Skip to main content

Election 2016: Trump flaw 4: Foreign “policy” craziness #NeverTrump

This is part of a series of posts on Election 2016.

If Donald Trump has a foreign policy, it seems to be to praise our enemies, insults our allies, and move us closer to nuclear war. This is all done while showing startling lapses in knowledge.

Let’s start with praising our enemies. Obviously Vladimir Putin leads this list.  “I’ve already said he is very much a leader. This man has very strong control over his country.”  This has rightly drawn criticism from people such as (implicit) Paul Ryan  and (explicit) Lindsey Graham.

What was worse – much worse – was when Trump suggested that Russian hackers of the DNC should find information about the “missing” emails from Hillary Clinton’s server. Asking a foreign government involved in spying in our nation to help you in an election is, to state it mildly, unprecedented. In the same speech, he suggested that we should consider accepting Russia’s claims of annexing the Crimean Peninsula. That stance on Russia is bizarre, especially coming from the normally bellicose GOP, but really coming from anyone that has any knowledge of current international politics, or historical international politics, or … well, basically anyone.

But Putin isn’t the only dictator Trump has praised. He said some remarks concerning Kim Jong Un that, were the about business, would seem to be laudatory (“[H]e goes in, he takes over, he’s the boss… It’sincredible”).  He re-tweeted a quote of Italian dictator Mussolini. He had business deals with Gadhafi  and said (but later recanted) that it was 100% certain Libya would have been better off with the dictator still in power.  And, of course, he thought Saddam Hussein was a great killer of terrorists. Hussein “didn’t read them therights.” That is, again, bizarre.

And what about insulting allies? Mexico.  Japan.  NATO.  And, though this isn’t insulting, what about neutrality with respect to Israel?  This behavior scares our allies, with good reason.
    
What is that good reason? Trump thinks more countries need nukes, and it was reported that he doesn’t understand why we can’t use them.  He didn’t appear to understand that Russia had invaded Crimea: “He’s not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He’s not going into Ukraine, all right?” When questioned about whether he was already there, he responded, “OK –well, he’s there in a certain way.”  Yes, and that certain way is already in Crimea, which is part of Ukraine. It appears that he didn’t know, but maybe he did and was saying that his policy is that Crimea isn’t part of Ukraine. Scary either way, and much worse than Johnson’s Aleppo moment.

The rest of the world doesn’t know what is going on.  They call Trump “the man who made us miss the Bush clan” and talk about how he shows “the dark side of American Populism.” It is basically summed up this way: “God help us all if Trump wins.”

Trump’s crazy foreign policy is completely unrecognizable by any party or expert, and it seems designed to push us toward an unstable period in the world. He wonders why we can’t drop nukes, and, if he wins, by law nobody can stop him from doing so. It’s horrifyingly scary, and it is by far one of the reasons that I cannot understand people choosing to vote for him.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The problem with fundamentalism, part 2: Religious fundamentalism

This is the second part of a two part series where I discuss the problems I see with two prevalent forms of fundamentalism (the first discussed Constitution and fundamentalism: http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2012/05/problem-with-fundamentalism-part-1.html ).  In this part, I will be discussing biblical fundamentalism.  I will be referring to sources more frequently here, as I cannot claim the expertise I could for the last installment. Let me start by saying that I understand this is an extremely controversial topic, especially the stance I am taking.  My goal is not to offend, but it is instead to discuss why I think a fundamentalist approach to the Bible (and, in some respects, any text) has insurmountable problems.  I think that most Fundamentalists I know are quite willing to discuss why they believe their hermeneutic approach is the correct one, so my hope is that they are equally sanguine when someone explains why that pathway seems problematic. Here is t...
2 comments
Read more

Finding facts and data about COVID-19

It's easy to find thoughts on COVID-19, but hard to parse through it all.  This series is my attempt to give my view of the state of knowledge about COVID-19, as of late July and early August  through late 2020. Here are the entries (these will become links as I post the others): Finding facts and data about COVID-19 (this one) Why COVID-19 is much worse than the seasonal flu Testing, contact tracing, and quarantining The path to vaccines To wear a mask or not Deaths and long-term impacts Economic and secondary impacts Safely co-existing Bots and divisiveness Leadership You need to find reputable sources for data.  People are rightly skeptical of what they see online.  In fact, the World Health Organization has declared that, beyond the pandemic, there is an Infodemic, which is “a surge of information about COVID-19 that has made it hard for people to know which news and guidance about the virus is accurate.” If you are actually interested in how to find the best new...
2 comments
Read more

Controlling speech is rarely the solution

This is the sixth installment of a series of posts on lessons we progressives should take on the election. The overview is here . We really need to stop trying to control speech.   I get it: Free speech is tough, and it always has been. We don’t make speech free because it is weak – we make it free because it is strong, and “bad” speech can be really hurtful.   But one of our societal values has been that we learn to have thick skin, and we don’t try to exercise control over what others say. This doesn’t mean that we don’t have counter-speech. Free speech isn’t speech without consequences , it’s speech without control .   So if you say something that is jerky, the correct response is for someone to say you are being a jerk, and that’s completely within the spirit of free speech, which goes both ways.   What is not okay is to say that the person cannot speak AT ALL. We should let people say hateful and hurtful things, and then get good people to denounce ...
1 comment
Read more