I read the transcript of Donald Trump's interview with the New York Times on Friday March 25. Apparently, it went on for over a hundred minutes spread out over two sessions, one in the morning and a followup in the afternoon. I believe I can get a better sense of the man if I watch his speeches and read transcripts of his interviews with the press, especially with papers like The Times.
This is the transcript, if you care to read it yourself.
First of all, a couple of observations from me: I think Trump is vocalizing what many of us have at one time or another asked ourselves about America's place in the world. That is, who made Uncle Sam the world's policeman, the world's superpower? And, just because he doesn't always articulate himself as eloquently as Obama or, say, the New York Times journalists would, doesn't mean the media or the upper 25% should turn up their noses at him. The point is, he's raising issues we've all wondered about. He's addressing the disenfranchised masses. And (at least, I believe) he genuinely cares about his country. Do I agree with his views? Mostly no, and I wouldn't vote for him as president (too mercurial, for my taste, among other things). But here's the thing: in this interview with The Times, he answered the questions directly, even if you didn't agree with his answers or if his answers were perhaps incomplete, changed later, or just not thoughtful, the way Obama's are. He did not duck any questions and yes, we got to see where the chinks in the armor are.
For the most part, Donald Trump does not come across like a greasy politician the way a, say, Ted Cruz does. He may be a narcissist, he may crave power but, he also loves his country. This I believe, after reading the transcript.
So what did he say? Well, he said he's for "America First". He said the accepted doctrine (which, by the way, was made by the U.S. after WWII) that the United States must be the world's military policeman, which involves, among other things, paying for U.S. military bases in foreign countries like Japan and South Korea to protect those countries against aggression from North Korea or China, must be re-thought. Or, more accurately, re-negotiated. Especially when it comes to rich countries like Saudi Arabia. Trump sees it as an unfair economic playing field, one where the U.S. can negotiate much better deals with European nations like Germany, and the aforementioned Asian and Middle Eastern countries. He sees this as a principal reason for the United States' decline over the last several decades.
There's an element of truth to what he's saying, in my opinion. As a Canadian, I've taken for granted that if Canada were ever threatened by another country, that the U.S. would defend Canada completely and as if it were one of its own states or territories. I suspect that Germany feels the same way. Why would it not? U.K.? Same. Australia, which is a world away? Same. Japan? Of course. South Korea? Ditto. Saudi Arabia? Despite Trump's comments, I think the Kingdom feels pretty safe because of America. America has been spending a disproportionate amount of its vast GDP on defense of the Free World while the rest of us have sponged off the Americans. Canada has been particularly exploitative, in that regard.
So Trump has a point. Economically, the U.S., if you did the math, has probably lost money on this policy to be the world's supercop. But do you change the policy to stop the economic hemorrhaging?
The reason the U.S. assumed the role of supercop was to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons into multiple countries. Imagine if 200 countries had nukes. Now, there's a frightening thought. Naturally, U.S. allies were the first to agree to not develop their own nukes as long as the U.S. undertook to protect them. The rest of the world's countries were either coaxed, through diplomacy, or have been forced, through sanctions, to steer clear of owning nuclear weapons. The theory is, if the world can be disarmed in this fashion, then the world -- and the United States -- stands a far greater chance of surviving. The policy has not worked perfectly well, of course. Pakistan and India, both friends of the United States but sometime adversaries with each other, have nukes. North Korea, a rogue nation, has nukes. China, an economic superpower, has nukes. And, of course, Russia has nukes. Nuclear weapons exist. But they are so far being contained. The policy, messy as it has been to maintain, is so far working. No one has blown up anyone. Except for the United States in 1945, that is.
So I guess what I would say to Mr. Trump is, if you want to make America Great Again, and you want to reduce the enormous U.S. public debt (over twenty trillion dollars which, like most countries, it owes to itself, to American debt holders), then, instead of abandoning the America-as-supercop policy which has kept the world safe for over 70 years after Hiroshima, consider raising income taxes and gas taxes and sales taxes, just like the rest of the world, so that you can balance your books and pay down your debt. Meanwhile, keep in mind that while you have the mightiest military that the world has ever seen these past 70 years, it has fostered a tremendous defense industry, which has been a boon to your economy, and a tremendous military machine, which has employed millions upon millions of people. So, it hasn't been all bad; and as one-sided as Mr. Trump has felt it has been.
Finally, even if America's most trusted allies -- the U.K., Canada, Germany, Japan and others -- chose to design and build their own nukes, and if America closed its military bases on their soil, I don't think the money saved would make the kind of dent to America's budget deficits that Mr. Trump thinks are needed to Make America Great Again. No, what's sorely needed, if America's leaders are serious about making America "great" is income redistribution on a scale bordering on socialism -- at least compared to what most Americans are used to -- to reduce the huge gap between the haves -- like Mr. Trump -- and the have-nots. Until America really gets that it needs to spread the wealth more equitably, with or without free trade and globalization and automation, it will continue to breed discontent and resentment among its people, and it will continue to find it increasingly difficult to reach that "greatness" that Donald Trump and his fans dream of.
I agree with Trump on one thing: it's not rocket science.
This is the transcript, if you care to read it yourself.
First of all, a couple of observations from me: I think Trump is vocalizing what many of us have at one time or another asked ourselves about America's place in the world. That is, who made Uncle Sam the world's policeman, the world's superpower? And, just because he doesn't always articulate himself as eloquently as Obama or, say, the New York Times journalists would, doesn't mean the media or the upper 25% should turn up their noses at him. The point is, he's raising issues we've all wondered about. He's addressing the disenfranchised masses. And (at least, I believe) he genuinely cares about his country. Do I agree with his views? Mostly no, and I wouldn't vote for him as president (too mercurial, for my taste, among other things). But here's the thing: in this interview with The Times, he answered the questions directly, even if you didn't agree with his answers or if his answers were perhaps incomplete, changed later, or just not thoughtful, the way Obama's are. He did not duck any questions and yes, we got to see where the chinks in the armor are.
For the most part, Donald Trump does not come across like a greasy politician the way a, say, Ted Cruz does. He may be a narcissist, he may crave power but, he also loves his country. This I believe, after reading the transcript.
So what did he say? Well, he said he's for "America First". He said the accepted doctrine (which, by the way, was made by the U.S. after WWII) that the United States must be the world's military policeman, which involves, among other things, paying for U.S. military bases in foreign countries like Japan and South Korea to protect those countries against aggression from North Korea or China, must be re-thought. Or, more accurately, re-negotiated. Especially when it comes to rich countries like Saudi Arabia. Trump sees it as an unfair economic playing field, one where the U.S. can negotiate much better deals with European nations like Germany, and the aforementioned Asian and Middle Eastern countries. He sees this as a principal reason for the United States' decline over the last several decades.
There's an element of truth to what he's saying, in my opinion. As a Canadian, I've taken for granted that if Canada were ever threatened by another country, that the U.S. would defend Canada completely and as if it were one of its own states or territories. I suspect that Germany feels the same way. Why would it not? U.K.? Same. Australia, which is a world away? Same. Japan? Of course. South Korea? Ditto. Saudi Arabia? Despite Trump's comments, I think the Kingdom feels pretty safe because of America. America has been spending a disproportionate amount of its vast GDP on defense of the Free World while the rest of us have sponged off the Americans. Canada has been particularly exploitative, in that regard.
So Trump has a point. Economically, the U.S., if you did the math, has probably lost money on this policy to be the world's supercop. But do you change the policy to stop the economic hemorrhaging?
The reason the U.S. assumed the role of supercop was to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons into multiple countries. Imagine if 200 countries had nukes. Now, there's a frightening thought. Naturally, U.S. allies were the first to agree to not develop their own nukes as long as the U.S. undertook to protect them. The rest of the world's countries were either coaxed, through diplomacy, or have been forced, through sanctions, to steer clear of owning nuclear weapons. The theory is, if the world can be disarmed in this fashion, then the world -- and the United States -- stands a far greater chance of surviving. The policy has not worked perfectly well, of course. Pakistan and India, both friends of the United States but sometime adversaries with each other, have nukes. North Korea, a rogue nation, has nukes. China, an economic superpower, has nukes. And, of course, Russia has nukes. Nuclear weapons exist. But they are so far being contained. The policy, messy as it has been to maintain, is so far working. No one has blown up anyone. Except for the United States in 1945, that is.
So I guess what I would say to Mr. Trump is, if you want to make America Great Again, and you want to reduce the enormous U.S. public debt (over twenty trillion dollars which, like most countries, it owes to itself, to American debt holders), then, instead of abandoning the America-as-supercop policy which has kept the world safe for over 70 years after Hiroshima, consider raising income taxes and gas taxes and sales taxes, just like the rest of the world, so that you can balance your books and pay down your debt. Meanwhile, keep in mind that while you have the mightiest military that the world has ever seen these past 70 years, it has fostered a tremendous defense industry, which has been a boon to your economy, and a tremendous military machine, which has employed millions upon millions of people. So, it hasn't been all bad; and as one-sided as Mr. Trump has felt it has been.
Finally, even if America's most trusted allies -- the U.K., Canada, Germany, Japan and others -- chose to design and build their own nukes, and if America closed its military bases on their soil, I don't think the money saved would make the kind of dent to America's budget deficits that Mr. Trump thinks are needed to Make America Great Again. No, what's sorely needed, if America's leaders are serious about making America "great" is income redistribution on a scale bordering on socialism -- at least compared to what most Americans are used to -- to reduce the huge gap between the haves -- like Mr. Trump -- and the have-nots. Until America really gets that it needs to spread the wealth more equitably, with or without free trade and globalization and automation, it will continue to breed discontent and resentment among its people, and it will continue to find it increasingly difficult to reach that "greatness" that Donald Trump and his fans dream of.
I agree with Trump on one thing: it's not rocket science.
No comments:
Post a Comment