General, Politics

The Wasting of JD Vance

Bob Claude |

Source: Gregory Wynn Collection, Theodore Roosevelt Library, Dickinson State University

Donald Trump was considered  “all right” by the American electorate in 2024 because of his nationalist rhetoric on issues like immigration enforcement and a less interventionist foreign policy. For reasons almost as tragic as McKinley’s assassination, those hopes have been dashed on the rocks of Trump’s pride and myopia. In 1901, the American people had an even better man in Vice President Theodore Roosevelt to step in and steer the nation into a new century. It may now fall to Vice President J D Vance to rescue the nationalist cause from Trump’s betrayal.

Vance and TR share clear parallels, though they also differ in important ways. Both are military veterans, thought they drew opposite conclusions from their service. While TR lauded the results of the Spanish-American war, Vance’s experience in Iraq taught him to be suspicious of military intervention. Like Roosevelt, both were young fathers of children when they became vice president. Finally, Vance is also a published author and, like TR, is articulate, intellectual, and comfortable with discussing big ideas. A more farsighted administration would have used Vance’s strengths to show Americans how nationalism advances their family interests and those of the nation.

Instead, Vance has been forced to defend Trump’s shortsighted policies and ham-handed tactics. It is true that vice presidents have always served as a president’s attack dog against critics, though Vance has sadly lapsed into the kind of coarse rhetoric Trump has used and encouraged among his followers. As Trump’s support evaporates and he faces a hostile Democratic Congress, Vance’s presidential aspirations and the future of the country now may rest on a uniquely courageous strategy.

Vance’s Coming “Crowded Hour”

Vice President Vance already has a military record to be proud of, but his next service may be need to be a political version of TR’s courageous charge up Kettle Hill. He must rescue American nationalism from Trump’s damaging divisiveness by rejecting the President’s short-term, dictatorial tactics in favor of a long-term legislative debate that can achieve lasting change.  In immigration, he can propose a complete statutory overhaul to tighten judicial enforcement and create a system that protects American workers instead of undercutting them. He can work with Democrats on legislation to break up monopolies and address food and housing affordability. He can also foster a debate on presidential war powers and the challenges America faces in today’s increasingly multipolar world.

Any of these issues could lead him into direct conflict with the President. However, Vance has one advantage over everyone else in the administration. He alone cannot be fired. As vice president, he has his own electoral mandate. Trump can fulminate against him and campaign against him in 2028, but that is all he can do. Meanwhile, Vance would be building a distinct political persona that would potentially insulate him from Trump’s failures.

Like TR’s charge up the hill, this comes with obvious risks. Trump’s apparent hold on the Republican Party would embolden him to believe he could exact revenge on Vance for perceived disloyalty. He must be aware that his son Donald Trump, Jr. is running third in the polls while doing nothing to deserve it. However, the MAGA coalition is already fraying from Trump’s betrayals and so is open to a new leader.  A new coalition with traditional Republicans may be a winning combination. Indeed, the risks of being stuck to the Trump tar baby in a general election may be greater than proving his independence early in the campaign.

Thus, the survival of a Roosevelt-style nationalism may indeed rest in the hands of  JD Vance much as it did after McKinley’s death in 1901.  To paraphrase Roosevelt’s “Man in the Arena” speech, he can take the deceptively safe road  of “those cold, timid souls,” clinging  to the President in the hope that Trump’s erratic narcissism does not destroy his political future.  Or he can stride into the arena, accepting the blood and blows from both sides in the noble cause of building a strong and unified American people and, thus, a strong America. It is his decision, and his alone. We progressive American nationalists must now pray he makes the right one.

Foreign Policy, General, Politics, Uncategorized

A Battle for America’s Soul

Bob Claude |

 
I believe that war should never be resorted to when, or as long as, it is honorably possible to avoid it. I respect all men and women who from high motives and with sanity and self-respect do all they can to avert war. I advocate preparation for war in order to avert war; and I should never advocate war unless it were the only alternative to dishonor.

Theodore Roosevelt, “America the Unready”, Theodore Roosevelt, An Autobiography, 1913

I recently had the somber honor of visiting the American cemetery in Normandy, France. One cannot look out over the sea of white crosses stretching toward Omaha Beach without thinking of the hopes and dreams of the young men who never made it past that spot on D-Day. Two of Theodore Roosevelt’s sons – Theodore Jr., and Quentin – rest amidst those crosses. It forces you to confront the cost of war and why Theodore Roosevelt’s respect for those who try to avoid it should command our respect as well.

Donald Trump should have made a pilgrimage of his own to this site before he began our current war against Iran. Perhaps this somber memorial would have made him reconsider the need for this war or at least identify a clear objective and then convince the American people of its necessity. Instead, he unilaterally embarked on another forever war that strains American resources, trashes our reputation, and thus our influence in a region far from our own shores.

In my series “Nationalist Foreign Relations – A History”, I said the world was moving from a period of great power rivalry to a world where there are no superpowers. By beginning this war, President Trump has recklessly accelerated this process. A prudent stewardship of our domestic, economic and foreign assets would have positioned the US to be the “great balancer” in a world of diffused power. Instead, President Trump has essentially declared war on the world by our blockade of Iran and is exhausting our economic and military assets in prosecuting this conflict. The net result will likely position China, not the US, as the great balancer in a world newly desperate for security and respect.

In an uncharacteristic display of legal humility, Trump has not tried to cloak the war under the provisions of the Global War on Terror authorized after the 9/11 attacks. On March 2, he sent Congress the notice of the conflict required under the War Powers Resolution, thus triggering a process that would force a justification of the war. Congress must pass an Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) by April 29 for it to continue. If it doesn’t, the President must begin the process of withdrawing American troops, which must be completed within 30 days.

The two sides are far apart in their negotiations, so the conflict will still be raging in some form by the April 29 deadline. The President may claim we are winning and that peace is at hand. He will try to shame Congress into authorization by saying they must support the troops in combat. If these shibboleths don’t work, he will resort to the time-honored tactic of claiming American credibility is at risk.

The congressional debate will try to define the true and achievable goals of this war. It will also highlight the monetary costs to the federal government and identify how we will raise the money to pay for it. It will also discuss the impact of this war on the American consumer and the world economy. However, it will also be about something even more fundamental and critical.

It will be a debate about America’s soul.

This war is a matter of choice, grounded in an unsustainable globalist assertion of military supremacy. Like the little Dutch boy, Donald Trump is using our precious and dwindling resources to vainly plug the breach in the dike of American unipolarity in a multipolar world. The reasons have ranged from ending Iran’s nuclear program to establishing a new American hegemony over the Persian Gulf to control China. The former injects American power into the Middle East in a way that benefits only Israel. As the Israelis put it, we would regularly sacrifice American lives and money to help them in “mowing the grass” of Arab resentment, all for little advantage to ourselves. At best, it is a form of liberal interventionism that would make even Barack Obama blush. If global hegemony is the goal, any immediate gains will come only through an exercise in naked power and will thus reek of fascism. Such a war betrays the principles that have been the bedrock of our soft power and will damage our long-term security and influence in the world for decades.

The easy vote would be to gloss over all this and succumb to the siren song of “support the troops.” Opposition would be condemned as surrender, and opponents as terrorist sympathizers. In response, progressive nationalists should quote Donald Trump’s promises to end forever wars like this and focus on rebuilding our own country. They should point out that Iran’s assertion of control over the Straits of Hormuz has already met with strong opposition from European and Asian nations. We can support a truly multinational effort to enforce maritime law and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. As for nuclear weapons, the damage caused to Iran by the war will set back any Iranian program by 5-10 years. Even in the worst case, a nuclear Iran would simply create a new balance of power in the Middle East against Israel’s nuclear capabilities. The history of the Cold War and the India-Pakistan standoff shows that such a balance can actually calm conflicts rather than cause them.

More importantly, a defeat of an unrestricted Iranian AUMF would reassert the primacy of Congress‘s war powers. It would draw a constitutional line in the sand against further erosion of Congressional authority, in the backdrop of a conflict that has little impact on our national security. There may never be a better opportunity to preserve the necessary checks on Presidential war powers than now.

The upcoming debate will be among the most significant in American history. Is war still America’s last resort in international disputes, or will it now become our first resort? During that debate, House and Senate members would do well to remember the soldiers who lost their lives on D-Day and are memorialized by the white crosses of Normandy. They gave their lives believing America stood for freedom and peace. Congress will soon decide whether it still does.

General, Politics

A New Vision

Bob Claude |

Believe you can, and you’re halfway there!

Progressive nationalists will look back on the second Trump Administration as a tragedy of lost opportunities and betrayals. The president has squandered a historic nationalist mandate on petty retribution, wild rhetoric and performative executive orders that changed little, of which the war against Iran is the most extreme and dangerous example. Globalists are secretly delighted and have reaped the benefits at the 2025 ballot box. They may do so in 2026 as well. It is nationalists who are heartsick after their hopes for unifying lasting change were dashed on the rocks of Trump’s narcissism.

The American people are now faced with the Hobson’s Choice between Trump-style ethnic nationalism and their increasingly globalist socialist opponents. An effective response requires a movement similar to MAGA that could mobilize Americans behind the positive nationalism of Theodore Roosevelt promoted on this site. It is a goal that requires the energy and commitment of a Theodore Roosevelt. At 70 years of age, I find it increasingly difficult to maintain that level of commitment. Thus, I offered this site for sale in the hope of finding someone who could do so. I appreciate the supportive comments many of you provided, but, in the end, no one came forward to pick up the banner.

Thus, I have decided to continue with the site with two goals. First, we will explore what might have been and could still occur under true nationalist leadership in the tradition of TR.  Rather than be a hostage to events, we will develop and explore the positive messaging and legislation on issues like immigration and foreign policy that would enact lasting change. I also will highlight other voices who are also doing the hard work of developing a progressive nationalist agenda in both messaging and legislation. At the same time, I will activate the subscriber chat function of the Substack version of the site we can (hopefully) succinctly discuss a progressive nationalist response to a specific event. The posts will be less frequent, but the hope will remain the same – to identify the critical issues facing America, develop a progressive nationalist program to address them and hopefully foster the national will to implement it. Thanks to all of you who believe in this mission and hope., As TR said above, that is already half the battle!