Category: 2024 Election

2024 Election, Globalism vs. Nationalism, Nationalist Theory, Politics

2024 American Nationalist Voting Index – Political Philosophy

Bob Claude |

This is the seventh of a series examining the issues in the 2024 presidential election. To see previous articles, click on the “2024 Election” category under the “Politics” tab above.

Score

Harris -2.5 Trump +.5

Presidential campaigns should be informative discussions about the issues that face our country. Many historians believe that the 1912 election between Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and William Howard Taft was among the most intellectual and consequential in our history. Unfortunately, this campaign so far is sorely lacking in those qualities.

However, presidencies often are defined not by the issues raised in the campaign, but by crises that were totally unforeseen. Think George W. Bush and 9/11 or Donald Trump and Covid. Both risks were “known unknowns” discussed only in academic circles and were never campaign issues. Nevertheless, they happened and required fateful decisions by the president on behalf of the nation that became right or wrong.  Since we don’t know what the crisis will be, we lack any indication of how today’s candidates may deal with it. There is only one indication of how they might – their political philosophy or ideology.

In a recent series on this website, I argued that the most relevant ideological divide in politics was between globalism and nationalism (see the category under the “Politics” tab above). Globalism believes that national borders should be irrelevant. Leaders and elites should have obligations not just to their own peoples, but to the entire world. Nationalism believes that individual communities represented by nation states are natural and legitimate actors in the world.  National leaders owe primary allegiance only to their respective peoples. The two ideologies actually break down into four subsets – socialist globalism, corporate globalism, ethnic nationalism and the progressive nationalism of Theodore Roosevelt. If we can place a candidate’s ideology on this spectrum, we can make an intelligent guess about their approach to future issues.

Kamala Harris‘s rhetoric and past issue positions place her squarely in the camp of socialist globalists. As she repeated in these clips from past interviews, Harris believes government should insure that everyone “end up in the same place”, regardless of circumstances. While she is clearly correct that people do not start in the same circumstances, her goal is not equity (equal opportunity) as she claims, but an empirical equality that is inherently impossible in a free society.  Moreover, her past positions on issues like immigration enforcement suggest that this desire to achieve empirical equality extends to the rest of the world as well.  Thus, when confronted with a crisis, her response will likely be to cater to the rest of the world, even to the detriment of the American people. She thus rates a -2.5 on the globalist side of the ledger.

Donald Trump is more difficult to pin down. While he campaigned in 2016 on a nationalist platform that included progressive ideas, his administration adopted policies dear to the corporate elite. His 2018 tax cuts reduced taxes on business and higher earners while widening the budget deficit and stoking inflationary pressures. His immigration policy successfully limited and deterred illegal border crossings, but it was often justified on ethnic rather than economic grounds. He has also favored increasing the number of higher skilled immigrants to compete with American tech workers, even to the point of “stapling green cards” to foreign students’ diplomas. His new alliance with consummate corporate globalist Elon Musk is also worrisome.

Thus, Trump may simply be a corporate globalist masquerading as an ethnic nationalist. Nevertheless, there are three groups that could pull him back to the nationalist side.  First and foremost is his voter base, which is ardently (and sometimes dangerously) ethnic nationalist. He will be loathe to cross them after their past support. His embrace of RFKJr. also introduces a progressive nationalist influence that will be more difficult to dismiss in a new term. Finally, his vice president JD Vance is a professed foreign policy nationalist.

Needless to say, Donald Trump is a mercurial and strong-willed candidate who has ignored outside advice in the past.  When all of these influences are taken into account, he is best rated as plus .5. In other words, he will tend to react to a crisis as a nationalist, but exactly to what extent will depend on the particular nature of the crisis.  Since we cannot know what those particularities will be, we can only hope that his nationalist side will prevail.

I recognize this analysis is based on guesswork, though it is leavened as much as possible with the facts. Trying to predict a person’s future decision on an unknown matter can easily degenerate into a form of divination. However, TR teaches us that avoiding such decisions can have worse consequences and the unpredictability of today’s world requires that a decision be made. I hope the four ideological categories I cited earlier are at least helpful in telling you where you stand, and then aiding you in determining where your candidate will stand as well.

2024 Election, Nationalist Theory, Politics

2024 American Nationalist Voting Index – A Strong America

Bob Claude |

This is the sixth of a series examining the issues in the 2024 presidential election. To see previous articles, click on the “2024 Election” tab under the “Politics” tab above.

Score

Harris -7.5 Trump -.5

The USS Theodore Roosevelt has returned to San Diego after a nine-month deployment in the western Pacific and Middle East. The 6000 sailors on the “Big Stick” visited numerous ports and conducted over 9000 aerial sorties from the ship. We should be proud of them and all of our soldiers and sailors who work hard to keep us free.

However, their bravery would be futile if it was not backed by a nation whose people were equally determined to defend its national strength and values. We learned during the COVID pandemic that resilience – the ability to withstand an internal or external shock – is now a key factor in national strength. We know that China, Russia and other adversaries are forming alliances to challenge our security and values.  They are strong-willed, though the attraction of our values makes them weaker in the long term. Nevertheless, we are in a dangerous transition. If we ignore the very basics that keep a country sovereign and free, we risk losing our children’s future to those adversaries.

Border Security

The most fundamental duty of any government is to secure its own national borders. Kamala Harris was tasked by President Biden to be the “border czar” in charge of controlling the influx of migrants. By any measure, she miserably failed

The statistics don’t lie. As disclosed by Congressman Chip Roy, at least 7 million migrants illegally crossed the border, including an estimated 2 million “gotaways” who were never identified.  Worse still, the administration knew that thousands of past and new migrants had violent criminal histories yet were turned loose with simple notices to appear.

Then came the hypocrisy. No assistance was given to the border states initially hit by this wave of millions, so they were relocated to other cities where they were put up in hotels and given benefits American citizens could only hope for. Some children ended up being trafficked into child labor and sexual slavery.  The administration actually began flying migrants into the country on the theory that it relieved pressure on the border. When the electoral backlash finally hit, it claimed that it had no power to close the border and tried to use the crisis to blackmail Congress into passing aid to Israel and Ukraine. It didn’t work, and when the uproar continued, Biden suddenly found the authority to control the border that he said he did not have,

The inevitable threat to our internal national security that developed caught the administration by surprise. A new violent Venezuelan gang called Tren de Agua used the opportunity to set up bases in cities and began to terrorize residents. Reports emerged that thousands of Chinese men were crossing the border as well as potential Muslim extremists from the Middle East.

While President Biden bears ultimate responsibility, all of this was done on Kamala Harris’s watch as border czar. Indeed, it broadly matches her own past statements opposing strict immigration enforcement. Thus, there is no reason to believe it will not continue in a Harris Administration and thus rates a minus 3 score – the worst possible globalist score.

Donald Trump clearly appreciates the gravity of this crisis and has committed to closing the border.  Otherwise, he simply has used it as campaign fodder. Any solution will be through a process that will need broad legislative and public support, not an event like the slogan of “Mass Deportation Now”.  Nevertheless, Trump earns a plus 1.5 for promising to secure the border and committing to reverse in some way this threat to our national and economic security.

Manufacturing and Trade

In his book “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics”, realist international relations theorist John Mearsheimer cited manufacturing and infrastructure as key elements of a state’s inherent power. There are two ways to spur the development of manufacturing – tariffs or subsidies and tax expenditures. The Biden-Harris Administration opted for mainly subsidies through the Chips Act and the Inflation Reduction Act.  At the same time, they maintained most of the Trump tariffs on Chinese goods and imposed new restrictions. How has that plan worked out?

On these kinds of economic issues, I rely on Alan Tonelson of the website RealityChek, a former Foreign Policy magazine editor who examines economic issues from the nationalist standpoint. His post from October 18 analyzes the manufacturing data since Biden took office. It shows that, after taking into account the recovery from the COVID shock, manufacturing output has increased only marginally despite the new subsidies. Some sectors like construction materials actually declined. In contrast, spending on goods like steel rose more during the Trump Administration.

It is true that it can take years for manufacturers to build factories and respond to  governmental incentives.  The Biden – Harris Administration deserves credit for promoting manufacturing, but since the results are still uncertain, they earn just a .5 score. Trump has long been a champion of reshoring manufacturing but wants to rely more on much higher and across the board tariffs. His administration showed targeted tariffs can be successful with a minimal or no impact on inflation. Trump deserves credit for his commitment to the issue, but the uncertain impact of his current radical tariff proposals on inflation and the economy earns him just a plus 1.5.

Budget and the National Debt

The numbers are staggering and dangerous. Our national debt has swollen to the point where the interest payments alone now exceed $1 trillion.  The total debt equals over $106,000 per capita, a burden that will pass to our children.  The main causes are rising health care costs, changing demographics and insufficient revenues. The debt endangers the future of the dollar as a reserve currency because of the temptation to simply inflate the debt away. A true nationalist leader would call us to make the tax and spending sacrifices necessary to begin to close this gap.

Neither candidate exhibits any such leadership. Instead, Harris and Trump promise further cuts and expenditures that would swell the budget deficit. Trump and his new supporter Elon Musk trumpet a Department of Governmental Efficiency as a solution along with vague but huge tariffs. This ignores the fact that amount of the budget that is discretionary is dwarfed by entitlement programs.  In the end, government is not a business and should not be. Solutions will require inspirational leadership, not pandering to American’s lowest instincts.

A recent economic analysis shows both the Harris and Trump plans would increase the deficit, though Trump’s is worse. Trump thus deserves a minus 2.5 for his program, while Harris should still be ashamed of her minus 2 score. Leadership on this issue will have to wait, hopefully not after it’s too late.

Make America Healthy Again

The Robert F Kennedy, Jr., presidential campaign began as a reaction to the heavy-handedness of the COVID-19 pandemic response. While this website strongly supported the vaccine and the strategy of the response, the Kennedy campaign raised legitimate questions that merit an open investigation. In the process, Kennedy also highlighted the horrible state of American’s health and the contributing effect of food additives and our poor diets. His disclosures of conflicts of interest within federal health agencies are deeply disturbing. Even former Center for Disease Control head Dr. Robert Redfield has come out in support of Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again program. Kennedy’s recent alliance with the Trump campaign potentially gives him the ability to implement these reforms.

Theodore Roosevelt greatly respected science. However, as an advocate of “the strenuous life”, he would be alarmed at the state of our nation’s health. The Biden- Harris response has been to lionize the bureaucrats and condemn Kennedy and other critics as “anti-science”. This is ironic since the scientific method squarely rests on the process of constant reexamination of hypotheses and theories, not their exaltation into a quasi-religious faith.  Their position deserves a minus 1 for it’s lackadaisical attitude toward a serious issue, On the other hand, will Trump really allow RFKJr to reform the health bureaucracy in the face of opposition from Big Pharma? Kennedy offered to do so in the last Trump administration but was dropped after such opposition. However, RFKJr’s higher profile and grassroots support would make that more difficult now and so we can hopefully assign a plus 1 to Trump in this election.

Political Violence

As someone who became President after an assassination and survived one himself, Theodore Roosevelt would be sickened by the violence and rhetoric of this campaign. TR was no slouch at using strong words, but they never sunk to the crudeness and inflammatory attacks we are seeing today.  He would admire Donald Trump’s defiance in the face of the Pennsylvania assassination attempt but condemn his sympathy for the January 6 insurrection.  He would also be distressed at the mild response of the Harris campaign to the two attempts and its toleration of personal attacks on Trump.

This will be one of the closest presidential elections in American history that will undoubtedly face real questions afterwards.  The best way to build legitimacy for the outcome is for the winning candidate to give the American people a civil and coherent discussion of the issues. Whether it is Biden’s flippant comment about jailing Trump or Trump’s crude insults of Harris, neither campaign has fully adopted such a respectful approach to the process and the electorate.  Both deserve a minus 2 score.  This does not differentiate them, but at least registers a strong rejection of the poor campaign they have inflicted on us.

Conclusion

Theodore Roosevelt called Americans to the hope and sacrifices that helped build the strong America of the twentieth century. In today’s world where that strength is under challenge by the despotism of China and Russia, the scores of Harris and Trump are positively dangerous. All of the issues in this area require the kind of foresight and vision that neither candidate seems able to muster. It will fall to the Congress and then the rest of us to insist that the winner show some of TR’s courageous commitment to our American future.

2024 Election, Domestic Policy, Environment, Politics

2024 American Nationalist Voting Index – Conservation and the Environment

Bob Claude |

Theodore Roosevelt and Sierra Club founder John Muir in Yosemite

Score

Harris + 6 Trump -5

Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I ask nothing of the nation except that it so behave as the farmer behaves with reference to his own children. The farmer is a good farmer who, having enabled the land to support himself and to provide for his children, leaves it to them a little better than he found it himself. I believe the same thing of a nation.

Theodore Roosevelt, The New Nationalism, August 31, 1910

Theodore Roosevelt’s name is synonymous with the cause of conservation in American history. In both action and word, he called the nation to value and preserve the unique beauty of the American wilderness and to husband our natural resources for future generations. The more recent cause of environmental health and safety regulation sprung from this ideal as well as his advocacy of healthy working and living conditions.  However, he differed with Sierra Club founder John Muir in that TR believed sustainable development could occur consistent with the conservation of those resources.  The struggle to reconcile these two ideals still resonates in today’s environmental politics and policy and thus, in this election.

Climate Change

The Biden Administration made the challenge of climate change the centerpiece of its domestic and foreign policy. Its (unfortunately misnamed) Inflation Reduction Act invested $380 billion in new clean energy projects and technology while continuing oil & gas leasing on federal lands (see this previous post). Meanwhile, the EPA increased the price for purposes of costing carbon emissions. To reclaim our legitimacy on the issue overseas, President Biden rejoined the Paris Climate Accord and appointed John Kerry as our first ambassador at large on climate change. These are just a few of the administration’s initiatives that put America at the forefront of addressing this challenge.

Donald Trump could not be more different.  He has ridiculed the very concept of climate change, though he did not actively prevent state and private clean energy projects while President. The only saving grace of his neglect of the issue was his unwillingness to sacrifice American economic security to carbon reduction goals to which China, Russia and the rest of the world were equally uncommitted.

Both candidates, however, have failed to coherently address the one climate issue which should be non-partisan – climate adaptation. Most scientists now admit the world will not reduce carbon emissions enough to avoid the 1.5 -2 C increase in world temperatures necessary to avoid the effects of global warming. Meanwhile, the increasing number of wildfires here in the West and Hurricanes Helene and Milton have strained the resources of the Federal Energy Management agency to the limit (see this article from the Council on Foreign Relations).

The American people deserve a climate adaptation policy that prepares the nation for  all of the changes we face in the future. It should address issues as diverse as land use,agricultural policy, housing affordability and potential population relocation as well as the impact on American foreign policy.  It is not climate defeatism to start pivoting our focus to this challenge.  Unfortunately, the Biden Administration seems to believe so, simply because they have not featured it in their policy.

The good news about Vice President Harris is that she will undoubtedly continue the current arc of the Biden climate policy. The bad news is that she has advocated more radical approaches in the past that would hobble the American economy. Thus, she deserves only a plus 2 on the issue while Trump continues to deserve a minus 2 on it.

Parks and Public Lands

An inscription from a speech by Theodore Roosevelt on the Roosevelt Arch at the north entrance to Yellowstone National Park declares the park to be “for the benefit and enjoyment of the people” . The same goes for all of our national parks, monuments and public lands, which stand as a common heritage of all Americans. Indeed, they have been a model of conservation for the entire world.

President Biden has fully embraced this heritage. He added more than 12.5 million acres of monuments and protected lands and invested billions in land conservation efforts (see this article for more background). The Bureau of Land Management now considers conservation equally important to land development . The only drawback is the backlog of unused land locked up by the Wilderness Act, which could be released for development or joint use. (see this previous post) .

The Trump Administration was a friend of the established national parks and, for example, signed the Great American Outdoors Act appropriating billions for park infrastructure.  However, he was hostile to other public land preservation, reducing the size of several established by the Obama Administration. Moreover, the Project 2025 platform prepared by former Trump officials actually advocates the repeal of the Antiquities Act that TR’s used to preserve the Grand Canyon and authorized Biden’s preservations.

At the same time, both Vice President Harris and Trump have strangely advocated  the construction of housing on public lands despite the fact that the vast majority of it is located in the Western states. Governor Walz qualified her position during the Vice-presidential debate, saying a sale of lands was unnecessary. Nevertheless, the past policies of The Biden administration still earn Harris a plus 2 on the issue while Trump receives a minus 1.5 .

Environmental Regulation

The Biden environment program began by prioritizing climate change and environmental justice initiatives. In addition to reinstating many of the rules abolished by the Trump Admini8stration, the Biden EPA issued a series of regulations to limit the use of and clean up PFAS chemicals found in drinking water, packaging and other consumer goods (see this article). It also acted to protect workers from increasing heat risk by issuing the first outdoor and indoor heat standard (see this article).

These rules address important health and safety issues, but also push the boundaries of agency jurisdiction.  While the Supreme Court just refused to issue a stay of an EPA rule to require power plants to capture 90% of their carbon emissions by 2037, the litigation over the issue continues in the lower courts. One of its PFAS rules also is in serious legal question after the Supreme Courts’ Loper Bright decision (see this article).  The next administration must commit to protect necessary health, safety and environmental regulation by reviewing and updating relevant legislative authorization in light of the Loper Bright decision (see the Draining the Swamp post in this series).

Vice President Harris clearly supports this kind of health and safety regulation, but it is unclear whether she has the will or the interest in working with Congress toward new legislation to better define agency jurisdiction.  She thus receives a plus 2 in this area. Meanwhile, Trump has shifted to a more hostile attitude to such regulation than he previously exhibited during his presidency. It is possible that Robert F Kennedy, Jr.’s historic environmentalism will moderate the influence of Trump’s new corporate allies, and so he receives just a minus 1.5 score.

Conclusion

In the last century, TR’s conservation and environmental ideals have moved from being a novel proposal to becoming a centerpiece of American public policy. Their implementation, however,  remains controversial. The next president must find a way to use the common blessings of our national beauty and our respect for the health of our fellow Americans to unify the nation and reignite our hope for the future.