Posted on 09/19/2017 5:04:12 PM PDT by Jagermonster
POLITICAL VALUES The president, addressing the United Nations General Assembly Tuesday, laid out a nationalist basis for international interaction and lashed out at a group of 'rogue nations' led by North Korea and Iran.
UNITED NATIONS, N.Y.—President Trump used his first appearance before world leaders assembled at the United Nations’ annual opening session Tuesday to offer a vision for international cooperation that was part red meat, part kumbaya.
On the philosophical side, the “America First” president laid out a nationalist basis for international interaction, saying that national sovereignty and not multilateralism should be the foundation for international efforts to address the world’s pressing issues.
“I was elected to give power to the American people where it belongs,” Mr. Trump said, adding, “just like you, the leaders of your countries, will always, and should always, put the citizens of your countries first.”
Yet Trump’s full-throated praise of national sovereignty left no room to recognize that it was national sovereignty run amok that resulted in the global ashes from which the United Nations and an unprecedented era of multilateral cooperation arose seven decades ago.
[ * * * ]
While Trump’s harsh words for North Korea and Iran were largely reiterations of existing positions, it was the theme of national sovereignty that offered what sounded like an earnest effort to explain a leadership approach that jarred the world.
A senior White House official speaking Monday on condition of anonymity portrayed Trump’s speech as “in essence explaining how the principle of ‘America First’ is not only consistent with the goal of international cooperation, but a rational basis for every country to engage in cooperation.”
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
One commentator quoted in the article insists that an ‘individual nation first’ philosophy contradicts the goal of international cooperation. I think he’s shortsighted. Putting national interests first removes the incentive to cooperate just for the sake of cooperation, and leaves international cooperation just to those issues that are worthwhile for multiple or even all nations.
I just watched the speech. The whole speech. And nothing but the speech. I am so happy that the days of only getting excerpts from a guardian media are over. The days of only getting what the guardians think are over. I just went to youtube and watched the whole speech. And nothing but the speech. No explanatory crawl. No whispered interpretations. No cutting away to thoughtful pontificating guardians of public opinion.
Now, should I read the opinion posted in this article here? Should I give them my click in return for their opinion? Or should I continue to glory in the fact that I just listened to the entire great and wonderful speech and that I can do so again, anytime I want?
I think I’ll just bask in the words of the speech a while longer. I think right now I don’t care what the media has to say about that it. At least for now.
This clown thinks that after World War II everybody was singing kumbiya. I guess he missed the Cold War and the real reason for the end of the hostilities was because The United States was too strong militarily for anybody to mess with. Typical leftist BAS
Remember John Nash’s theories provided that optimum results of any scenario is that all act first for their own good, then the collective good.
The most solid science is mathematics.
Promotes peace.
Only one thing guarantees peace... surrender.
I think Mr. Franchi needs to look back at history, and do a bit of studying.
Which “peace” would he like to have? Neville Chamberlain’s “peace in our time”, or a Ronald Reagan “peace through strength”.
I, sir, choose the latter.
every thinking person knows the best defence is a good offence. Trump put the usual suspects on notice and schooled the World leaders on the do’s and don’ts...Iran is already starting to squeak
every thinking person knows the best defence is a good offence. Trump put the usual suspects on notice and schooled the World leaders on the do’s and don’ts...Iran is already starting to squeak
Hitler was a nationalist, goes the usual argument, but in fact Hitler's actual motivator was not Deutschland uber alles but the Aryan race uber alles; a German Jew was in no sense superior to a Polish or Russian one, all were bundled off to the gas chambers so that the Aryan could prevail. It's a corner case at best. Internationalism, in the form of Communism, proved remarkably bloody-handed and equally aggressive.
It is the failures of internationalism that are common to the run-up to the two great World Wars. Contrary to popular belief, there was a very well-developed and successful system of international diplomacy in place prior to the First World War; its horrifying failure was chronicled in Clark's The Sleepwalkers and Tuchman's Guns of August. If nationalism were instrumental in the starting of that war, surely the failure of internationalism is equally culpable.
Similarly, much has been written on the League of Nations and its signal failure to prevent the armaments race that preceded the Second World War, much blame ascribed toward the United States' presumably nationalistic refusal to join. Regardless, Germany and Japan both disregarded that organization's dictates, Germany with regard to re-armament and Japan with regard to both that and to its involvement in Manchuria. Once again, blaming nationalism for this does not exculpate the failure of internationalism to cope.
My point is that shifting the emphasis back to internationalism in the hope that nationalism will be eradicated is contrary to recent historical experience and threatens to set the world up for a recurrence of turmoil with which international bodies are entirely inadequate to address. Does anyone imagine that a UN "peacekeeping" force will be any more capable of settling the Middle East struggles than it has been to date if only it is given more funding, and in the face of its track record over the last half century? I'd have to call such an individual extremely naive.
The individual most prominent in promoting internationalism was, after all, Karl Marx, who insisted that class solidarity among the proletariat would magically transcend nationalism, which it utterly failed to do. Why this faith continues to motivate international policy is quite beyond me.
Trump was trying to convince China that he is willing and likely to attack North Korea using nukes so China will heel their dog. China wants talks to de-escalate tensions with a sweetener of US acquiesce in the South China Sea as China expands its sphere of influence. Trump is reluctant to do so.
The author either didn't listen well or didn't understand the President's speech.
I read no further.
This is the Reagan model.
Strong nationalism can be either good or evil. American nationalism beat the Nazi’s.
Countrymen and leaders of countries who love their own countries, their fellow countrymen and wish to help each other and their respective nations succeed and flourish. One of the goals he established as a marker of that success being peace. He was also clear and explicit about these nations, striving for peace and prosperity for themselves, looking outward to establish allies for peace and partners for prosperity.
Only an extremely warped and neurotic mind could find negative intentions in his words.
They never seem to be able to grasp that the evil ones will never bend to the decent folks - the more the decent folks bend to allow “equality/parity” with the evil ones, the more traction they gain in their goal of erasing FREEDOM FOR ALL....
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.
