Category: Politics

2024 Election, China, Foreign Policy, Politics, Realist Theory

2024 American Nationalist Voting Index Speaking Softly

Bob Claude |

This is the third in a series examining the issues in the 2024 presidential election. To see other articles in the series, click on the “2024 Elections” link under the heading “Politics” in the above menu.

Score

Harris -6 Trump +1.5

While Theodore Roosevelt was known to engage in bellicose rhetoric, his foreign policy as president was based on adroit diplomacy. Roosevelt knew that the world was in a transition where nations such as the United States, Germany and Japan were becoming powers as the British Empire was reaching its peak. He used diplomatic negotiation to prevent a German intervention in Venezuela and to stabilize great power rivalries in Europe and in Asia, thus increasing America’s soft power.

The Biden-Harris ticket campaigned on the slogan “a foreign policy for the middle class”. After the election, they implemented the exact opposite- a policy that desperately tried to maintain the American unipolar hegemony of the 1990’s and extended our scarce resources far from our limited national interests.  The only people served by such a policy were business and foreign elites.

The correct worldview is that we now live in a period of great power competition on its way to becoming a G0 world; that is, a world where there are only regional powers and no superpowers. In a G0 world, the US would be the preeminent power in the Western Hemisphere with the ability to influence other issues in the world primarily by diplomacy. In the meantime, the US must live and act in the current great power reality while planning for this future state. I advocated abandoning liberal interventionism in favor of a realist approach in my series “Nationalist Foreign Policy -a History” (see the Foreign Policy tab above). Trump and Harris have very different philosophies on these crucial issues.

National Security Strategy

Every new presidential administration produces a document called a National Security Strategy (“NSS”) that shapes American foreign policy as well as its perception overseas. Comparing those of the Biden and Trump Administrations reveals a marked difference in strategic emphasis and priorities.

The Biden NSS speaks repeatedly of addressing “shared challenges” that “are not secondary to geopolitics but are at the very core of security and should be treated as such.” This would be accomplished by a “rules-based international order” that would grow “the connective tissue” between the US and other nations to spread democracy and strengthen national security. In addition, it expressly seeks to use foreign policy to “spur reform and rejuvenation domestically”.  A more globalist, liberal interventionist policy could not be imagined.  The best that can be said is that it is a statement of how to achieve a G0 world, while trying to wish away the geopolitical realities of today’s world.

In contrast, the NSS of the Trump Administration leads with the statement the government’s first duty is to its citizens. It expressly rests on a “principled realism”.  The most fundamental duty of the President is to protect the homeland, our way of life and American interests overseas. It recognizes that we are in a great power rivalry with China and Russia.  Our allies and other countries can “magnify our power” but are expected to help us address threats.

We can assume that Vice President Harris and former President Trump would implement these past strategies of their respective administrations, though the details may differ. Harris maybe even more globalist if her administration includes more radical “progressive” globalists as this article suggests. Based on their record and this possibility, she deserves a  minus  2 score. Trump has often said he believes in a more “transactional” foreign policy, which is consistent with a realist approach. His running mate Sen. JD Vance also wants to reorient American foreign policy away from the Biden view to a more realist strategy (see this article). The Trump– Vance ticket thus earns a plus 1.5 score on this fundamental issue.

Ukraine and European Policy

The Russo – Ukraine war has now ground on for more than two years. The Ukrainians achieved a dramatic victory in preventing Russian forces from taking Kyiv. We now know that a peace could have been negotiated at that time, but the US and Britain encouraged Ukraine to continue the war to attempt to recover the Donbas region and Crimea (see this article from Foreign Affairs magazine– subscription required).  The West, particularly the United States, then begin shipping arms to Ukraine, but only to the extent it did not provoke Russia to escalate the war into NATO. The result has been another “forever war” with no clear strategy or achievable goal at the cost of thousands of Ukrainian lives.

The war has also proved to be a crucible of fire testing the strength of NATO and our European relationship. Eastern Europe stepped up to support Ukraine while Western Europe, in particular Germany, gave limited support. Some NATO members such as Hungary actually opposed aid and overtly sympathized with Russia. These divisions call into question whether it is in our interest to remain a NATO member, especially in light of Europe’s potential defense capability (see this past post on the issue).

The next administration needs to concentrate on bringing peace to this conflict.  Ukraine will have to accept the loss of the Donbas and Crimea and Russia will have to accept the sovereignty and, thus the loss, of Ukraine. At the same time, we should have no illusions about Vladimir Putin.  He is a ruthless dictator who, among other war crimes, orchestrated the kidnapping of hundreds of Ukrainian children to be placed with Russians. We cannot have normal relations with him. For example, we should immediately kick the Russians off of the International Space Station.  

However, the increasing importance of East Asia and our neglect of Latin America require a reassessment of our NATO commitment. Vice President Harris appears committed to continuing the war in Ukraine and our current NATO commitment despite these realities and so deserves a minus 2.  In contrast, Trump pushed Europe to increase its defense spending to counter Russia and criticized Germany for its reliance on Russian oil and gas. He has said he would settle the Ukraine War even before he takes office, though without specifying how. His past efforts and current attitude merits a plus 1 score in this area.

Israel and Middle East Policy

As of this writing, Iran has just launched a barrage of missiles at Israel in retaliation for its killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon. It is an escalation of a war that has extended far beyond the originally stated goal of freeing the hostages that were taken during the October 7 raid of Hamas. Instead, Israel has used the raid as an excuse to widen the conflict to attack Hezbollah as well as expand its control over the West Bank in violation of the Oslo Accords and international law. They call it “mowing the grass”; i.e., not eliminating the problem, but simply keeping it under control.

As I argued in this post, we have an interest in a stable Middle East, not one regularly wracked by war that threatens world stability. Israel is a critical pillar of this stability, but so is the Arab and Muslim world. The Biden Administration has endangered this balance by tethering American policy to Israel without imposing any real costs to its expansive goals that contradict our own stated policies in support of a Palestinian state. Unfortunately, both Harris and Trump support this myopic policy, though Harris’s connections to pro-Palestinian groups in the Democratic Party make her more open to change. Trump successfully negotiated the Abraham Accords normalizing relations between Israel and some Arab states, but those are in tatters now. In light of these performances, Harris and Trump both receive a minus  2.

China and Asia

The vaunted “pivot to Asia” during the Obama Administration has become a circular pirouette during the Biden administration. Its concentration on Ukraine and Israel has led it to ignore crises in East Asia that directly threaten important Pacific Rim nations. China has effectively annexed the South China Sea in violation of international law and is now regularly challenging Philippine control of its seas. Meanwhile, Xi Jin-peng threatens Taiwan, which is only now starting to ramp up its defenses.  

A Chinese attempt to take over Taiwan would have severe economic and geopolitical consequences for the world.  Nevertheless, it would be impractical and possibly disastrous for the US to stop a military invasion. It is more likely that China would simply try to strangle the island with various levels of blockades.  The American people need to be prepared for the tariffs and other sacrifices that may be required to impress upon the Chinese leadership the costs to China of a forcible takeover.  We will need the support of East Asian nations in this effort. President Biden’s support of Israel has made this more difficult in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country that straddles key shipping lanes. Trump led the way in raising alarms about China’s rise during his administration while Harris’s approach is unknown. Thus, Trump receives a plus 1 on this issue and Harris gets a zero.

Conclusion

American foreign policy will succeed in the present and future multipolar world only if it is clear, flexible and based on realist international theory.  Donald Trump seems to understand the need to change our current unipolar and interventionist approach while Kamala Harris will likely continue it in some form.  It is time for an American president with Theodore Roosevelt’s courage and vision and who will lead the transition to a foreign policy that effectively serves the American people and, in the end, the rest of the world as well.    

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

Progressive Nationalism and the Goals of Community and Opportunity

Bob Claude |

“Our country, this great Republic, means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy, the triumph of popular government, and, in the long run, of an economic system, under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him. That is why the history of America is now the central feature of the history of the world; for the world has set its face hopefully towards our democracy, and, oh my fellow citizens, each one of you carries on your shoulders, not only the burden of doing well for the sake of your own country, but the burden of doing well, and seeing that this nation does well for the sake of mankind.”

Theodore Roosevelt’s New Nationalism speech in Ossawatomie, Kansas, remains the best expression of American progressive nationalism. He began by saying America must be a strong example of democracy in the world. America is strong when her people are strong, and her people are strong only when they can be the best they can be. We lead because of who we are and what we stand for. TR called all Americans to look beyond their own interests and realize they are a part of the bigger, more important, community of their nation and, indeed, the world.  This love of country also means love of the land it enjoys and so TR’s commitment to conservation was a natural outgrowth of his commitment to America and its promise.

“One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege…. Exactly as the special interests of cotton and slavery threatened our political integrity before the Civil War, so now the great special business interests too often control and corrupt the men in methods of government for their own profit.”

Opposition to “privilege” was a constant theme of TR’s progressivism. Large fortunes and corporations, especially those gained from mere financial speculation, were both a threat to democracy and to equal opportunity. Roosevelt was thus among the first American statesmen to recognize that “bigness”, even if obtained lawfully, could be a threat to democracy because of its potential to grow in power beyond the nation’s ability to manage it. Property thus exists to serve the common good and not selfish private interests inimical to the broader interests of the nation.

“The fundamental thing to do for every man used to give him a chance to reach a place in which he will make the greatest possible contribution to the public welfare. Give him a chance, not push him up if he will not be pushed. Help any man who stumbles; if he lies down, it is a poor job to try and carry him…”

Progressive nationalism offers an opportunity, not a guarantee. TR had no patience for shirkers. Every citizen must work hard, develop their skills and contribute to society not just for their own benefit, but for that of the nation as well. At the same time, Americans deserved to live dignified, individual lives that enabled them to raise good families and build successful local communities. TR’s faith in America rested on his faith in the average American and his belief that most people would seize this opportunity and make the most of it.

“I do not ask for over centralization; but I do ask that we work in a spirit of broad and far-reaching Nationalism when we work for what concerns the people as a whole….. The national government belongs to the whole American people, and where the whole American people are interested, that interest can be guarded effectively only by the national government.”

TR was no libertarian. As a Lincoln Republican, he believed a strong Union required a strong federal government. As business became more interstate in size and scope, he realized that only an effective national government could manage the power these businesses were able to wield. The Constitution also clearly gave only the federal government the power to manage foreign and defense policy.  Thus, a strong and effective federal government was necessary to protect America’s increasing interests overseas.

“Justice and fair dealing among nations rest upon principles identical with those which control justice and fair dealing among the individuals of which nations are composed, with the vital exception that each nation must do its own part in international police work. If you get into trouble here, you can call for the police; but if Uncle Sam gets into trouble, he has got to be his own policeman; and I want to see him strong enough to encourage the peaceful aspirations of other peoples in connection with us…I should be heartily ashamed to see us wrong a weaker power, and I should hang my head in shame forever if we tamely suffered wrong from a stronger power.”

Theodore Roosevelt knew the world was inherently anarchic and thus dangerous, especially for a democracy like the United States. He was a constant advocate for a strong defense and, at the same time, relied as President on adroit diplomacy to avoid using it as much as possible. His diplomacy recognized that the world was full of diverse cultures and powers whose differences must be respected and sometimes even emulated.  In particular, he often held up Switzerland as an example of an enlightened and strong form of nationalism. The Swiss commitment to national military service and neutrality helped knit together a country of diverse cultures and languages (see this article for a modern description of Swiss nationalism). After negotiating the Russo-Japanese peace treaty, he became an advocate for international arbitration of disputes.

Progressive nationalism thus is not an exclusively American concept.   The American version is unique since it seeks to reconcile the often-competing goals of liberty, community, and opportunity amid a welter of diverse peoples and interests. This is why ethnic nationalism is destructive and inherently un-American. Our unity springs from our ideals and not just from our homeland and history.  Theodore Roosevelt believed we were at our best when we married those ideals with our love of our land and our heritage.  We have done it before, and we can do it again!

2024 Election, Politics

2024 American Nationalist Voting Index – Draining the Swamp

Bob Claude |

This is the second in a series examining the issues in the 2024 presidential election. To see other articles in the series, click on the “2024 Elections” link under the heading “Politics” in the above menu.

Score

Harris 0 Trump -5

“Preserving democracy” has dominated the rhetoric of this year’s presidential campaign. Democrats rightly condemn the horrific January 6 insurrection and takeover of the Capitol while casually dismissing Republican’s concern about ballot security and tabulation. As important as the legitimacy of the election process is to the success of democracy, Theodore Roosevelt’s jarring call above reminds us that elections are hollow and deceptive if they do not result in policies that match the goals of the average American.

Sadly, the same alliance TR condemned then has risen from the grave to haunt us. Only Robert F Kennedy Jr. seemed to understand this, but he is now sidelined as a supporter of former President Trump. Thus, we find ourselves choosing between a candidate crowned in a back room deal who never received a single vote in the primaries and an unstable septuagenarian leader of a fringe cult. It looks more like a Russian or Chinese election than anything Thomas Jefferson would recognize.

Nevertheless, choose we must, but in a way that at least begins to challenge this hidden corruption. We can start by addressing three of its pillars – the avalanche of dark campaign money, the wily administrative state and the use of the courts as a weapon against democratic choice.

Campaign Finance and Voting Rights Reform

Our present campaign finance mess rose out of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case which found one of Roosevelt’s initiatives to limit corporate influence in federal elections unconstitutional. The case raised important First Amendment issues, but the same result could have been achieved on much different grounds. Instead, it unleashed a flood of dark money from not only the wealthy and corporations, but potentially foreign governments as well. Many have called for a constitutional amendment to overrule the decision, but there is nowhere near the two-thirds majority in Congress necessary to send such an amendment to the states for ratification.

The Democrats introduced a bill early in the Biden Administration called the “For the People Act” to improve campaign finance disclosure and preserve voting rights. Unfortunately, it was a 800-page legislative grab-bag of good and bad ideas (see this post for a more detailed description of the good). It would have expanded and tightened disclosure requirements for corporate contributions (the “DISCLOSE Act”), strengthened the Foreign Agents Registration Act (“FARA”), and improved election integrity, among many other improvements. However, it met with solid opposition from Republicans and serious questions from moderate Democrats. 

Sen. Joe Manchin then drafted a compromise that preserved the better parts and added several new ones (see this post for a summary). It preserved the DISCLOSE Act corporate requirements and the FARA amendments, allowed practical voter identification requirements, preserved early voting rights, and made Election Day a national holiday. The bill also would have addressed discriminatory voting practices and election integrity issues. However, Republicans continued to oppose the bill and it can be safely assumed that Trump does as well. President Biden supported it and so Vice President Harris undoubtedly does also.

Meanwhile, the flood of illegal and other immigrants into the country over the last three years has raised legitimate issues about the possibility of non-citizens voting in our elections. This is currently illegal, but there is no national procedure for verifying eligibility. Texas recently discovered 6,500 non-citizens on its voter registration rolls.  The SAVE Act would establish documentation requirements for establishing citizenship, which could include not only the usual methods like a birth certificate, but also other more accessible methods. Democrats oppose it as unnecessary, but the Texas example justifies the concern.

Biden and Harris’s support of the For the People Act and the Manchin proposal earns them points, though their opposition to the SAVE Act means they earn only 1.5 on the nationalist scale.  Meanwhile, Trump’s and the Republican’s position on both rates a minus 1.5.

Curbing the Administrative State

Theodore Roosevelt originally believed that corporate reform would be best accomplished through federal agency action. If he were alive today, TR would be horrified at the Frankenstein‘s monster that has developed from the growth of administrative agency power. From the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to the Clean Power Act, this new form of “invisible government” has arrogated to itself the right to restructure vast swaths of American life with only the input of a select few.  Robert F. Kennedy Jr. highlighted how invisible alliances between business and agencies could endanger the health and welfare of American citizens, the exact opposite of TR’s vision.

The Supreme Court finally forced the issue with its recent opinion in Loper Bright vs. Raimondo, which ended the court’s deference to agency interpretations of the extent of their powers. Congress and the next administration now have an opportunity to thoroughly review agency powers, clarify and specify the necessary ones, and insure that only the democratically elected members of Congress may, by legislation, enact major policies decisions that affect their constituents’ lives.

Unfortunately, neither candidate has a history of reining in executive power.  Instead, they both boast of the executive orders they will sign on their first day in office, not the legislation they will work with Congress to enact. The Biden- Harris administration has responded to the Loper Bright decision with attack rhetoric, which matches their longtime addiction to the use of sweeping agency powers. It earns them a negative 2 score on this issue.

Meanwhile, the Republican House passed a bill last year called the REIN Act, that would require Congressional approval of major rules. The alliance of RFKJr with the Trump campaign suggests the former President would be more supportive of such legislation. However, Trump’s rhetoric and his own past addiction to executive power suggests caution, and so he merits only a zero score on this issue.

Lawfare

Tort reform was one of my first political causes because, as an attorney, I was outraged that the manipulation and gaming of the system by a few well-connected trial lawyers was producing unjust results and enriching only themselves.  Over the last few years, the same type of abuses have moved into the political realm. It acquired the name “lawfare”, which literally means warfare through criminal and civil litigation designed to suppress rights, not protect them.

Both Republicans and Democrats have engaged in lawfare or the threat of it.  We now know major social media sites like Facebook and Twitter (now X) were bullied by the Biden Administration to suppress or remove speech discussing the pandemic response, the Hunter Biden business scandals and other controversial issues. The Democrats engaged in a concerted campaign to keep RFK, Jr. off the ballot and, in a bizarre twist, are suing to keep him from withdrawing and thus assisting Trump.  The New York criminal and civil cases against Donald Trump were brought on shaky legal theories and by a district attorney who campaigned on prosecuting Trump. Meanwhile, the Georgia case is mired in scandals surrounding its prosecutors. There is no question that Trump brought much of this on himself, especially the classified documents case pending in Florida. Nevertheless, Harris and the Democrats encouraged this concerted legal campaign and thus rate a minus 1.5  for these tactics.

Unfortunately, Trump’s response has been to threaten the use of similar lawfare against his perceived enemies, bragging about being “dictator for a day” and proclaiming his own enemies list.  We can hope that RFKJr’s commitment to free speech might blunt Trump’s rage, but there is no guarantee.  These vulgar and incendiary threats only feed this un-American trend and also rates a minus 1.5 on this issue.

There is another form of law enforcement abuse that continues to affect local communities. Four years ago, the killings of African-Americans by the police sparked nationwide protests and led to changes in policing practices in most of our major cities.  However, The Economist magazine recently pointed out that the rate of police killings actually has increased since then, mainly in rural areas and smaller cities (link requires free subscription) . There are several bills, including the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, that would establish standards and practices to reduce these killings. The Biden Administration supported such legislation and also funded an increase in the number of police officers and innovative responses that reduce the likelihood of violence (see also my previous post on this issue).  Republicans have generally opposed these reforms, though they have talked about federal law enforcement issues.  The Biden-Harris approach merits a plus 2 on this issue while Trump and Republicans rate a minus 2.  

Conclusion

For all the rhetoric about saving democracy, the two candidates actually score poorly on this critical and most basic value.  Vice President Harris would open up campaign finance and voting, but then deprive those elected officials of any real authority by pursuing much of her policy through the shadow government of the administrative state. Meanwhile, Trump deserves his reputation in the media as a danger to democratic values. Yet, as I mentioned in the introduction, democracy is not just about using the right process, but also about producing the right policies. The remaining posts in this series will dive into their most important policy positions.

Next: Speaking Softly – Foreign Policy