Posted on 04/28/2016 1:44:57 PM PDT by onyx
RUSH: So we had the Trump speech yesterday and there has been all kinds of reaction to the speech, predictable and some shocking, some surprising. We'll get into it today.
Trump used a phrase in this speech, and I'm gonna tell you, this is classic, folks. This little bit of information I'm gonna impart here to you is a great way to understand the dynamics of this race. Trump, in his speech, used a phrase "America first." Well, that phrase has a pedigree. That phrase is well attached to something very, very important and potentially very, very negative in American history.
It goes back to World War II, and it was used by those who didn't want to get anywhere near stopping the Nazis. "America first" was the rallying call of anti-war people, for the most part, who said, "The hell with it. We don't care. They're not affecting us. If they want to take over Europe, fine and dandy."
So here comes Trump using the phrase "America first." Well, the learned intellectuals in the foreign policy corridors of America needed the vapors. "Oh, my God! Oh, my God! Oh, my God! Oh, my God, does Trump even know? Oh, my God." They can't get over it. "Does he even know," they asked, "does he even know that 'America first' means support of the Nazis? Oh, my God! Oh, my God." And they started fainting and going on TV and acting like one of the greatest violations of foreign policy understanding and (gasping).
So the debate began, does Trump even know what he said? Does he even know what "America first" means in terms of its historical context in World War II? Or is he just out there using a phrase "America first" because he's appealing to a brain-dead bunch of voters, which is how the establishment looks at Trump supporters.
And it doesn't matter, because I'll tell you what's gonna happen. If the people who occupy the learned and elite foreign policy corridors go overboard on this "America first" business, it's not gonna separate Trump supporters from Trump. The intellectuals of the foreign policy corridors, the establishment, the clubs and the associations and the think tanks and the intellectual hangouts and the domains, if those people start harping on Trump, your average Trump supporter could say, "See? See? This is exactly the kind of nose-in-the-air arrogance that we want to get rid of."
The attempt to insinuate that Trump doesn't care about the Nazis, that's how they're gonna hear it and it's just gonna cement them even tighter to Trump. It's not going to make them think that Trump doesn't know what he's talking about, which would be the objective of people who bring up this "America first" business.
But the takeaway from Trump's speech yesterday, the only thing that matters, as far as Trump supporters are concerned -- and the rest of the people out there can analyze this, and they are. You have some people calling it incoherent and vacuous and empty and wandering in vain for search of a thought. There were people, pro-Trumpists, who said that it was the most important and timely substantive foreign policy speech since 1981. Of course the people that said that caused a massive reaction from the professionals in the foreign policy corridors of elitism.
But as usual there's just way too much analysis. People overanalyze this and apply their own biases, prejudices or whatever to what Trump is doing, and there's just really one takeaway. If you want to know whether or not Trump's speech yesterday was a hit with the voters that he has energized, all you have to know is Trump said the following: We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism. That's it. Everything before and after is irrelevant. That line made the speech one of the greatest ever.
That line, as far as Trump supporters are concerned, was all they needed to hear. That was awesome. That was right on the money. We're gonna take it to 'em. We're not gonna play second fiddle anymore. We're not gonna sell American interests out. We're gonna put America first. We're gonna get rid of the globalists. And I guarantee you that's all they needed to hear.
Now, other people are gonna analyze it much deeper and so forth, and have. We could spend some time -- I mean, sometimes it's fun to analyze the analysis, because there's so many people pulling their hair out today. They're just hoping and praying that every time Trump shows up and makes what is billed as a serious speech, they want him falling flat. And they want everybody to realize that he's fallen flat. And they want everybody to realize that Trump doesn't know what he's talking about, 'cause that's what they think.
And when that doesn't happen, they panic. And then they go overboard trying to convince people, "You're wrong! Trump's not this great guy! He doesn't know what he's talking about! He's gonna put the country at great risk." People don't want to hear it, don't believe it, they think Trump's the only guy who does get it, in terms of understanding America's enemies, America's opponents, what we're up against, and how we have to deal with it.
END TRANSCRIPT
RTFQ - Read the article. That is exactly what he said.
Exactly. It is disappointing to see the number of folks who cannot read and try to read between the lines while turning the page sideways.
I think a long enough time has passed where a good catch phrase can be repurposed like “America First”. It is an easy to communicate term that gets to the gist of an ideology so why not use the term again for a modern era (which has no direct connection to the past use of term).
The best reason to use the phrase is that it flushes out all the sclerotic hypochondriac hypocrites in the foreign policy “community.”
For those who are serious about understanding history, the “America First” movement was a lot more complex than the simpletons who pass for an educated elite these days will ever understand, let alone admit.
The context needs to be understood less as being pro-Nazi, which 99% of “America First” was not, than about not wanting to repeat the way we ended up involved in World War I.
The origins of WWI are murky and every one of the major powers has been blamed, but I think many recent scholars would agree that almost no one wanted a general European war in 1914 over Serbia, but no one was willing to back down. Austria certainly had a right to redress from Serbia over the assassinations. Remember: based on French egging on, the Russians mobilized (against Germany) first. Once the Russian mobilized, the Germans had to, which triggered the waterfall. Britain would never have gotten involved if it weren’t for the Foreign Secretary, without the approval and the real understanding of the cabinet, making the relationship with the French closer and closer, including military conversations integrating plans with the French even when there was no actual alliance. The relatively recent [i]The Sleepwalkers[/i] is pretty good.
At any rate, even though the US had no reason to be involved, Wilson was rabidly pro-British and connived with the British to minimize British violations of American neutrality and maximize German violations (which were much less early on). William Jennings Bryan, Wilson’s first Secretary of State, actually resigned as a matter of principle because Wilson wasn’t really neutral. Completely contrary to American historical neutrality in Europe and contrary to what he claimed when running for reelection in 1916. And then there was the utter disaster of Versailles.
By the 1930s, a lot of people knew this, and did not want to get involved in a repeat; they distrusted, rightly enough, French and British motives and did not want to be part of wars against Germany or Russia for that matter. In 1940, the draft was passed by a single vote.
What made sense at first, of course, did not make sense by late 1941, and after the US was attacked, the movement faded away.
In that context
I am a 24/7 member I know what he said and how he sad it.
Oh well. I am not particularly a Rush fan so if you want to put words in his mouth that make him look worse than he is, don’t let me stop you.
Thank you.
Every country’s foreign policy is based on what’s best for that country. Except ours, of course. Because if ours was based on what’s best for us, that’d be racist and xenophobic.
So why is Rush making the comparison when no one else is? His concern for Trump is revealing imho.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/americafirst/index
Gosh, an anti-war group, which was financially supported by non-crony-capitalists?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee
> ...The AFC was established on September 4, 1940, by Yale Law School student R. Douglas Stuart, Jr. (son of R. Douglas Stuart, co-founder of Quaker Oats), along with other students, including future President Gerald Ford, future Peace Corps director Sargent Shriver, and future U.S. Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart. Future President John F. Kennedy contributed $100, along with a note saying “What you all are doing is vital.” At its peak, America First claimed 800,000 dues-paying members in 450 chapters, located mostly in a 300-mile radius of Chicago.
The AFC gained much of its early strength by merging with the more left-wing Keep America Out of War Committee, whose leaders included Norman Thomas and John T. Flynn.
It claimed 135,000 members in 60 chapters in Illinois, its strongest state. Fundraising drives produced about $370,000 from some 25,000 contributors. Nearly half came from a few millionaires such as William H. Regnery, H. Smith Richardson of the Vick Chemical Company, General Robert E. Wood of Sears-Roebuck, Sterling Morton of Morton Salt Company, publisher Joseph M. Patterson (New York Daily News) and his cousin, publisher Robert R. McCormick (Chicago Tribune).
The AFC was never able to get funding for its own public opinion poll. The New York chapter received slightly more than $190,000, most of it from its 47,000 contributors. Since it never had a national membership form or national dues, and local chapters were quite autonomous, historians suggest that the organization’s leaders had no idea how many “members” it had.
Serious organizing of the America First Committee took place in Chicago not long after the September 1940 establishment. Chicago was to remain the national headquarters of the committee. To preside over their committee, America First chose General Robert E. Wood, the 61-year-old chairman of Sears, Roebuck and Co.. Wood remained at the head of the committee until it was disbanded in the days after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The America First Committee had its share of prominent businessmen as well as the sympathies of political figures including Democratic Senators Burton K. Wheeler of Montana and David I. Walsh of Massachusetts, Republican Senator Gerald P. Nye of North Dakota, and Socialist Party leader Norman Thomas, with its most prominent spokesman being aviator Charles A. Lindbergh. Other celebrities supporting America First were novelist Sinclair Lewis, poet E. E. Cummings, Washington socialite Alice Roosevelt Longworth, film producer Walt Disney, actress Lillian Gish and architect Frank Lloyd Wright. The many student chapters included future celebrities, such as author Gore Vidal (as a student at Phillips Exeter Academy), and the future President Gerald Ford, at Yale Law School.
Interesting info.
Well said.
“The group dissolved within three days of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.”
I believe it.
The few times I’ve heard Limbaugh I hear someone trying to fill up HOURS of air time-—
Talking slowly. Pausing. Repeating what he just said.
If he can make millions doing that—good for him.
He and Mark Levin both destroyed themselves completely by coming out ON THE SAME DAY suddenly attacking Trump all out,
showing that both of them dance for the same masters.
But what is sad is that very ignorance. A frontrunning candidate for POTUS and his staff should have a much better knowledge of American history (especially from the beginning of the twentieth century forward), law, customs, and traditions than this Trump campaign has exhibited at times.
If the Trump campaign had that grasp of history as it should, "America First" would have been changed to something something different but similar in the speech, and this needless controversy would have been avoided.
Good point. Do you think someone might have done this purposely, not to hurt Trump but to bring the issue out in the open? In other words, to emphasize that being for America first does not mean anything but what it says? If so, they have done it.
I have a feeling the speechwriter has never heard of the more recent America First party of the turn of the 21st century.
Rush is a complicating factor. I have never listened to his show although I admire his talent, so I’m not the best one to analyze his comments in context. But the fact that he is not a Trump supporter is a certainly a good reason to take his words very unseriously. Yes, I get the point of others that he is debunking those who say America First is Nazi. OK, but he has given the whole issue more play by doing so.
Most important, IMO: We are in a different era now than 75 years ago. We have become finally too globalist for the American good. It’s probably time to temper our concern, to continue to help the rest of the world but not to the extreme detriment to Americans that we are experiencing now, especially since those touting “globalism” are doing it for their own interests, not America’s.
Those on this thread who remind us that Trump wants to wipe out ISIS are right on target. ISIS is the modern-day Nazis, and such a great evil that anyone who does not see them as the top concern is either in denial or on their side.
“America First” is a rather broad concept and a good slogan, so it’s only natural it’s been used before.
I think people by and large are ignorant of history. So I’m not sure if this is much of a controversy. Does Joe Voter know about the past use of the phrase? I doubt it. Would he care if he did know, or did he hear about it on the news and decide it matters to him? I wouldn’t imagine so.
It’s a good phrase to reclaim from past abuse, must it remain forever tainted?
Unfortunately, very true in general, disregarding for the sake of discussion the "America First" phrase. The dumbing down of education for four decades has resulted in an American electorate more prone to appeals by candidates based more on primitive emotion and instinct rather than reason. Politics in the media is treated more like an entertainment event, rather than the serious business of helping the public to decide rationally what kind of government we're going to have.
Am intellect named George Santayana said about 100 years ago, "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." Well, if the masses are ignorant of history (and the dumbing down of American society guarantees that ignorance is pervasive), that means the society is doomed!
Gimme a break.
Should Trump’s position be “American Last” like Obama? Or “American - Ready to be Ripped OFF by Every County in the World” or “American - in the Middle and Clueless??
This isn’t a history ‘gotcha’ issue... it’s a reality. AND NO, TRUMP IS NOT HITLER.
What a load of bullsh*t..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.