A New World Order

A New World Order

I often question the decisions made by American presidents and their administrations.  It is something that started as soon as I began voting and taking my citizenship seriously.  I think that all Americans, regardless of political affiliation, should question our politicians and vote for the best people and platforms not solely for party or self-interest.

My parents never saw politics or politicians in the same way. One was a life long Republican and the other was a life long Democrat.  Yet, the Democratic parent usually voted for Republicans, and the Republican parent typically voted Democratic.  They only voted for the same candidate twice.

So my voting patterns were not based on discussions in our household, but rather constant research.  While I applauded Richard Nixon for going to China and Russia, I was disappointed in him because of Watergate.  The president embarrassed himself and the nation.  In contrast, I felt compelled to root for George McGovern because he seemed like an honest man who put the nation in front of his personal goals.  That inspired my belief that voting is an important responsibility but that a political party should not make the final decision.  So, I registered as an independent.

Voting as an independent often means picking losers, but it is also about maintaining personal and American values.  I vote and voted for good people or the best candidates available. Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter made me realize that often, good men can lose and that not all good men are capable of being effective leaders.  That Americans occasionally like ruthlessness and people who flaunt the law. And overtime, seeing how incompetence could be rewarded and that corruption, both political and civic, did not matter if the majority benefited, I came to see why Americans loved Ronald Reagan.

Although he was an agent of change, I disliked President Reagan.  He was the first modern president who relinquished presidential powers to others. And, at times, the administration was driven by ambitious men with political contradictions.  In essence, they were greedy individuals who placed themselves above the nation.  Reagan’s team proposed a “new world order” that overlooked the needs of the poor at home and the critical problems of the Third World. Reagan’s men had a “let them eat cake” attitude except when confronting the Soviet Union.

Despite what people see in Ronald Reagan that benefited the nation, a lot of what he did set the stage for our current problems.  One is the rise of Donald Trump.  Mr. Trump was not the best of the Republican candidates nor was he the best candidate in the general election.  However, Donald Trump could recast the Reagan ideals to a new generation of voters as well as die-hard Republicans.

His appeal is to the forgotten white worker and the wealthy elite.  Discarded in his agenda are the working classes, immigrants, and people of color.  He too has the desire to create “a new world order.”  He unveiled an old label with a new flavor.  Entitled “America First,” Trump’s new world order is an appeal to nativism and economic growth.  

To understand this phrase means uncovering its historical origins.  The “American First” movement started with the America First Committee, a group that did not want America to participate in the Second World War.  Organized in 1940, it included some famous names and employed Charles Linbergh as its primary spokesman.  Counting over 800,000 members by 1941, the AFC was against Lend-Lease and wanted the government to pass congressional acts to ensure that the nation would remain neutral.  As the war continued and it was evident that President Roosevelt would support the Allies, the AFC became more critical of his administration.  Only the attack on Pearl Harbor stopped the growth of the movement.

The term “America First” was also the name of a political party. The America First Party was formed in 2002 when a group of Pat Buchanan’s supporters left the Reform Party.  This conservative group was pro-life, opposed to all aspects of gun control, sought to end affirmative action and racial quotas, and to regulate and enforce immigration. 

These two bodies are the fathers of Trump’s political agenda.  For Trump, “America First” might seem like a slogan but rather is a growing socio-conservative movement.  And like the AFC its roots are deepest in the south and mid-west.  The America First movement is also an extension of ideas associated with the Populist Party of the late 1800s. It embraces nativism, supports gun control, and is against abortion.  Trump claims it is open to all, but the president has made overtures that are racist, anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, and anti-woman.  Trump’s America First pits the First World against the Third World, and it positions Islam as the virus that can destroy the First World.  President Trump has provided few details, but claims he will defeat ISIS and other terror organizations, and set America on a course for financial stability and industrial growth.  The president will challenge the European Union, China, and Japan so that America will regain global dominance. Finally, the Trump plan will force Russia to accept American military superiority and forge a more lasting peace.

Candidates Reagan and Trump both suggested that American prestige was fading and that America needed to restore its place on the world stage.  While the Reagan agenda and call for a new world order are no longer valid, the Trump agenda resonates among the disenfranchised that feel that they have lost their entitlements.  It is heavily influenced by current events, especially fear of “the other.” Additionally, it seeks to take control by force and by neglecting long established relationships.  In essence it is doing what was once considered to be un-American. 

So far, there are many, in America and abroad, that are appalled by the developing Trump agenda. They are shocked by the lack of political correctness and the administration’s arrogance.  In their minds, Trump desires to skirt the law by suggesting he would take Iraq’s oil, endorse torture, ban Muslims, and eliminate or decrease the American contributions to the United Nations, UNESCO, and NATO.  Trump has praised Britain’s departure from the European Union and has indicated that other nations should consider the same course.

A world without a European Union would leave just three global powers-America, Russia, and China.  If our military is enhanced, Trump clearly sees America as the dominant military power, and if our economy is not tied to specific trade agreements that a Chinese economic engine can be reduced in a more competitive world. 

However, like the Reagan agenda, the Trump agenda is simply trying to stall the future. The twenty-first century is not one of First World dominance, but of Third World reckoning.  This has very little to do with ISIS or the fight against Islamic extremism.  It is about maintaining neo-colonialism.  America First is clearly about our financial security.  For it is believed that as soon as the Third World develops stable governments, it will develop its natural resources and nationalize them.  According to some experts, this will force the First World to pay more for goods and change its standard of living. Thus, the larger goal of America First is to destabilize the Third World and minimize threats posed by China, Japan, Korea, Russia and major European powers.  America First’s immediate goals are to weaken Mexico, walk away from oppressive trade deals like the TPP and NAFTA, and force free trade deals that advantage the United States.

For some Americans this new world order is a wonderful thing.  Clouded by tax cuts, infrastructure rebuilds, and saving jobs, the real agenda is easily lost. But what is the cost of such an agenda-does it entail wars, negating treaties, and ignoring international laws and ultimately violating the constitution?  How much will the new world order extract from the American public?  Will they pay for the wall or will Mexico pay for it?  Will the executive orders banning immigration keep us safe or enhance the threat of terror attacks? 

Is this what Americans voted for or is America First a plot by the far right and ultra conservatives to manipulate the public into supporting a break from traditional American values?

In closing, one usually has to give the new administration time to see if it is worthy of continued support.  Traditionally, the first 100 days is a good indication of the motives of the new president.  However, in less than twenty days, the Trump administration has divided the populous.  Tragically, closing the chasm seems unlikely.  There are weekly protests highlighting significant disapproval with policies and policy implementation.  The countdown to 2020 has ready begun and the daily questions facing all Americans are: are we willing to plunder, kill, and violate principles to “make America first”, and are we willing to do this for an additional four years to “keep America first”? 

I’ve already made my decision and don’t think I will be on the losing side of that election.