Monday, January 20, 2025

The Trump Doctrine

 

I was driving home from work last week via a stop at CVS when I heard the news reporting Marco Rubio’s statement before Congress during his Secretary of State confirmation hearings. Now, I haven’t been following the news lately (a conscious decision for 2025), but I did listen and catch snippets of his speech and stayed for the commentary. Needless to say, I liked what I heard. Immensely.

 

The Trump Doctrine.

 

I purposefully remain blissfully ignorant, as I have more important matters to concern myself about, matters under my direct control as opposed to matters 1,500 miles away in Washington DC. So take this as a “man on the street”-style interview. A reporter comes up to me, plays me Rubio’s opening statement, and asks what I think.

 

I agreed with his position regarding the current position of the United States. He posits that since the fall of the Soviet Union / Berlin Wall in 1989/1991, America has bought completely into the globalist view of government. That is, we are all citizens of the world first, and citizens of nations second. We are the world, we are the children, etc. From this follows increasingly open borders to allow for mass movements of populations over into and out of traditional national boundaries. Also trade should freely flow over broders, a position advocated by Republicans over the years.

 

The Trump Doctrine is a shift in government priority to America and Americans first. As in citizens of the United States of America. Immigration is fine as long as the need is there and we are importing the best, brightest, and most productive for our country (and even this should be sharply curtailed). But immigration has to be legal and follow a process. Illegal immigration should not be tolerant. Not every illegal immigrant is a violent criminal, but many are, to the detriment of the innocent who encounter them. Presumably legal immigration will screen out active criminals.


And, no, the crisis at our southern border is not of the same type and kind of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. This was a position advocated to me by a liberal family member.

 

We should stop the overfunding of Ukraine. The way this man on the street sees it, we are sending billions and billions of dollars to the second most corrupt country to fight off its invasion by the most corrupt country. Where is the accounting for this money? Where is it going to? Is it being used for what it is earmarked for?  As of September 2024 the US government has allocated $183 billion to Ukraine. The population of the US is around 340 million. 154 million tax returns were filed. My simple Windows Calculator tells me that each taxpayer has paid $1,188 to Ukraine. That’s about three trips to the grocery store in Biden’s economy.

 

I think it’s a good idea to re-evaluate all our financial promises and obligations to other countries. Israel. NATO. The European union. Japan and Korea. To my man-on-the-street mind, cynical and street-wise, I see these billions of dollars lining corrupt politicians pockets, on their side and ours. Stop and re-evaluate.

 

As far as the open trade position goes, I have no opinion. I am not an economist. That dismal science has always eluded me. So I have to trust to others to make those decisions. To be honest, I didn’t see much of a difference in the parties, until Bidenomics hit (and I remember my family suffering under Carter policies when I was a boy). I use common sense, and Democrat-advocated policies don’t make sense. They don’t add up. But who knows with this economic alchemy. I just want limited government and want them to get their hands off my wallet. End the Fed! (Just kidding … somewhat.)

 

So I am all for America and Americans First. The doctrine of the second Trump administration. The cynical man on the street in me doubts if this will fully be done, thinks that a lot of this is lip service, but he also thinks there’s a better chance of this happening than under a … shudder … Harris administration.

 

And there ya have it, Hopper’s two cents on the guiding principle of the next four years. (And it’s actually worth less than that.)



No comments: