Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, Immigration

Trump’s Two Front War

Bob Claude |

Military strategists have long warned about the risks of waging a two-front war. Nevertheless, President Trump intervened in Israel’s war on Iran while National Guard troops were deployed to quell resistance to immigration enforcement in California.  A prudent leader would resort to military force only after attempting to negotiate with an adversary possessing significant tools of resistance. Avoiding military force would be particularly advisable if the underlying policy enjoyed only tepid support at home. If negotiations still failed, threats of force would then be used, followed by the low-level exercises of force such as sanctions. Only when this failed would military force be used. 

The President arguably followed this path regarding Iran. Prior to Saturday’s attacks, the US and Iran were in active talks attempting to reach agreed-upon limits on Iran’s nuclear program. When this appeared to fail, the parties graduated to threats of force, which continued for several days. Sanctions had already been tried, and so the card of military force was played. The President appears to have successfully negotiated a ceasefire in the Iranian conflict. However, the uncertainty over the success of the bombing campaign means the temptation of “mission creep” and the risk of escalation to further military action remains.  

At the time, the President was already in a low-level military conflict here at home with Los Angeles and California about the enforcement of federal immigration law. Instead of following the traditional escalation protocol, Trump immediately turned to military force despite only tepid support for the intervention at home. There is another path he could have taken that might have avoided a military confrontation and achieved a lasting solution to the immigration issue.  

The administration should have first proposed a comprehensive immigration bill tightening enforcement and significantly reducing immigration levels. The legislation could have accomplished the goal of discouraging the employment of illegal immigrants and incentivizing self-deportation through  

  • A 10% employer tax on the salaries of an employer’s illegal immigrant employees. 
  • A requirement that those employers purchase insurance protecting third parties from injuries or damages by their immigrant employees. It would also reimburse government agencies for any welfare payments to those employees.  
  • A prohibition against refugees seeking permanent immigration status until they first return to their native countries.  

Employers would be forced to decide if these increased costs and risks would be worse than hiring American citizens. It would also finally force the real debate on our immigration policy that the nation has avoided for decades.  

What if globalists did not take this deal? Then, sanctions would be the next step, and Trump has a peaceful but big stick in his arsenal. He can announce that the US cannot host the 2028 Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles because California’s resistance to federal authority may result in an internal military conflict and, as a result, we cannot guarantee the security of the games. This risk in such a threat would hopefully prompt globalist immigration enthusiasts to agree on reforms that reflect today’s world and establish an effective enforcement process.  If not, the President should make good on the threat.   

Partisans on both sides of the immigration debate will condemn this strategy. However, it recognizes that each side has economic and legal leverage. Admittedly divisive in tactics, it is potentially unifying in strategy by creating a road to a permanent resolution that gives American citizens hope and the peace of a better life. It is this objective, not regime change overseas, that should be the most crucial goal of the Trump Administration.  The risks are certainly worth the reward.

Domestic Policy, General, General, Politics

100 Days of Myopia

Bob Claude |

Source: “Pictures of TR & FDR Together”, Theodore Roosevelt Association Journal, Vol. 16, No.1 in Theodore Roosevelt Digital Library, Theodore Roosevelt Center, Dickinson State University

Nothing worth having comes without effort – Theodore Roosevelt

Since the purpose of this website was to develop a positive ideology of nationalism, I have avoided keeping up with the chaotic first three months of the second Trump administration. We have now reached the vaunted 100-day mark in his presidency, which is too often used to judge a president’s success. It leads to a temptation to focus on quick, shallow policy victories at the cost of lasting change and thus risks squandering a mandate.

Trump’s victory came amid claims that it heralded a historic realignment towards a new nationalist majority in the American electorate.  However, history shows that lasting political realignments are processes, not specific events. They begin before the election and are then fostered by the victors afterwards. The campaign doesn’t end, but continues as the victor explains their new national priorities and broadens his movement’s connection to the American public.  As Trump should have learned in his first term, he had no automatic sinecure, but was simply on probation. His support may have been a mile wide, but was only an inch thick.

The obsession with a president’s first 100 days harks back to the first administration of Theodore Roosevelt’s cousin, Franklin.  In an attempt to revive the economy during the Great Depression, he used the Democratic majority in Congress to enact a wealth of legislation to stabilize the economy and create jobs.  No one knew what would work, and so it was the policy equivalent of throwing mud against the wall and seeing what stuck. The Supreme Court voided some of it as unconstitutional. Most economists now agree it had little impact and that the economy did not fully recover until the advent of World War II.

This, however, does not mean it was ineffective.  Americans may not have known much about the alphabet soup of federal agencies FDR created, but every family huddled around their radios each week to listen to his fireside chats.  In a calm avuncular manner, Roosevelt used this relatively new medium to promote his legislative program and explain his philosophy. This created the support that enabled him to eventually pass iconic liberal goals like Social Security and the National Labor Relations Act in the latter two years of his first term.  It cemented a realignment that continued for almost 40 years and still is a part of our political landscape.

Trump has an opportunity to achieve a new nationalist version of the Roosevelt majority. Globalist Democrats are in disarray and their popular support has sank to historic lows. It is a golden opportunity for the kind of debate that would cement a lasting nationalist mandate. Instead, Trump 2.0 has taken the easy way out by making the same myopic mistakes as Trump 1.0, but on steroids. It has been dominated by Trump’s desire for revenge and his addiction to executive orders, many of which are futile, bombastic, unconstitutional or all three at once.

Theodore Roosevelt certainly pushed the boundaries of presidential power (see this earlier article), but as part of a coherent discussion of the policy reasons for it.  His most important political role was as a cheerleader for local Progressive reform movements. Much like FDR, he enjoyed using the “bully pulpit” of the presidency to promote his philosophy and embraced the possibilities for persuasion that the legislative process offered. It was hard work, but worth the reward. Instead, Trump’s arrogance and dictatorial methods risk reviving globalist legitimacy while justifying the use of similar tactics by a future president of that ideology.

Uncategorized

It really is a Wonderful Life

Bob Claude |

The movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” is a beloved staple of many families’ holiday seasons. It tells the story of George Bailey, a small-town boy with big dreams to see the world, but who ends up staying in his hometown to run the family savings and loan business. After considering himself a failure, he has a unique opportunity to discover how rich an impact he had on his entire community simply by living an apparently ordinary life. It is one of the actor Jimmy Stewart’s greatest performances, not only for the story, but also for the personal sacrifices reflected in his acting.

Ned Forney, who usually blogs about the history of the Korean War, published this heartbreaking and revealing background story of how Jimmy Stewart channeled his own traumatic experiences from World War II into his portrayal of the personal crises of George Bailey.  It proves, much like Bailey’s story in the movie, that heroes don’t have to be larger than life like Theodore Roosevelt. They can be ordinary like George Bailey and the rest of us.  During this holiday season, let’s celebrate the ordinary among us as well as the extraordinary. Sometimes, there really Is no difference between the two.

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah and a joyous New Year to all. Thank you for your support!