America First? More Like America Whenever.

Hey,

So, now can we agree that America First is a joke?

No, I don’t mean that realism, or unilateralism, or even “nationalism” are jokes. Many of these schools of foreign policy have serious perspectives. And even though I think foreign policy realism is usually more of a debating tactic than a fully fleshed-out position—I often say the best definition of a foreign policy “realist” is an ideologue who lost an argument—there are definitely serious people who call themselves realists who have thoughtful and important contributions to make.

No, what I mean is this garbage, from Donald Trump’s 2017 speech on the topic:

My foreign policy will always put the interests of the American people and American security above all else. It has to be first. Has to be. That will be the foundation of every single decision that I will make. America.

America first will be the major and overriding theme of my administration.

Nearly four years later, the president of the United States, the commander in chief, and foremost champion of “America First” admitted that in eight conversations with Vladimir Putin, he has not once broached the issue of intelligence showing that the Russian government offered bounties for dead Americans.

Now before you parrot his own defense that this is just “fake news” and “it never reached my desk”—I am happy to concede both points for the sake of argument (even though neither is true, see Wednesday’s Morning Dispatch).

Even if the intelligence wasn’t in his brief (again, it was) and thus never reached his desk, you know what did reach his desk? The New York Times. Once the topic was out in the open, it really didn’t matter whether it was in his brief or came to him through bureaucratic channels.

Let me pause for a moment to make an important point: The president’s desk isn’t magic. In vampire movies, Dracula can’t enter a home unless invited. In 1688, James II thought he could prevent a new Parliament being formed or a new king being named if he threw the official seal of the monarch in the Thames. After all, the seal was the instrument of his power. So without it, the invading Protestant forces would be deprived of any power to do anything. Well, no similar rules apply to the Resolute desk. If the president hears credible information about anything, he can act on it whether or not it physically reaches some random piece of furniture in his office in paper form. I suspect the news of the Demon Semen Doctor didn’t reach the president’s desk either, but that didn’t stop him from acting on it.

Likewise, it doesn’t matter if the Russian bounty story reached the president’s desk. Nor does it matter if every intelligence agency agrees on it. The president could still act on the credible allegation. And by act, I don’t mean “go to war” or “cut ties” with Russia. I mean he could ask the Russian president about it. He could also say things like, “If this story is true there will be serious consequences” or “If this is true, it had better stop right now” in one of his eight conversations. He could also say that publicly.

But Mr. America First went a different way.

What is clear is that Trump doesn’t want the story to be true, and even if it is true, he doesn’t want it to get in the way of his bromance with Putin.

But this isn’t the primary reason Trump’s America First marketing is garbage. Further in the interview, Swan asked about the fact that the Russians have been aiding the Taliban. “Well we supplied weapons when they were fighting Russia too. You know, when they were fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan,” Trump responded. “I’m just saying we did that too.” Watch the video, he clearly means this to be a meaningful rebuttal to reliable information, passed on by his own military, that the Russians are arming the Taliban.

Where to begin? First, the Taliban didn’t exist when we aided forces opposing the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Second, who gives a rat’s ass?

As my colleague David French said, on The DispatchPodcast, in response to this argument, “Thanks alot, Noam Chomsky.” The idea that the Russians are justified in funding the Taliban because we supported the Mujahideen four decades ago is repugnant and silly when it comes from Chomsky. But you know what? Chomsky isn’t an America Firster.

I thought the whole point of America First was to reject abstract or ideological claims that militate against America robustly defending its interests. But according to Trump, we should give some kind of pass to Russia because—seriously—we fought the Soviet Union so now it’s Russia’s turn? Neoconservatism is globalist ideology run amok! But the kindergarten rule “everyone deserves a turn” is cold-eye realpolitik?  Spare me. 

Moreover, in his big America First speech, Trump explicitly endorsed containment and our effort to defeat the Soviets. But, he said, “After the Cold War, our foreign policy veered badly off course.” So he approved of our actions back then. But shrugging at Russia’s campaign(s) against America in 2020 is a necessary corrective to post-Cold War foreign-policy drift? Someone needs to explain that to me.

Also in need of elucidation: How is it that Russia—which is not the Soviet Union anymore, much to Putin’s dismay—gets to inherit some sort of payback promissory note from the Soviets? Trump loves to talk about how we need to move beyond our Cold War attitude when it comes to Russia, but he has no problem with Russia holding on to its Cold War IOUs for America?

Forget how you can square that with America First (hint: You can’t). How can you square that with any notion of credible foreign policy?

This is all just one facet of the larger grift of America First. Like so many things Trump does, America First is a canard people fall back on to construct an intellectual paradigm to defend and rationalize Trump’s often arbitrary and always instinctual style. Trump does something inexplicably stupid and the clean-up crew comes out with anecdotes from Ancient Greece or highfalutin nonsense about being a “disruptor.” He screws American industry and consumers with steel and aluminum tariffs that didn’t even help the steel and aluminum industries overall and, like an army of Roombas unleashed from their docking stations, his enablers come out with 30,000-foot arguments about “globalism” and “America First” to clean up the mess.

Whatever the reason for Trump’s decisions, on alleged bounties for dead Americans or anything else, it’s not the product of an America First philosophy—whatever that might actually be— because nothing he does is based on a philosophy. And if you actually believe in America First or nationalism or any other ideological program that has aligned itself with Trump, I’d recommend swimming away from this presidency as quickly as possible lest you and the ideas you care about get pulled under with it.

That is, if you ever actually cared about ideas in the first place. If not, keep using America First as the bilge pump it’s always been.

Cadet Kirk

You might have seen this video of Charlie Kirk, the foremost leader of the MAGA Youth Auxiliary, talking about masks.

It’s a remarkably terrible bit of reasoning and distortion, so I’m going to remark upon it. 

But first, is it just me or is Kirk pretty obviously mimicking Tucker Carlson’s mannerisms and speaking style? I don’t watch a lot of Charlie Kirk videos—not when I can watch, well, almost anything else. So maybe he’s always talked like this. But the similarity is kind of eerie.

 Anyway, he begins:

Do not force me to wear a mask, it’s that simple. I’m not gonna do it, I’m not. The only time I comply is on the airlines because I actually need to fly the airlines to be able to do my job and travel the country so I can deliver truth to you and make an income and grow Turning Point USA. So that’s the fight I do not fight. But every single time I go into one of these grocery stores, “Where’s your mask?”

I say, well first of all, the science around masks is very questionable, very questionable. In fact some people, some doctors think that masks actually make you sicker and have you less likely to be able to get oxygen and more likely to infect yourself, and less likely to be able to fight the virus, and actually more likely to be able to die sooner. A lot of people believe that. I’ve met many doctors that hold that view.

(Needless to say, I find this to be yet another piece of evidence that Charlie is the lesser of the “Kirks” in the history of conservatism.)

First of all, I do not believe that “every single time” he goes into a grocery store he doesn’t wear a mask. But maybe he’s telling the truth here. But even if he is, I definitely do not believe he tells some grocery store clerk or manager anything like “First of all, the science around masks is very questionable.” Who does that?

Much more importantly, the science around masks is not very questionable. I do not believe that he’s met many doctors who say otherwise, but if he has, those doctors are quacks. I mean, Asians have been wearing masks for a very long time, largely because of their experience with other epidemics and pandemics. Anyone recall reading stories about the severe health problems caused by years of wearing masks in China, Japan or Hong Kong? Why isn’t Charlie angry with the Trump administration—and more recently Trump—for recommending everyone wear a mask in places like grocery stores? (This was a rhetorical question. We know why.)

 More from the voice of youth:

Secondly, we have a huge civil liberty issue here. Why do you have the authority to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body? I thought it was ‘my body, my choice.’ I thought that was the entire thought process as to why we are wrongly able to terminate a million children in the womb every single year. And so, I just don’t like being told what to do generally by the federal government. I’m not a type of person who plays well when the government comes in and starts to say you must put this on your face.

Do we? Do we really, Charlie? Until very recently, there were no mask mandates, rather it was a policy set by the very grocery stores where he claims to lecture the employees on epidemiology. If a store can post “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service” signs, it can also say “No Masks, No Service.” Denying service to people who refuse to cover their torsos and feet is a prerogative of the private sector! But denying service to those who won’t cover their mouth and nose—during a pandemic!—is an affront to liberty! (I also like how he exempts himself from his freedom-fighting courage so that he can fly on planes to raise money and, of course, “deliver truth.”) 

I’ll get to the execrable abortion analogy in a second, but let’s get in this liquid hot garbage:

Now I think there’s some restrictions that I support. I’m actually in the minority, I support seatbelt laws, because I think seatbelts actually save lives, and I actually think it’s not that big of an infringement on your liberty. I kind of disagree with a lot of people on this. I mean, some super strict libertarians say ”Oh no, no seatbelts ever–” OK, if you fly through the window of a car because you didn’t want to wear a seatbelt and all of a sudden I have to pay for your healthcare, that’s ridiculous. A mask might not even work, a mask is questionable at best.

Since when is support for seat belt laws something that puts you in the minority? Regardless, I love formulations that claim maverick intellectual status that get backed up by noting that “some super strict libertarians” disagree with you.

I’m in the minority, I don’t think you should be able to buy heroin from vending machines, unlike “super strict libertarians.”

Also his case for seatbelt laws is sort of the case for masks, more or less. Masks might or might not  do much to protect you from the disease , but there’s ample evidence they help prevent you from spreading it to others.

Which leads me to the really offensive tactic, invoking pro-choice arguments—which he rejects for abortion itself—as dispositive for masks. The argument against abortion—sort of like his argument for seatbelts—is that abortion harms another person. And again, the whole point of wearing a mask is that you’re being asked to make a very, very, small sacrifice for the sake of other people. I don’t like masks. I think wearing them alone in public or alone in your car is stupid. But I am at a total loss as to how self-declared pro-lifers can be so mocking and righteously defiant about trying to protect vulnerable people. Never mind the fact that you can’t really fix the economy without incorporating them into large chunks of daily life.

It’s all stupid, almost deliberately so.

Photograph by Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images.