163
I mean, he's not WRONG
(hexbear.net)
I trust Trump about as far as I can throw him, and at the end of the day it's really the Pentagon calling the shots here not the POTUS.
But dudes clearly speaking to a public sentiment here.
Reiterating all this (that Trump doesn't really care, won't have total control of foreign policy, and this is mostly a play to popular sentiment), there's a lesson here in how to present ideas so that people agree with them.
Talking about a single issue and giving a humanist position on it will beat an ideological position that necessarily (because it's your whole ideology!) invokes other issues. Trump could have given an eloquent anti-imperialist take (lmao) and it would not have played as well. But "we need to stop all this killing?" Who's going to disagree with that? It reveals all the NATO freaks as the monsters they are for playing geopolitics with people's lives. Same as if you talk about healthcare in terms of "the richest country in the world shouldn't have people choosing between medicine and rent" instead of starting with the ideological basis for that belief.
Not to say you should never get into ideology, just that the humanist justification for positions should be at the forefront, because it keeps the discussion focused and is harder to oppose. It does help to think about how best to present these ideas; that's a lot of what politics is.
fair points, whats a realistic anti-imperialist take that trump could have do you think? after the debate i can only imagine him taking swipes at #46
You get anti-imperialist when you need to explain why the war is happening.
yeah that's true
There's a long-standing thread of American thought that would get you a long ways towards anti-imperialism: "we shouldn't send troops to die in a country most Americans can't find on a map." Could get a little farther with "we should not be paying for death and destruction across the globe."