Foreign Policy: Internationalism (Interventionism) versus Unilateralism (Americanism)

[anatess2]

FINALLY... I get good substance in the Cruz versus Trump race.

Now, before you call me a Trumpster, I just want to get things out of the way... I have no objection between Cruz and Trump.  They both have strengths and weaknesses - some weaknesses easily surmountable, other weaknesses not as easy.  But when it comes to policy issues, these 2 guys are not that far different that they are much closer together than each of them are close to Kasich.

Except for Foreign Policy.  I've been following this one, being as patient as I can until it all fleshes out - more because Trump's 30-odd years of history on his principles of this one points to him consistently veering away from the standard American policy of Interventionism but he didn't really commit fully to it until the past 2 weeks (after he formed his starter pack of foreign policy advisers).  The past 2 weeks he's been talking and talking about foreign policy (buried in the noise of wives and reporter abuse)... his AIPAC speech was interesting, until last night's Town Hall where it all just gels solid.  Now, if you watched last night's Town Hall - it was so frustrating for me that I had my husband's football foamies hitting the TV every few minutes.  Trump is just a very bad communicator.  His head is on foreign policy and national security... he completely forgot all about immigration which is the bread and butter of his campaign.  He can't turn on a dime like Cruz and Kasich can.  Cruz and Kasich, of course, aced the Town Hall... as usual... they were very clear and very precise on their answers to the questions.  They detailed when they wanted to detail, and expertly evaded when they needed to evade.  I've worked on campaigns for so long that I can spot when a candidate just makes your campaign managers proud - and this was one of them for Cruz and Kasich.  Trump, on the other hand... frustrating, as usual... at least he forced himself to complete his sentences even having to stop Cooper many times to complete a thought (which he takes too long to get to).

But... there was a very important nugget there that placed him in direct contrast to Cruz.  Foreign policy.

Now, Internationalism versus Isolationism is not a new debate at all.  Adams (aligning with Washington) was in direct opposition to Jefferson in this matter regarding American's involvement with France back in the days of the newly formed republic.  It hasn't abated through the Colonial wars, World War II and through the current Ron/Rand Paul campaigns.

As a Filipino, I believe the current American policy of Internationalism is not universally welcome in the world stage.  Even the Philippines had their stint of anti-American involvement back in the 80's/90's where we kicked out American bases.  I do acknowledge the good things America has done for the international community - preparing the Philippines for Independence and helping vanquish Germany and Japan in World War II.  The Middle Eastern involvement is not as stellar.

Now, the Cruz versus Trump campaigns brings new light to this age-old conflict of philosophies.

Cruz = Internationalism (Interventionism)... the standard American policy consistently applied without interruption from Pearl Harbor to W Bush.  Obama's foreign policy is incoherent, so I'm going to exclude it from consideration even as he says he is Internationalist.

Trump = Unilateralism (Americanism).  This has become really clear this past 2 weeks.  I wasn't sure if he was Isolationist (like Ross Perot and Ron Paul) and it took me a while to piece together what he really stands for.  So, in a nutshell, this is his stance:  The United States should not expend its foreign-policy energy and power unless its allies, partners, or other stakeholders have a similar commitment to solving the issue at hand.  This is not Isolationist.  This is more American protectiveness.

Trump's stance may be the compromise between Interventionism and Isolationism.  I'm gonna have to give it more thought especially as it pertains to nuclear proliferation and Iran.  I have formed a few conclusions about it (my principles has not aligned with Interventionism but because of my country's experiences with US involvement, I cannot support Isolationism either), but I have to give it more thought.

So... throw out some ideas!  And remember... Hillary's foreign policy is all over the map.  She sounded like Cruz in AIPAC and sounds like Obama on the campaign trail.  She's just saying whatever she needs to say to get elected.  NEVER HILLARY!

[Just_A_Guy]

Mathematically, the US could have lost 5,200 troops in foreign interventions per year through the entire 20th century; and we still would have still come out ahead of the game if those interventions successfully averted the world wars.  

It's pretty galling to see foreign nations--to quote Jack Nicholson--"rise and sleep under the blanket of the very freedom that we provide, and then question the manner in which we provide it".  Infuriating, to see them accuse us of being overly militaristic and neglecting our social programs, when it's our military keeping them safe and our military expenditures that prevent us from making Euro-style infrastructure investments.  As an American I would dearly, dearly love for us to retreat into ourselves and let the rest of the world stew in its own juices for a decade or two--but, how would it all end? 

If we're going to be involved sooner or later, maybe it's better to just get involved now and try to keep a lid on things as best we can--even if the rest of the world continues to be a bunch of ingrates?

Edited March 30, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

I wonder what your definition of isolationist is.

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I wonder what your definition of isolationist is.

Ron Paul's foreign policy position is Isolationist.  He says what JAG said he'd love to do above - retreat unto ourselves and let the rest of the world stew in its own juices.  Put the bulk of our efforts into Defense instead of Offensive-Defense or worse, Offense (wars of aggression as Ron puts it).

[Guest]

So, if we don't enact wars of aggression, we're isolationist?  That's a highly unusual definition for "isolationist".

[Just_A_Guy]

What's your definition, Carbs?

[Guest]

Simple.  One who wishes to remain isolated.  This certainly has nothing to do with whether we wage agressive wars.

As you know, I'm a Ron Paul fan (although I still disagree with just a few major conceptions he held).  His policies still wanted to encourage travel, trade, diplomatic associations, and many social interactions.  Clearly, he doesn't wish to remain isolated from the world.  It just doesn't include fiddling with other countries' internal affairs or waging war just to enforce our will on other nations or beat our chests.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Guest

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

So, if we don't enact wars of aggression, we're isolationist?  That's a highly unusual definition for "isolationist".

The phrase "wars of aggression" in my post is a parenthesis to make a side comment of the word Offense.  It is not a parenthesis to qualify the entire paragraph.

So, I'm not really sure where you're going with this comment.

[Guest]

I asked you for a definition.  You gave it.  Now you're doing a take back.  Go ahead.  But I'd ask you to try again on what you mean by "Isolationist".  And remember, this is for posterity, so, be honest.  No, seriously, just try to give me an exact logical definiton that you might see in a dictionary.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

Cambridge Dictionary:  the political principle or practice of showing interest only in your own country and not being involved in international activities.

Merriam-Webster: a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations.

The fact he's willing to enter into trade and other international relations would negate the label of "isolationist" for Ron Paul.  And he's perfectly fine with entering into alliances.  But it is the type of "entangling" alliance agreement that we've made with NATO that is something to be avoided.  He often made it a point to use the word "entangling" when discussing his disdain for alliances.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Guest

[anatess2]

39 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I asked you for a definition.  You gave it.  Now you're doing a take back.  Go ahead.  But I'd ask you to try again on what you mean by "Isolationist".  And remember, this is for posterity, so, be honest.  No, seriously, just try to give me an exact logical definiton that you might see in a dictionary.

War of aggression was a small part of that definition.  And I didn't take anything back.

You say you're a Ron Paul fan, so you're familiar with his official foreign policy position.  So the first sentence in my post "Ron Paul's foreign policy position is Isolationist." should give you what I mean by Isolationist.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

War of aggression was a small part of that definition.  And I didn't take anything back.

You say you're a Ron Paul fan, so you're familiar with his official foreign policy position.  So the first sentence in my post "Ron Paul's foreign policy position is Isolationist." should give you what I mean by Isolationist.

Then by that token, your policy is isolationist.

[anatess2]

36 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Cambridge Dictionary:  the political principle or practice of showing interest only in your own country and not being involved in international activities.

Merriam-Webster: a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations.

The fact he's willing to enter into trade and other international relations would negate the label of "isolationist" for Ron Paul.  And he's perfectly fine with entering into alliances.  But it is the type of "entangling" alliance agreement that we've made with NATO that is something to be avoided.  He often made it a point to use the word "entangling" when discussing his disdain for alliances.

Okay, I see where I got you confused.

The confusion is not in my use of the term Isolationist.   The confusion is in my use of the phrase Foreign Policy.  I'm only using Foreign Policy as it pertains to National Security.  I'm not using it as it pertains to Economic Relations, although Economic trade agreements is, a lot of times, used to advance National Security objectives.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The confusion is not in my use of the term Isolationist.   The confusion is in my use of the phrase Foreign Policy.  I'm only using Foreign Policy as it pertains to National Security.  I'm not using it as it pertains to Economic Relations, although Economic trade agreements is, a lot of times, used to advance National Security objectives.

No, it was not confusion.  It was just incorrect to use the term "Isolationist" to describe Paul's foreign policy.  He believes in a strong national defense.  So, what's your beef?  He says,"Just because Country A bombed Country b doesn't mean the US needs to be involved in settling it" you consider him an Isolationist?

Edited March 31, 2016 by Guest

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

No, it was not confusion.  It was just incorrect to use the term "Isolationist" to describe Paul's foreign policy.  He believes in a strong national defense.  So, what's your beef?  He says,"Just because Country A bombed Country b doesn't mean the US needs to be involved in settling it" you consider him an Isolationist?

 

The term Isolationist did not originate from me.  It originates from the Primary Elections in 2012 as Ron Paul's foreign policy stance was labeled as.

My beef with Ron Paul's stance is his aversion to blowbacks which causes him to be far too hands off of International affairs.  For example, although he is pro Israel, he doesn't think the US needs to be involved with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Trump's position is similar, but he does believe that the US has to mediate the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians as a neutral entity - not the UN or anybody else.  Ron Paul would think this as "policing" which he is not for.  Ron Paul would also be hands off in Syria (I'm not really sure what he wants to do with the rise of ISIS, I'm just guessing that his involvement will stop at our borders - where San Bernardino is in) whereas Trump has expressed the desire to sequester the oil to stop ISIS march through Europe and also has expressed the desire to aid with Syrian Refugees by creating a safe zone in Syria until such time that peace lasts long enough to stabilize the country.  This is not quite nation-building but not non-interventionist either.

As far as everywhere else, Ron Paul is hands off.  Trump is - "we will get involved but only if you get involved too".

Edited March 31, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest]

I'm having trouble with something.  In the OP you seemed to declare that you'd be in favor of a position closer to Paul than any other.  But then you seemed to have talked yourself into Trump's position (at least what he says one day over another) simply because you've already decided that Trump is your guy.  

Isolationist wasn't just a label that was used 4 or 8 years ago.  You used it today.  Why?  I think that many people don't understand his position simply because of labels like this being misapplied.  You misapplied it and therefore you made up your mind on his policy without even knowing what it is.  You still don't know what it is.  Your description of "hands off" may be somewhere in the realm of truth.  But at best it is mischaracterized.

As a disclaimer, I will also declare that I disagree with him on a couple of major foreign policy conceptions of his.  No one's policies are 100% in line with yours.  And I have no problem having disagreements with someone I admire and agree with on a variety of issues.  But overall, I'd still support his foreign policy over Trump's any day, primarily because I know what his position actually is.  With Trump, you really have no idea what his position is because it keeps changing every week.  He has five different positions on anything.  So everyone can find something they agree with him on.  

Which Trump do you agree with?  Which one will get elected?  Which one will start WWIII?  Which one will prevent it?

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

The term Isolationist did not originate from me.  It originates from the Primary Elections in 2012 as Ron Paul's foreign policy stance was labeled as.

"Labeled as [isolationist]" by whom?

Thomas Szasz reminded us that, in the jungle, the law is kill or be killed. In the human world, it's label or be labeled.

Paul was labeled as isolationist by people who opposed him. He is not an isolationist: he is one who, like me (and also a veteran) hates war when alternatives exist. Defensive wars, those started by the bad guys and that threaten immediate destruction of our way of life are justly fought. But if there is no USmerican interest at stake, or when we trip the wire first, it's unlikely that this war would be just.

Paul wants more involvement in the world:more trade, more discussion, more legal immigration. What he want less of is wars that serve the government and the money changers. It may not have been Rothschild who said it, but it's the bankers' motto:I do not care who controls the government as long as I control the money. War is huge profit. War is the health of the state. The state is the enemy of the people, at least in practice. See Doc&Cov 134:1~4.

Lehi

[Guest]

To more closely address the OP, I'll state that I understand that Ron Paul is no longer in the picture.  Yes, he's been called the grandfather of the Tea Party.  And he made a big impact on news in 08.  But he is not part of this election.  

I just find it odd that Trump is being touted as a "balanced" individual using Paul as one end of the spectrum vs. Cruz at the other.  And where did Ross Perot come from?  Perot was entirely for the interventionist foreign policy that you condemn.  But whatever.  He's gone too.

I just have to wonder where you're getting your information on Trump's foreign policy.  And which one are you going to believe?  I said it before anyone else said it in the news: I can't tell what his positions are on anything.  He just yells and screams a lot.  When he finds that someone corners him about something he said, he just changes his mind and denies he ever had a different position.

There really is a difference between a balanced position and one who vacillates between polar opposites which is what Trump does.  The one thing he's been consistent with is the bully mentality.  That's what you can depend on because that is what he knows.  If we were about to go to war (formal declared war) I'd think he'd make a great Pres.  He'd be all for going full steam ahead and he wouldn't care who got hurt in the meantime.  But for ANY other role of President, what value does bullying have?  If you can find it, that's where you'll find his greatness.  But apart from that, he's worthless as a President.

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

To more closely address the OP, I'll state that I understand that Ron Paul is no longer in the picture.  Yes, he's been called the grandfather of the Tea Party.  And he made a big impact on news in 08.  But he is not part of this election.  

I just find it odd that Trump is being touted as a "balanced" individual using Paul as one end of the spectrum vs. Cruz at the other.  And where did Ross Perot come from?  Perot was entirely for the interventionist foreign policy that you condemn.  But whatever.  He's gone too.

 

Okay, "balanced" individual.  Where did that come from?  My words were Trump's position is the compromise between the two competing ideologies.  This has nothing to do with Trump as an individual.  This has everything to do with US Foreign Policy.  Because Paul and Cruz are the bookmarks of the range of Republican foreign policy, they are the 2 I used.  My understanding of Ross Perot was what I learned of him observing the 90's elections from the Philippines - Ross Perot, as I remembered him, was the guy who said China's leaders will eventually die out.  There's no use in getting involved.

 

Quote

just have to wonder where you're getting your information on Trump's foreign policy.  And which one are you going to believe?  I said it before anyone else said it in the news: I can't tell what his positions are on anything.  He just yells and screams a lot.  When he finds that someone corners him about something he said, he just changes his mind and denies he ever had a different position.

There really is a difference between a balanced position and one who vacillates between polar opposites which is what Trump does.  The one thing he's been consistent with is the bully mentality.  That's what you can depend on because that is what he knows.  If we were about to go to war (formal declared war) I'd think he'd make a great Pres.  He'd be all for going full steam ahead and he wouldn't care who got hurt in the meantime.  But for ANY other role of President, what value does bullying have?  If you can find it, that's where you'll find his greatness.  But apart from that, he's worthless as a President.

I've been following this election very closely.  I've studied Carson, Rubio, Cruz, Trump, Bernie, and Hillary.  The noise around Trump drowns out his policy.  But he's had a consistent foreign policy profile.  It is so consistent that he hasn't veered from it even from an interview I saw of him captured from way back in 1988.  The past 2 weeks has provided a lot more detail on the matter (his brand new FP advisory starter pack must have been hard at work).

Now, of course, if all you do is follow the drive-bys... you'll never hear it.  They haven't been talking about Trump on the issues on the news cycles the past 2 weeks - including Fox.  All they've talked about is who says who about whose wife and who did what kind of battery to which reporter.  And now the Chris Matthews candidate-assassination piece is going to take over the news cycles for the rest of this week and maybe beyond.  And the fact that Trump talked for 2 weeks about his foreign policy yet nobody heard it shows the success of the media in pushing their narrative despite Trump's ability to talk over them and speak directly to people.

But I'm not talking about Trump himself.  I'm talking about this new vision on Americanism that is not quite the America First that Ron Paul was standing on.

But then... I'm starting to think lds.net is not the right forum for this discussion.  I don't know what I was thinking trying to talk about a Trump policy in a roomful of Mormons.

Edited March 31, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

46 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 

 I don't know what I was thinking trying to talk about a Trump policy in a roomful of Mormons.

I think that was uncalled for, Anatess. 

 

You are LDS too, right?  Because that comment "trying to talk about A Trump policy in a roomful of Mormons" sounds very strange. Almost like you expect all Mormons to think a certain way on politics or something. Or, because you are in the minority, you are trying to insinuate that LDS aren't up to the challenge of discussing Trump policy. 

Edited April 1, 2016 by MormonGator

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I think that was uncalled for, Anatess. 

 

You are LDS too, right?  Because that comment "trying to talk about A Trump policy in a roomful of Mormons" sounds very strange. Almost like you expect all Mormons to think a certain way on politics or something. Or, because you are in the minority, you are trying to insinuate that LDS aren't up to the challenge of discussing Trump policy. 

 

No, I'm pointing to the Utah primaries results and the track record of Trump-related conversations here and on my Mormon circle of friends on FB.  The number of Mormons that I personally know who will publicly admit that Trump is not some racist, misogynist, homophobic hitler?  FOUR.  The number who talks politics and knew he was talking Foreign Policy in the last 2 weeks?  ZERO.  Not even the four knew it.  The number who knows Trump's spokesperson got charged with battery by a reporter... all the ones that publicly talk politics.  The number who saw the top-angle video who publicly expressed that the spokesperson is not guilty of battery... four - same four as before.

Edited April 1, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 

No, I'm pointing to the Utah primaries results and the track record of Trump-related conversations here and on my Mormon circle of friends on FB.  The number of Mormons that I personally know who thinks Trump is not some racist, misogynist, homophobic hitler?  FOUR.

Well, that reinforces my decision to join the church. Good job Gator, good job. 

[anatess2]

Anyway, this thread is dead.  The OP is going nowhere.  Thanks for your time.

[Jojo Bags]

5 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I think that was uncalled for, Anatess. 

 

You are LDS too, right?  Because that comment "trying to talk about A Trump policy in a roomful of Mormons" sounds very strange. Almost like you expect all Mormons to think a certain way on politics or something. Or, because you are in the minority, you are trying to insinuate that LDS aren't up to the challenge of discussing Trump policy. 

Not at all.  The vast majority of LDS I've talked to have the exact same reaction:  they say "TRUMP!" as they scream and run from the room while holding their stomach.  Or you get the kangaroo caught in the headlights look.  Have you tracked the comments on Deseret News whenever a Trump article goes online?  I realize that not all of the commenters are LDS, but I know the majority are.  The majority of comments simply parrot all the propaganda points spoon fed to them by the mainstream media.  It seems few of the commenters have really looked into the subject and have an informed opinion.

[anatess2]

29 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

Not at all.  The vast majority of LDS I've talked to have the exact same reaction:  they say "TRUMP!" as they scream and run from the room while holding their stomach.  Or you get the kangaroo caught in the headlights look.  Have you tracked the comments on Deseret News whenever a Trump article goes online?  I realize that not all of the commenters are LDS, but I know the majority are.  The majority of comments simply parrot all the propaganda points spoon fed to them by the mainstream media.  It seems few of the commenters have really looked into the subject and have an informed opinion.

I think I mentioned on here once that we had an RS lesson where the teacher asked... I can't remember anymore, I think it was what are you most fearful of...  and several women in the class said Trump so the teacher wrote it on the board with the other things like Satan and Outer Darkness...