Tag: 2020campaign

2020 Election, Politics

An American Nationalist Voting Index – Character and Final Score

Bob Claude |

This is part of a series examining the issues in the presidential election. To see other articles in the series. click on the “2020 Elections” link on the Home page.

Final Score

Issues (linked to past articles)BidenTrump
Governmental Reform0-1
Foreign Policy-2.5+1.5
Antitrust & Trade Regulation-.5+2.0
Conservation & the Environment+.5-.5
A Strong America-1.5-1.0
Character(0*2)=0(-3*2)=-6
FINAL SCORE-4.0-5.0

The American presidency is unique in the western world because it combines two functions of government generally separated in other countries – chief of state and chief of government. The chief of state is a unifying figure, often a king or queen, that symbolizes the history and values of the nation. In short, he or she symbolizes its character.  In contrast, the chief of government is usually a prime minister elected through a partisan democratic process and tasked with advocating and implementing certain public policies. Theodore Roosevelt filled both roles as well as any President in history precisely because he had a strong and intelligent character.

Up to now, this series has concentrated on the policies an American nationalist president should pursue; i.e, his role as prime minister. However, the chief of state role is equally important.  An American president who cannot symbolize the nation and its character cannot really be said to be nationalist.  Thus, the score for this role will be doubled to reflect this importance.

Which brings us to Donald Trump.  History may conclude that Trump’s most important accomplishment was winning the 2016 election and shattering the ossified political culture that existed over the previous generation. In one fell swoop, Trump proved the intellectual and political bankruptcy of the foreign policy of liberal hegemony and the domestic policy of small government conservatism.  He had a unique opportunity to develop a new political coalition around a nationalist agenda. Instead, he relied on a self-centered, divisive and authoritarian appeal that left American politics coarser and thus weakened our national character. His attempt to blackmail the Ukrainian government to dig up dirt on Biden justified impeachment (see my post here). His juvenile insults of his opponents reflected his own weakness as a democratic leader, not theirs (see this post).  He seemed to have utter contempt for the basics of American constitutional democracy. Finally, his erratic leadership on the coronavirus pandemic and recent dangerous statements about the efficacy of masks abdicated the chief of state’s role to soothe the nation and unify it to fight a common enemy.  These are just some of the ways Donald Trump has shown his complete inability to serve as an American chief of state.  Roosevelt would have been disgusted and horrified by such a lack of character in a President.  He thus deserves the worst score of -3, which, after doubling, becomes a -6. 

Biden comes off better only in comparison to Trump.   His years in the Senate and then the Vice-Presidency have given him both an appreciation of American democracy and the negotiating skills necessary to navigate the system successfully.  He is not a left-wing woke firebrand, though the same cannot be said of his running mate Sen. Kamala Harris. Her presence on the ticket raises the issue of how often a Biden-Harris Administration would descend into divisive identity politics.  Finally, Biden has definitely shown his age on the campaign trail and in the debates. Does he have the energy and the will to face down the firebrands in Congress or his own appointees (as TR did) and unite the country, or will he be simply a figurehead?  These uncertainties cannot support anything but a zero for Biden, and two times zero is still zero.

As the negative scores above show, we are faced with the sad fact that, once again, there is no true American nationalist running for President on a major party ticket this year.   Even if you exclude the character score, Trump only earns a net +1 for his policy accomplishments.   American nationalists are thus left with the agony of choosing the least globalist candidate in the race.

A Personal Decision

Given these scores, I cannot recommend or endorse either candidate in this election.  I admit that a small disagreement on the scores on any issue could tip the scales significantly either way.  However, Roosevelt’s comment about the importance of national character haunts me.   The decision comes down to whether Trump’s character and behavior best represents the American character.  I strongly believe it does not.

It is a bitter pill to swallow, but I will be voting for Biden in today’s election.  His administration will require strong oversight to control his globalist tendencies and thus I will be voting Republican for Congress. It is especially important that the Senate remain Republican since its confirmation powers over treaties and presidential appointments give it key powers in the foreign policy arena.   After this election is over, American nationalists will have the difficult task of rescuing the nationalist brand from the damage Trump has done to it and building for the 2022 and 2024 elections.

Go vote, and God bless America!

2020 Election, Domestic Policy, Environment, Politics

An American Nationalist Voting Index – Conservation and the Environment

Bob Claude |
Theodore Roosevelt and John Muir in Yosemite

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 the education of 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

Score

Biden +.5 Trump -.5

The two men pictured above represented different conservation philosophies reminiscent of today’s environmental movement. Unlike Roosevelt, John Muir believed that conservation and development could not be reconciled.  Despite Muir’s famous overnight camping trip with TR in Yosemite Park, he voted for William Howard Taft in the 1912 election.  Muir eventually went on to found the Sierra Club.

The contrasting philosophies of TR and Muir are reflected in the environmental approaches of Biden and Trump. However, in the end, their policy differences largely even out.

Climate Change

The differences here could not be more stark.  Trump’s denial of climate science would have met with nothing but scorn from Roosevelt, but Biden’s elevation of the Paris Accord to totemic status despite its wholly voluntary nature would also have met with his disapproval (see my post “Theodore Roosevelt and Climate Change”). This earns Trump a -.5 while Biden receives a +.5.

Environmental Regulation

The Trump Administration embarked on a campaign to spur economic growth by rolling back environmental regulation, especially regarding climate change.  In the process, they threw out a lot of long-standing rules that provided important protections. For example, there was no need to relax auto emissions standards that were not affecting car sales but reduced our gasoline consumption. The withdrawal of rules limiting toxic air emissions from major industrial polluters will expose hundreds to mercury and other known hazardous air pollutants. These unnecessary rule changes mean the Administration deserve a -.5

Biden would restore both the necessary rules, but pursue its climate agenda through more rule-makings similar to those of the high-handed and elitist Obama EPA.  This would likely be a net drag on the economy and so earns Biden  a- .5 as well.

Parks and Public Lands

Here in Montana and the West, we have a love-hate relationship with our parks and public lands. We love the spectacle and the solitude of the wilderness but resent the arbitrary limits on agriculture and other uses imposed from Washington.  For example, the Wilderness Act of 1964 allowed the federal government to temporarily designate thousands of acres off limits to even some recreational use for decades.  The Trump Administration decided it was time to finalize those designations and begin to release some of the land for other uses.  This caused a huge controversy and became an issue in the campaign. Biden has established a goal of designating 30% of US land as wilderness, which would potentially end this review.

Trump has generally been a friend of the parks system, vetoing an attempt by his Interior Secretary to raise the entrance fees to national parks to $70. He also signed the Great American Outdoors Act, which dedicated $2 billion per year to rebuilding park infrastructure (see this post for more). However, he also has reduced the size of some new national monuments previously established by President Obama.

Both Trump and Biden earn +.5 scores on this issue.

Conclusion

Conservation was dear to Theodore Roosevelt’s heart precisely because he loved America and the beauty of its land.  A true American nationalist would seek to protect that beauty for both the present and future. Trump’s denial of climate change hurts his standing on the subject, while Biden’s commitments to the Muir wing of the environmental movement suggests a potential radicalism on environmental regulation and public lands that would stifle development.  Instead, the next administration should adopt the practice of Roosevelt’s farmer and seek to responsibly reconcile the many competing uses.

2020 Election, Foreign Policy, Politics, Realist Theory

An American Nationalist Voting Index – Speaking Softly

Bob Claude |

This is part of a series examining the issues in the presidential election. To see other articles in the series, click on the “2020 Elections” link on the Home page

Score

Biden -2.5 Trump +1.5

While Theodore Roosevelt often engaged in bellicose rhetoric, his foreign policy while president relied more on negotiation and adroit diplomacy to advance American interests. For example, Roosevelt relied on his diplomatic connections more than military power in avoiding an intervention by Germany in Venezuela to collect overdue debt. TR knew U.S. foreign policy needed to change to adapt to new challenges. In his time, it had to adapt by becoming more active in the world.    

As I mentioned in my posts on the History and Future of Nationalism, the world has changed again. The pursuit of liberal hegemony since the end of the Cold War has been proven to be unsustainable. Meanwhile, the rise of China, Russia, India and other regional powers ushered in a dynamic multi-polar system.  Trump‘s election in 2016 was a repudiation of the liberal model. Much of the change since then has been simply talk, but talk in foreign policy can also be substantive.  Nevertheless, foreign policy remains one of the sharpest contrasts between the two candidates.

Realist Foreign Policy

As I have argued previously, the new National Security Strategy promulgated by Trump in 2018 is one of the most important and least understood changes in modern American foreign policy. It rejects the globalist liberal crusade to spread Western values throughout the world and expressly adopts the realist strategy, which holds that international relations is a contest among nations, especially great powers, and that America’s only foreign policy goal should be to preserve its own national security and way of life. The text has its flaws, but it remains a watershed moment in recent history. Trump deserves a +1 for this achievement. 

In contrast, Biden supported the liberal globalist model in the Senate and as part of the Obama Administration.  There are encouraging signs that some of his current advisors recognize the failures of this strategy as discussed in this article from the DefenseOne website.   However, both Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris still focus on human rights rather than the real economic and geopolitical dangers we face. Thus, a Biden-Harris Administration would most likely return to the liberal model and so deserves a -1 rating. 

NATO Expansion

The American commitment to NATO is based on the post-World War II socioeconomic weakness of Europe in the face of looming Soviet Communist expansionism.  It is past time to reduce our commitment since Europe now has the capability to defend itself against Russian aggression.  President Trump has talked about this, but his substantive policy has been quite the opposite.  Much handwringing occurred when the administration announced the withdrawal of 9,000 troops from Germany. However, instead of coming home, they are destined for redeployment in Poland.  Moreover, we agreed to admit North Macedonia, a tiny remnant of the old Yugoslavia, to NATO, and thus to defend it even though it has no relationship to any real threat to the US.  Trump thus has failed to accomplish anything of substance in this area and deserves a zero.

However, Biden’s stated policy is worse. As the DefenseOne article mentions, he supports releasing Europe from the goal to  increase their defense expenditures to 2% of GDP in exchange for “cooperation” on China and Middle Eastern issues.  This ignores the fact that Europeans have very different views on those issues.  This would allow them to piggyback on our defense support while giving up little in return. It thus earns Biden another -1. 

Withdrawal from the Middle East

Perhaps nowhere has liberal hegemony failed so disastrously as in the Middle East. Rather than attempting to solve its centuries-old intractable problems, we should be supporting the development of an internal balance of power and become simply an offshore balancer (see this previous post). Unfortunately, neither candidate fully embraces this approach. Trump abandoned the JCPOA with Iran that controlled its nuclear development and instead threatened military action.  He has reduced, but not eliminated, the number of combat troops in Syria and Afghanistan.  On the positive side, the administration engineered the recognition of Israel by the UAE and encouraged its tacit alliance with Saudi Arabia. This lays the groundwork for a balance of power in the region between an Arab-Israeli coalition vs. Iran.  However, the lack of strategic coordination between all these policies earns Trump only a zero on this subject. 

Meanwhile, Biden supports trying to renew the JCPOA, but calls Saudi Arabia a “pariah state”.   While supporting military withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Middle East in principle, he then conditions it on effective control of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.  Immigration and economic sanctions would be as effective in preventing them from attacking the US.   Biden’s approach does nothing to achieve a realist solution in the region and thus earns him a zero as well. 

China

China presents a multifaceted geopolitical, trade and domestic challenge to America.  President Xi Jin-Peng’s increasingly totalitarian rule and bid for world power came as a shock to globalist elites. It should not have surprised anyone with any knowledge of Chinese history and culture. President Trump rightly alerted the world to the danger and has successfully controlled some of their influence, notably through his campaign against Huawei. However, he has failed to build the global consensus necessary to effectively contain the threat. He rates a +.5 for his efforts.

In contrast, Biden has minimized the threat and was part of an administration that naïvely coddled China and allowed the US to become dangerously dependent on it.  The DefenseOne article suggests that his advisors now realize these errors and accept the need to respond.  However, given the former Vice-President’s past attitudes, he must be assigned a -.5 on this issue. 

Conclusion

There is no question that there are fundamental differences between the philosophies of the two presidential candidates on foreign policy.  Biden has been part of the globalist establishment for years while Trump has challenged it, though often by word rather than deed.  A future strategy must be based on the realism and restraint – speaking softly, not primarily by force – to be both sustainable and successful in the 21st century world.