Brett Stephens, writing a near future imagining the day after Trump wins re-election has spoken an uncomfortable truth.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/opinion/trump-re-election-2020.html
It's worth a minute to read.
He argues that 3 things won the election for Trump:
1/ A booming economy: "What part of a Dow of 30,000 did you not understand?" a voter tells an exit poll worker.
2/ The argument that illegal immigrants from Central America threaten law and order in the United States.
3/ Democrats clinging to unpopular ideas: free college tuition, Medicare for all, which sound great but would "bankrupt you and bankrupt the nation."
Nice catchy phrase, that. Bankrupt you, blah, blah.
For me the problem for the Democrats is the failure to think anew. Democrats are supposed to be the change makers, but they cling to the old with a grip which makes their knuckles white and which is unrivaled by even Republicans who want to make America 1950 again.
It was Trump, not the Democrats, who looked at our military bases and soldiers and sailors stationed in Europe and Asia and asked why we needed all that expense and exposure?
An article by a former German Ambassador to the United States, Wolfgang Ischinger, in the 7/22/18 NYT laments America for following Trump in rejecting "the foundations of Western grand strategy since the mid-1940's...The era of America's benign hegemony may be over, with Europe extremely ill prepared."
Well, what, you may ask, does America get from "hegemony"?
And if Europe is ill prepared is that because we have enabled the Germans, Italians, Belgians and Brits by providing an army to protect them while they spent on their free healthcare and day care centers?
If Russia's neighbors were not worried enough to spend money on arms, why should we?
"Any doubts about America's commitment hurts the credibility of NATO's deterrence," Mr. Ischinger tells us.
Deterrence to what?
If Russia sends tanks across the borders into Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania or into Ukraine or Slovenia or Slovakia, would Americans even be able to find these places on a map? Would we send our sons and daughters over to fight the Russians? Why?
Our deterrence is found in our ultimate trump card, you should excuse the expression: We got nukes.
But would we start a nuclear holocaust to protect Estonia?
We have 65,000 American troops in Europe, 38,000 of those in Germany, 12,000 in Italy, as if we were still worried about the Axis powers rising up. We have 55,000 in Japan! Japan! Why?
And we have 25,000 in South Korea.
Now South Korea, in a sense, you can understand when you look at who they have on their northern border, a country with enough craziness to actually invade with troops carrying guns, to try to take over Samsung, Hyundai and other prizes.
But do we really need to play war games with the South Koreans?
Much as I hope Democrats can find someone to beat Trump, we have to begin by recognizing his appeal, and Democrats have their heads in the sand when it comes to that.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/opinion/trump-re-election-2020.html
It's worth a minute to read.
He argues that 3 things won the election for Trump:
1/ A booming economy: "What part of a Dow of 30,000 did you not understand?" a voter tells an exit poll worker.
2/ The argument that illegal immigrants from Central America threaten law and order in the United States.
3/ Democrats clinging to unpopular ideas: free college tuition, Medicare for all, which sound great but would "bankrupt you and bankrupt the nation."
Nice catchy phrase, that. Bankrupt you, blah, blah.
For me the problem for the Democrats is the failure to think anew. Democrats are supposed to be the change makers, but they cling to the old with a grip which makes their knuckles white and which is unrivaled by even Republicans who want to make America 1950 again.
It was Trump, not the Democrats, who looked at our military bases and soldiers and sailors stationed in Europe and Asia and asked why we needed all that expense and exposure?
An article by a former German Ambassador to the United States, Wolfgang Ischinger, in the 7/22/18 NYT laments America for following Trump in rejecting "the foundations of Western grand strategy since the mid-1940's...The era of America's benign hegemony may be over, with Europe extremely ill prepared."
Well, what, you may ask, does America get from "hegemony"?
And if Europe is ill prepared is that because we have enabled the Germans, Italians, Belgians and Brits by providing an army to protect them while they spent on their free healthcare and day care centers?
If Russia's neighbors were not worried enough to spend money on arms, why should we?
"Any doubts about America's commitment hurts the credibility of NATO's deterrence," Mr. Ischinger tells us.
Deterrence to what?
If Russia sends tanks across the borders into Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania or into Ukraine or Slovenia or Slovakia, would Americans even be able to find these places on a map? Would we send our sons and daughters over to fight the Russians? Why?
Our deterrence is found in our ultimate trump card, you should excuse the expression: We got nukes.
But would we start a nuclear holocaust to protect Estonia?
We have 65,000 American troops in Europe, 38,000 of those in Germany, 12,000 in Italy, as if we were still worried about the Axis powers rising up. We have 55,000 in Japan! Japan! Why?
And we have 25,000 in South Korea.
Now South Korea, in a sense, you can understand when you look at who they have on their northern border, a country with enough craziness to actually invade with troops carrying guns, to try to take over Samsung, Hyundai and other prizes.
But do we really need to play war games with the South Koreans?
Much as I hope Democrats can find someone to beat Trump, we have to begin by recognizing his appeal, and Democrats have their heads in the sand when it comes to that.
No comments:
Post a Comment