 20, 2016<\/a>:<\/p>\n One of the most common misconceptions about Donald Trump is that he is opportunistic and makes up his views as he goes along. But a careful reading of some of Trump\u2019s statements over three decades shows that he has a remarkably coherent and consistent worldview, one that is unlikely to change much if he\u2019s elected president. It is also a worldview that makes a great leap backward in history, embracing antiquated notions of power that haven\u2019t been prevalent since prior to World War II. In sum, Trump believes that America gets a raw deal from the liberal international order it helped to create and has led since World War II. He has three key arguments that he returns to time and again over the past 30 years. He is deeply unhappy with America\u2019s military alliances and feels the United States is overcommitted around the world. He feels that America is disadvantaged by the global economy. And he is sympathetic to authoritarian strongmen. Trump seeks nothing less than ending the U.S.-led liberal order and freeing America from its international commitments. He then elaborated on his skepticism of allies. \u201cWe Americans are laughed at around the world for losing a hundred and fifty billion dollars year after year, for defending wealthy nations for nothing, nations that would be wiped off the face of the earth in about 15 minutes if it weren\u2019t for us. Our \u2018allies\u2019 are making billions screwing us.\u201d If he did get elected president, he would do his utmost to liquidate the U.S.-led liberal order by ending America\u2019s alliances, closing the open global economy, and cutting deals with Russia and China. Lindbergh led a national movement that was divisive, xenophobic and sympathetic to Nazi Germany…<\/p>\n Some, like Ted Cruz, tried to deal with the shift in sentiment by cozying up to pro-American dictators and abandoning support for democracy promotion. Cruz even used the isolationist term America First to describe his foreign policy. But Cruz seems to have thought little and said even less about America\u2019s global role outside the Middle East. Ironically for someone with the reputation of being exceptionally smart, he lacks Trump\u2019s detail and substance. I suspect that Donald Trump will take a more skeptical view of the benefits of a close relationship with Israel than any other candidate in the race. Trump is a realist. He’s an American-firster like Charles Lindberg. From Politico, Jan. … Continue reading
\nIt is easy to poke fun at many of Trump\u2019s foreign-policy notions\u2014the promises to \u201ctake\u201d Iraq\u2019s oil, to extract a kind of imperial \u201ctribute\u201d from U.S. military allies like South Korea, his eagerness to emulate the Great Wall of China along the border with Mexico, and his embrace of old-style strongmen like Vladimir Putin. But many of these views would have found favor in pre-World War II\u2014and even, in some cases, 19th century\u2014America.<\/p>\n
\nTrump has been airing such views on U.S. foreign policy for some time. He even spent $100,000 on a full-page ad in the New York Times in 1987 that had a message remarkably similar to what he is saying today.
\nWith his background and personality, Trump is so obviously sui generis that it is tempting to say his views are alien to the American foreign policy tradition. They aren\u2019t; it is just that this strain of thinking has been dormant for some time. There are particular echoes of Sen. Robert Taft, who unsuccessfully ran for the Republican nomination in 1940, 1948 and 1952, and was widely seen as the leader of the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Taft was a staunch isolationist and mercantilist who opposed U.S. aid for Britain before 1941. After the war, he opposed President Harry Truman\u2019s efforts to expand trade. Despite being an anti-communist, he opposed containment of the Soviet Union, believing that the United States had few interests in Western Europe. He opposed the creation of NATO as overly provocative. Taft\u2019s speeches are the last time a major American politician has offered a substantive and comprehensive critique of America\u2019s alliances.
\nTrump\u2019s populism, divisiveness and friendliness toward dictators is also reminiscent of Charles Lindbergh, once an American hero, who led the isolationist America First movement. In some areas, Trump\u2019s views go back even further, to 19th-century high-tariff protectionism and every-country-for-itself mercantilism. He even invokes ancient Chinese history, telling Bill O\u2019Reilly last August that his idea for a wall across the U.S.-Mexican border is feasible because \u201cyou know, the Great Wall of China, built a long time ago, is 13,000 miles. I mean, you’re talking about big stuff.\u201d
\n***
\nTrump\u2019s starting point and defining emotion on foreign policy is anger\u2014not at America\u2019s enemies, but at its friends. In a lengthy interview with Playboy magazine in 1990, Trump was asked what would a President Trump\u2019s foreign policy be like. He answered: \u201cHe would believe very strongly in extreme military strength. He wouldn\u2019t trust anyone. He wouldn\u2019t trust the Russians; he wouldn\u2019t trust our allies; he\u2019d have a huge military arsenal, perfect it, understand it. Part of the problem is that we\u2019re defending some of the wealthiest countries in the world for nothing. … We\u2019re being laughed at around the world, defending Japan.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nTrump has long believed the United States is being taken advantage of by its allies. He would prefer that the United States not have to defend other nations, but, if it does, he wants to get paid as much as possible for it. No nation has come in for quite as much criticism from Trump as Japan. \u201cIt\u2019s time for us to end our vast deficits by making Japan and others who can afford it pay,\u201d Trump said in an open letter to the American people in 1987. \u201cOur world protection is worth hundreds of billions of dollars to these countries and their stake in their protection is far greater than ours.\u201d
\nIn the intervening years, he found new targets but he never let go of his antagonism toward the Japanese. On the campaign trail recently, he took the unusual step of promising to renegotiate the 1960 U.S.-Japan Treaty. \u201cIf somebody attacks Japan,\u201d he said, \u201cwe have to immediately go and start World War III, OK? If we get attacked, Japan doesn\u2019t have to help us. Somehow, that doesn\u2019t sound so fair. Does that sound good?\u201d
\nHe has also criticized other allies. In 2013, he said, \u201cHow long will we go on defending South Korea from North Korea without payment? When will they start to pay us?\u201d He has made the point again on the campaign trail. In an interview with NBC, he said, \u201cWe have 28,000 soldiers on the line in South Korea between the madman and them. We get practically nothing compared to the cost of this.\u201d
\nTrump doesn\u2019t let Europe off the hook, either. Several years ago, he wrote, \u201cPulling back from Europe would save this country millions of dollars annually. The cost of stationing NATO troops in Europe is enormous. And these are clearly funds that can be put to better use.\u201d On the campaign trail, he complained that Germany is not carrying more of the burden of NATO and asked why the United States should lead on European security…<\/p>\n
\nHe would find this hard to do, not least because the entire U.S. foreign policy establishment would be opposed to him and he needs people to staff his National Security Council, State Department and Defense Department. But there is real power in the presidency, especially if there is clear guidance about the chief executive\u2019s wishes. In any event, the mere fact that the American people would have elected somebody with a mandate to destroy the U.S.-led order might be sufficient to damage it beyond repair…<\/p>\n
\nIt is in this vacuum that the long-dormant Taftian foreign policy has made an unexpected comeback in the hands of Trump. What happens next is anybody\u2019s guess. It is hard to see how the Republican foreign policy establishment, which is steeped in American primacy and a U.S.-led international order, endorses an isolationist strain of thinking that has long been presumed dead. A split seems more likely than reconciliation.
\nIn any event, if Hillary Clinton secures the Democratic nomination, as expected, and Trump maintains his huge lead over the GOP field, a Clinton-Trump race would present two starkly different views about America\u2019s global role. For the first time since World War II, Americans will be asked to give their view on the most fundamental question of U.S. foreign policy: Do they want a U.S.-led liberal order or not? Internationalists will have to explain all over again why the United States flourishes and benefits from a healthy international system. Taft and Lindbergh lost before, but it would be a mistake to underestimate the messenger this time.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"