By R.C. Seely
NEVER HAS A PRESIDENT CAUSED SUCH A RUCKUS WITH mere rhetoric as Donald Trump. Take his “fire and fury” remark to North Korea, threatening to react in kind if North Korea turns violent towards the US or other nations. Oh no, he’s saying he will retaliate! How is that any different from say, “the red line” for Syria by Obama? And so far Trump hasn’t added any new military interventions, sadly he hasn’t ended any either, but he hasn’t added any. Ending a few would be a welcome change.
Many were led to believe that because of his inflammatory campaign trail soliloquies he was essentially declaring war with the world. Trade wars maybe, but military entanglements, not really. The only exception could be his comments about Mexico. Continually saying he would have “the wall built and Mexico would be paying for it,” is a promise I hope no one expects to come to fruition. Iran is a slight possibility, if he rescinds the nuclear deal made by the previous administration. Personally the major issue I had with the Iran deal wasn’t the sanctions being lifted, more that we would be paying for another country’s nuclear development. That’s simply insane.
If he ends up going to war with North Korea, Iran, Mexico or any other new country–on top of the list of Middle East nations we are currently still fighting from the Bush adminstration’s “War on Terror”–he will simply be continuing the tradition of almost every US President. While most statistics I question, the ones claiming “the US has been at war 222 years out of the 239 of it’s existence” sounds about right. That’s 93% of our history in conflict with other nations and itself.
The “anti-war” presidents were not an exception, ask Lybia how much of a “peaceful president” Barack Obama was. It hasn’t been the same since Gaddafi’s assassination. How about Bill Clinton’s trek of violence in Bosnia and Kosovo? Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt reneged on their promises to keep the country out of the World Wars. No president kept the US out of Korea or Vietnam. Why not? To look powerful in the eyes of the rest of the world is a part of it but also to accomplish their agendas without any barricades.
Despite knowing better US citizens are not all that reluctant to trade liberty for security, and war is an excellent excuse for spending and putting those pesky rights on hold. Why should we need a legal writ or warrant before having our homes searched–call a whistleblower a subversive and it’s considered acceptable. If you’re critical of the government, that’s the case anyway isn’t it? So what if you disagree with a police action in another nation, you’re getting drafted. You’re now officially a slave of the US government and no longer own your mind or body. If Hillary Clinton had won it would be both your sons and daughters getting drafted. That kind of implies she may have intended to start a fight. So much for the peaceful anti-war progressives of the United States.
Not to defend his decision but the point is, if Trump does go after North Korea he is no different than any other president. At least he has demonstrated restraint so far, hopefully that status remains the same and the president does not go to war with North Korea. Another president to adopt this policy was Reagan, he didn’t have to start a war with the soviets and he openly called them the “evil empire.” That’s a foreign policy that works. Not off the dictator and force American values down the throats of every nation. Let’s not stir the hornets nest any more and instead leave the hornets alone unless they provoke us. It’s difficult to defend the “land of the free” title when in a perpetual state of warfare.
R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has also written books on pop culture, he most recent Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society is available at Amazon.
TRUMPONOMICS AT WORK
Posted: January 22, 2020 in Social CommentaryTags: americanus libertae, China, donald trump, economics, rc seely, tariffs, trade, trumponomics, trumponomics at work
By R.C. Seely
FROM THE MOMENT I heard the president was going to introduce tariffs into his economic plan, I have waited for the impact of that decision. The inevitable collision of increase prices on consumer goods and services. Yesterday was that day.
Across the country, major retail outlets have now been hit with the plague that has been infesting smaller select industries in the age of Trump. Price increases by $10 or more in retail stores and this is only with the first wave of tariffs.
The sad thing is this didn’t have to happen. The blame for this is on both Trump supporters and his haters.
For quite a while economists have warned Trump to not implement the tariffs, that it would increase prices. And this is not only the Never -Trumpers, it was right wing economists as well. Some who probably even voted for Trump. But no, his supporters stood behind him against any all criticism. He can’t do wrong, apparently he can.
Judging from my personal discussions with adamant Trump supports online, this unyielding devotion to the talking Cheeto is common. Another concern is with this for me, is there no end to this devotion? Will they stand up for Trump even if doing so violates every single one of their principles? What if he takes this to the next level and takes over American businesses? At that point these “small government” conservatives might as well join Hugh Hewitt and just put a Bernie 2020 sign on their lawn.
To be fair, it was the Democrats, “Need to Impeach” movement that put his supporters on the defense. Rather than take on the president and attempt to neutralize this questionable tactic, they went all out for impeachment or nothing. Going from one scandal to another to get him removed from office, all being dubious as far as the end result of removal. Impeachment, yes; removal, no. And a lesson for all you eager to get in a new president, impeachment is far from removal from office.
Both subsidies and tariffs are economic policies that free market supporters despise and for good reason. These are not in line with small government principles and it doesn’t matter which party implements them. They are a distortion of consumer interests and are not in the best interest of the general public. Everytime you inhibit a choice from the consumer you make economic chaos.