Liberal heads can start exploding in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .
If you were alive and aware in the 1980s, here are some of the things you remember: Reagan wants a war. Reagan's going to push all the buttons. Reagan has built enough nukes to destroy the world many times over, and he's going to do it!
All this arose from Reagan's often-stated determination that he wanted peace as much as anyone, and that the way to achieve peace was to pursue "peace through strength." This was as anethema to the left as anything you ever heard in your life. To them, strength couldn't possibly bring peace, since the whole point of strength was to make it possible for you to smash someone or something. The left's problem here? They could not accept the notion that there was a good guy in the world, and that the good guy would use strength to bring the bad guys to their knees.
And they certainly couldn't accept that the United States could be the good guy. Nothing was more ideologically offensive to the left than that.
But Reagan believed it with every fiber of his being, and he used the philosophy to bring the Soviet Union to its knees. The left will never admit it worked, but everyone not ideologically obligated to deny it knows it's true.
Fast-forward to the present. After eight years of weakness and abdicating the U.S. role as a global leader, Russia is again on the march and terrorists have absolutely no fear of the United States. If this sounds like 1980, that's because it is. And if the incoming president's prescription to solve the problem sounds very famliar, and blessedly so, you shouldn't be surprised that the left-wing media's take on it sound pretty familiar too:
President-elect Donald Trump has stacked his Cabinet with military generals, pushed for more Pentagon spending and a bigger Navy, threatened to slap tariffs on China and Mexico and, last week, suggested that he was open to expanding the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
The aim, he has said, is to achieve “peace through strength.”
If Trump follows through with this confrontational approach, it will represent a sharp break with the multifaceted foreign policy strategy that both Democratic and Republican presidents have practiced for decades, including reliance on what diplomats call “soft power” to achieve objectives and avoid conflict. Instead, aides say, Trump views foreign policy as largely transactional and his goal is to win by talking and acting tough.
But critics, including former Obama administration officials and foreign diplomats, said winning on the world stage requires more than bluster and intimidation and pugilistic messages on Twitter. American leadership, they said, also is about the promotion of democratic values and building U.S.-led institutions that can address shared global challenges such as economic growth, climate change and terrorism.
“If your slogan is, ‘America first,’ other people will think, ‘What about me?’ ” said Joseph Nye, who was an assistant secretary of defense under President Bill Clinton.
Past presidents have tried to use “soft power” strategies to bolster the United States’ cultural appeal abroad and lend moral weight to the country’s standing as the free world’s leading alternative to communist or authoritarian systems. Such tactics are not a substitute for military and economic “hard power,” foreign affairs analysts said, but can be an effective diplomatic tool to help shape global perceptions of the United States.
Support Canada Free Press
The Post gives away the game early on by choosing to label Trump's philosophy "confrontational." If you wanted to write a loaded story in favor of Trump's approach, you'd use words like "bold" or "resolute." When you don't like it, you use "confrontational."
As for the break with "soft power," what exactly has that accomplished? The Middle East is still a powderkeg. Iran is getting the bomb with American help. Every communist regime in power 25 years ago remains in power today, despite the loss of their Soviet patrons. China's influence is growing, and not to the benefit of the west. Russia has resumed its antagonism toward America. Radical Islam has become more deadly. If someone can show me the fruits of "soft power," go right ahead. I see nothing.
It's not as if Trump's approach is new or has never been tried. With the exception of the brief interlude that was the Carter presidency, America exercised muscular global leadership from the time of FDR through the end of the Cold War. What happened around the time Bill Clinton took office was that the west made the mistake of thinking the Soviet Union's demise eliminated the need remain globally vigilant. Too-clever-by-half liberals thought they could use their powers of persuasion with potentially adverse parties, and didn't think it was necessary to back up their diplomacy with any real power. Obama's presidency has been the worst example, since everyone on Earth knew he was a paper tiger and would sometimes talk but never act. (Remember the Syrian "red line"? Yeah. Exactly.)
And like clockwork, when a Republican president replaces a weak Democrat and vows to bring back peace through strength, the media/left act as though a lunatic is taking charge and is sure to lead us into war - whether intentionally or though some bumble that results from his lack of sophistication. Either way, we're all going to die.
Question for you #NeverTrump conservatives: Ah hell, you know the question. Are you tired of me asking it by now
