President Trump kept America out of new wars and brought thousands of brave troops home from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and many other countries. Joe Biden has undermined our military readiness and surrendered our strength to the Taliban.
When Trump pulls troops out of Afghanistan, it’s “bringing thousands of brave troops home,” but when Biden does the same, it’s, “surrendering our strength to the Taliban.” He brags about “keeping America out of foreign wars” while at the same time bragging about assassinating “the world’s number one terrorist,” Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, which was an extreme act of provocation.
This is taken from the issues page of Trump’s campaign website, and there are several more statements relating to foreign policy, frequently and boldly contradicting each other. It’s a perfect example of the “If By Whiskey” tactic. So what’s actually going on here? Well, to understand the reasons for this equivocation, we need to analyze the foreign policy positions of Americans.
Broadly speaking, people fall into one of four camps: Idealist Hawk (liberals), Idealist Dove (libertarians), Realist Hawk (nationalists), and Realist Dove (socialists).
Idealist Hawks believe that US foreign policy is driven by benevolence and spreading freedom, and the fact that it repeatedly fails to do so (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc) is explainable by a variety of excuses. Generally, they are more interested in current events and easily persuaded to support intervention based on seeing a bad thing happening, without a broader analysis or explanation of the situation or how things have played out historically.
Idealist Doves also believe that US foreign policy is driven by benevolence, but they see that as a bad thing. They are generally right libertarians or hold libertarian values, they see war as another example of wasteful government spending as it tries and fails to improve people’s lives, which they generally don’t see as a valid goal in the first place. Being idealists, they are still rather easily duped into supporting war and militarism, often, they will support a “night watchman state,” with police and the military being the only legitimate functions.
Realist Hawks are nationalists who believe that states pursue their own material interests and are right to do so. They are incapable of distinguishing between the state’s interest and their own. Some few are rich enough to actually receive benefits from US foreign policy, but most just root for America in the same way that they might root for a football team.
Realist Doves, which I am a part of, do not believe that US foreign policy is not grounded in benevolence and does not benefit the people it claims to be helping, but also (generally) that it doesn’t benefit the majority of people at home. We see it as being driven by and for class interests, and are opposed to the class it benefits.
Trump’s foreign policy equivocation, and his “America First” slogan allows him to appeal to both the Idealist Doves (libertarians) and the Realist Hawks (nationalists). He can’t consistently take any line on any specific thing. If by Afghanistan, you mean a disastrous nation-building exercise, wasteful government spending, and endangering our troops for the sake of helping foreigners, then of course Trump opposes it. But if by Afghanistan, you mean exerting American strength, intimidating Russia and China, and weakening terrorists to keep America safe, then of course Trump supports it.
In reality, to the extent that Trump has coherent beliefs at all, he is a Realist Hawk, a nationalist, and his record reflects that. But part of the reason he was able to get anywhere was because he was able to triangulate and equivocate well enough to dupe anti-war libertarians.
Unfortunately, in American politics, the conflict is generally between Idealist Hawks and everyone else. This is part of what allows the nationalists and libertarians to put aside their differences (the other part being that libertarians are easily duped). Realist Doves are not represented anywhere, the Idealist Interventionists consider us Russian bots along with everyone else who disagrees with them on foreign policy (regardless of how or why), the Idealist Doves are extremely unreliable, and the Realist Hawks may see the world in a similar way but have diametrically opposed priorities.
tl;dr: Trump’s halfhearted antiwar posturing is an obvious ruse that only an idiot would fall for, but painting everyone skeptical of US foreign policy with the same brush helps him to sell it and to paint over ideological rifts that could otherwise be potentially exploited.
When I say libertarian, I’m referring not solely to the libertarian party, but to Republicans who hold libertarian values. I suppose I was unfair to people who actually vote libertarian.
That’s the image he puts on but it’s not consistent with his record. He nearly started a war with Iran and bombed Syria and Yemen, for example. As I pointed out, his rhetoric is contradictory and contains both dove and hawk elements, but his actual governance indicates that the hawkishness is more in line with how he’ll actually behave.
On that we agree.
You should also include Democrats who hold libertarian values, and there are plenty of those as well. Here are some issues where libertarians and Democrats aline and disagree with Republicans:
Sure, and that’s to appease the hawks. War hawks have been wanting war with Iran since at least McCain, if not longer. They’re a substantial part of Congress, and he needs their support.
I don’t think he particularly cares about what’s going on in Syria, he only cares about Yemen for access to cheap Saudi oil, and Iran is only relevant because of Israel (and all of those who support them).
What be cares about is himself, so he’ll do whatever he needs to in other to get his name in the media more often. If he didn’t need to appease the hawks, he’d probably be dove-ish because that’s better for business, and a booming economy gets his name in the news and dollars in his pocket.
You’re absolutely right that he’s not libertarian, he’s also not particularly conservative, he just wants power and his name in the news, and being president does that. So he’ll say whatever he needs to in order to get what he wants.
Look at how he tried to court the Libertarian Party, he basically said, “vote for me if you’re tired of losing.” He doesn’t care about policy (if he did, he would’ve talked about issues libertarians care about like RFK did), he cares about “winning,” and can’t fathom that people could care more about policy than “winning.” That’s Trump in a nutshell, and also why he’s so dangerous. He’s absolutely not a libertarian by any stretch, but he will try to appeal to libertarian-leaning people if he thinks it’ll help him win an election.
War is great for business. You just have to make sure that you’re in on the cut and that the costs are borne by other people. You get to use other people’s money through taxes to take other people’s money through plunder, and in the process you get to give lucrative contracts to military contractors and get kickbacks for it. And Trump doesn’t really benefit from a booming economy, especially since he can’t get a third term.
I’ll agree that he’s not as ideologically driven as some of the more dangerous hawks like John Bolton. But in office he was/would be surrounded with those types and can be influenced in their direction. Apathy can just as easily mean telling them, “sure, go ahead, do whatever.”
But in any case I would agree that I rate Chase Oliver well above Trump and Biden, so I’d say this is a minor disagreement.
Sure, if you’re a defense contractor. Trump is in real estate, and war usually means less tourism. It also means less trade, which can hurt the stock market, and that’s what news orgs equate with “the economy.”
If Trump was a career politician, war would probably be more attractive since people tend to vote for incumbents when at war. But he’s looking to make a legacy, so he wants a high approval rating from his base, and more people to go to his RE properties.
Well, he did in his first term, so he needs to stick to that script for his campaign. He relied on small business owners (and people who simp for small business owners), small towns, etc to get elected, and he needs to keep that base happy.
If he keeps the economy going well, those people are likely to stay at his properties and make his family richer, and all of that builds his legacy. The second term is largely an ego thing I think, so he’s even more willing to say whatever to get people on board.
And yeah, Chase Oliver is an awesome protest vote. I think it’s hilarious that some state libertarian parties don’t want to put him on the ballot (e.g. Colorado), because he’s pretty textbook libertarian. Yeah, he’s not perfect, but a third party candidate doesn’t need to be perfect, they just need to represent the frustrations people have with the two major parties, and I think he does that well.