Category: Politics and Issues

The No Labels movement has ended for now and the failure of establishing this centrist party is based on No Labels lack of understanding of where the political center is.  Jeffrey Carter noted, “No Labels also failed to understand the underlying currents in American politics. If there is a commonality behind the early Bernie Sanders supporters, the Ron Paul supporters, and the Tea Party movement it is to get big government and big corporate out of their lives.,,No Labels was for big government. Hence, it didn’t have what we call in the startup community, product-market fit.” The reasons are many but here are two that stuck me as obvious. This was a top-down movement with few donors and few dissatisfied insiders who mostly reside in Washington DC and there were never any grassroots efforts.  If the No Labels were serious, they would have understood that this was a movement that would take time and find a niche to penetrate.

The other problem is what a reporter friend of mine told me, this was a big grift that was designed to stop one guy, Donald Trump and he relayed to me that if there is a chance that this could help Trump, they would cease to operate, and Joe Manchin and Larry Hogan chose not the run after they were told they could aid Trump against Biden.   Again, this top-down movement was not serious about forming a political Party and appealing to grass roots.

Carter noted, “The old Reagan Republicans are different than the Romney crew. They are free traders, and for small government. They are for a strong defense. They are pro-innovation. They are pro-life.” What people don’t remember that Reagan was not the choice of the Republican establishment and while he had to compromise with them, his economic plan, and his plan to win the cold war, had many within the establishment opposing him or as one Presidential candidate in the 1980 primary claimed, Reagan economic plan was “voodoo economics.”  Eventually that candidate made peace with Reagan and ended up his Vice President.

If you looked at their proposals, they were reflective of what many Republicans believe and for many Republicans who are tired of the Trump drama, this could have given them an option.   We were talking getting our border under control, combining voter ID and early voting similar to laws passed in Red States like Georgia.  Election security is important Americans and No-Labels promoted that.  Congress needed to get our financial house in order and  on energy, it is “all of the above” as they noted, “When Washington tries to prohibit exploration of America’s fossil fuel resources or discourage investment in the sector, all it does is weaken our country and strengthen other oil- and gas producing countries like Russia that will gladly meet the world’s growing demand for energy. Meanwhile, neither Democrats nor Republicans in Washington have done enough to champion the expansion of carbon-free nuclear power, which is more reliable than wind and solar and cleaner than oil and gas. Despite the fact that US nuclear facilities are among the safest industrial facilities in the world—and newer reactor designs could make them even safer—the number of nuclear reactors in the US hasn’t increased in three decades.”

So, there were issues that many within the populist movement who would support border security, or the energy plan proposed by No-Label movement.  And as I noted a few months ago, “Democratic Party, which has become the socialist party of the America, but the GOP is still trying to define itself, is it the Party of main street and the common folks.  Who will stand up for the middle class?     They also stand up for parents to be able to escape failing schools and protect citizens from criminals.”

And I added, “I made the case that the importance of supply side economy and that its definition must be expanded in my book, “Americas at the Abyss, will America survive?” I made the case that government spending must be controlled, regulations burden reduced, and supply side had to move beyond just tax cuts. Trump did two of three, reduce regulation and tax reduction which benefited most Americans. The result was continuation of the recovery and more importantly the middle class, minorities, and lower income saw their income increase.  Economic growth matters but Trump failure to get government under control hurt his overall economic plan and the massive spending during the Covid pandemic along with the anti-growth lockdown hurt the economy in 2020 and ended Trump chances to win. 

We are now in the decisive battle as a movement to identify what conservatism will be in the 21^st century and be able to turn this nation around.  The future of conservatism is to combine Trump populism with Reagan conservatism. 

 Dominic Pino detailed this recently, “For decades, tax cuts have been at the center of the conservative economic agenda. But some on the right want to deprioritize them in favor of other economic goals. Senators Marco Rubio, Josh Hawley, J. D. Vance, and others talk of the need for a new Republican economic agenda focused on things such as industrial policy or social policy. The Trump administration sought to increase tariffs, and conservative defenders of protectionism are being more vocal…Tax cuts seem to irk some right-wing commentators. In May 2020, writing for the American Conservative, Michael Cuenco bemoaned the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), the 2017 tax-cut law that Donald Trump signed, and called for a “reformulation of fiscal policy along populist economic nationalist lines.” He wrote, “The reformist right should ask: is there any way to stand athwart the supply-side swamp yelling Stop?”

The Republican governors led by Ron DeSantis and others did several things simultaneously, keep spending under control, actual tax reform, school reforms including promoting school choice for parents and actually be concern what is taught in most classroom.  Many of them promoted social conservatives ideals and showed that Trump populism and Reagan conservatism can synergized in a package but then Trump administration showed the same thing.

The No-Labels movement started a direct rebellion  not just against Trump but  the radicalization of Biden and the Democrats.  Joe Manchin, whose own political career as United States Senator ended in 2024 and he effectively left the Party as he represented a state that depends upon fossil fuels and saw his constituents betrayed by the Party he served faithfully for decades.

The MAGA movement is not the radical movement, and the No-Labels could have the opportunity to combine their ideas with Trump populism/Reagan conservatism in the post Trump era.   Instead, they became a movement directed at one man and it was the wrong man, when instead of targeting Trump, Biden is the one who should have been targeted.  The Trump supporters and some RFK supporters are mad as hell, but they are not wrong being angry. They are tired of constant wars that many participated and not sure what foreign aid is accomplished and as Jeffrey Carter noted, “Big Government has foisted upon them because they know they are the only ones that have to pay the price. They might actually be worried about some unsolvable problem like global warming but know full well the people that are producing the solution will put it all on their back. Electronic vehicles are a good example.”

They don’t have the fancy degrees the elites have but they are the ones that make the country work.  They understand much is wrong with America and unlike many of the elites they understand the principles that our country was founded on.  They view that Trump gets them, and he does speak their language. As a real estate developer, he collaborated with them as they essentially built his empire.  RFK is an interesting case since he may be targeting the Middle Class only from the left.  He can take advantage of their distrust of corporate leaders who seem to benefit from their relationship with big government and his opposition to the Lockdowns and mandates contrast to Trump who instituted the lockdown to begin with and allowed the health care bureaucracy to take over running the country and Biden who took advantage of this to institute leftist ideas starting the Green New Deal and expansion of government.  RFK made it clear that he doesn’t buy into Trump is the biggest threat to government as he noticed that it was Biden worked with social media to censored Biden’s opponents and a Justice department that attempts to punish Biden’s political opponents starting with Trump and RFK is not afraid to say what is obvious, it is Biden and Democrats who are the biggest threat to Democracy.  RFK recent decision to review what happened on January 6^th and this too is an attempt to move to center. 

I showed in past article how an American first policy could deliver a modest foreign policy as I mention in a previous article, “Advocate of an America’s First foreign policy might begin reviewing the former Secretary of Defense Cap Weinberger six rules for engagement.  The principles were:

1. Forces should not be committed unless the action is vital to national interest.

2. Forces should be committed wholeheartedly with the intention of winning – or they should not be committed at all (No half-hearted commitment).

3. Forces should be committed with clearly defined political and military objectives.

4. The use of force should be the last resort (after all diplomatic initiatives have been exhausted).

5. The relationship between objectives and the force committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.

6. Before committing forces abroad (in foreign countries) there should be some reasonable assurance of public support.”

The first Gulf War pretty much followed the Weinberger Doctrine. The first Gulf War was influenced by this principle as United States and their alliance went into Kuwait with overwhelming force, defeated the Iraqi army easily before ending the war.  And Bush administration went to the American people and Congress to gain approval to use force if diplomacy failed in persuading Hussein to leave Kuwait.  After the failure of diplomacy, the first Gulf War commenced.  The war was quick as the United States and its allies went in with overwhelming force, destroying the Iraqi’s army.  The big controversy was if United States should occupy Iraq, but Bush and his administration decided not to, figuring the military objectives were achieved, and there was not much support beyond the war for a permanent occupation but followed a containment policy against Hussein and Iraq.   You can judge for yourself if the conflicts of the twenty-first century we participated in followed the Weinberger Doctrine.

Which let circle back to the No Label movement.  One problem with the No-Label movement is that they disdain Trump Republicans but who are these Trump Republicans?  They want the border controlled, economic opportunities to move up, and they want election security.  They want free speech and know that if they speak about any issues they won’t be canceled and they want to worship on Sunday in peace.  They really want to be left alone and they like their pickup truck and supporting the police in their neighborhood.  No-Labels never understood that many of their own goals they claim to represent also is supported by many with the Trump Republican movement, but it is hard to set up a grass root movement when you don’t understand the grass roots.  No-Labels were comfortable with big government and promised no real reform of big government and the administration state.  The failure of No-Label movement began with a movement against one man and the man who they opposed was not the greatest threat to Democracy but his opponent.  No-Label believed in a consensus politics that didn’t exist and they never understood that the politicians they had worked with for decades were the problem. 

This election is an election that no one seems to want but primary voters spoken otherwise.   I had a discussion with a friend who is hard core GOP and frequent guest on the Donelson Files, and he feared Trump may not be able to win and while both of us agreed that the lawfare against Trump was sign of lawlessness of the Biden administration, there were question of Trump the candidate and his discipline. 

There are strengths of Trump, namely he doesn’t care what the establishment feels about him, and he now understand the enemy since they have been fighting him but since he failed to debate, we don’t utterly understand a second Trump administration. He loves America. There are times that he makes statement that often sends the wrong direction including a recent comment to Israel that they are losing the PR battle, leaving one wondering what was going on in his mind.  Or when he bragged about how he threatens NATO countries he could care less what the Russians do in his first administration if they didn’t increase their spending.  There are times to say things and be diplomatic and there are times they are not, and Trump quite frankly don’t always know when to shut his mouth and what to say.   

We do know what a Biden administration will be like and if he dies in office or forced out due to health issues or dementia, the policy will continue.  His lawfare campaign against Trump is a message sent to all  Republicans, his DOJ will go after his political opponents and his efforts to censor ideas opposed to him are threat to the constitution.  His green policies is based on grinding the Middle Class down and his immigration policies have simultaneously undermine legal immigration while his allowance of illegal immigration is changing the nature of our country but not in a racial way but in a class way since even the legal immigration 90 percent of entry are people of color, Asians, Hispanics and Black. Most of the legal immigrations come in with skills and education whereas many of those coming in illegal are poorer and less educated and significant amount are criminal elements.  Biden and Democrats want a generation of docile workers and individuals who will be more likely to be dependent upon welfare, producing a future Democratic voting bloc.

With increase criminal behavior of the illegal group along with less education will put additional strain on many communities and worse they will compete for jobs at the lower end which puts these new immigrants in competition with  many poorer people of color in particular blacks and Hispanics already here legally for those jobs.  Many Hispanics and Blacks are starting to resent the newer illegals immigrants since it is impacting their lives as well the safety of their communities.  Recently New York started to hand out debit cards with 1400 dollars for illegal staying in New York, reinforcing the Democratic plan to trap as many of the illegal on welfare before finding a way to make them legal.   

Green new deal of Biden means that the average Middle Class will pay higher prices for food, transportation, and energy.  Climate change alarmists are perfectly willing to put the basics out of the reach of the middle class.  

So, in the case of Trump,  we may not know the full extent of his policies, but we know the following.  After four years, Trump was the victim of witch hunts and when he had his chance to do lawfare against Hillary Clinton who was truly guilty of misuse of classified documents, he chose not to, but I suspect he may be willing to punish those who punished him and his supporters.  Trump will not surrender to the climate alarmists cause, and in his first term, he attempted to enact a more modest foreign policy and his tax and regulation policies were similar to the Reagan approach, but he was not particularly good at cutting the budget.   There was no war on Democracy during the Trump first administration but in the Biden administration, there was enough to indicate it is the Democrats who are declaring a war on democracy.

As mentioned in previous writings, Republican governors have led the way of getting things done, whereas our congressional leaders have shown an ability to get nothing done in an embarrassing fashion as they simply eat each other up. House sacked McCarthy, then moved on to Mike Johnson, who is now under threats for how he managed the recent budget fights.  James Lankford with the blessings of Mitch McConnell got suckered into a “border compromise” that would have allowed nearly two million immigrants coming across the borders.  While GOP governors have shown competency, the Congress has been the complete opposite. 

Trump is the last line against the socialism of America and as I have mention in my last two books, the Democratic Party is the party of socialism, but Republican has yet to synergize Populism and conservatism.  They have yet decided what kind  of party they are. Trump must also decide what party he is leading.

To vote for Trump or not to vote for Trump, that is the question.  As someone who voted for Ron DeSantis in the Iowa Caucus, I viewed it as a time for a change and DeSantis earned my vote through his performance during the Pandemic and his governing of Florida.  I helped to elect Trump in 2016 and supported his efforts in 2020, so I have done my duty for Trump and will vote for him because we can’t have four more years of Biden.  For many voters, it is a case of voting for the lesser of two evils and Joe Biden is the worse choice. After nearly four years of his administration, we should no longer have any doubts about another four years of Biden being a complete disaster.

The Biden’s administration has been one disaster after another beginning with his foreign policy and his botched withdrawal from Afghanistan which left billions of dollars of equipment in the hands of our enemies and for many veterans, they saw twenty years of sacrifice wasted.  Putin invaded Ukraine because of the Afghanistan withdrawal and his view of Biden weakness and let us not forget, the Obama-Biden foreign policy allowed Russia to take Crimea and portion of Ukraine in 2014.   While one can make the case for aiding Ukraine (and let not forget Trump administration provided Ukraine with offensive weapons),  Biden has done a poor job of doing just that.

His Middle East policy is turning into a complete disaster that has gone from bipartisan support for Israel to stabbing Israel in the back as Democrat Party has shifted toward out right antisemitism.  Senator Schumer demand for Israel to replace government to allow peace to move forward along with the two-state solution is one example of this.  Schumer demands of Israel (which we assume had the White House blessing) destroyed a bipartisan support for Israel and put the Democrats on the side of Hamas being left in power and able to declare victory.  Somehow we must preserve the border of the Ukraine while allowing Israel to put their own security at risk and leaving our own border undefended against what can only be described as invasion as Biden administration allows unlimited illegal immigration.   

Let be real and understand that while Trump handling of the Pandemic was bad, Biden’s policies were worse, and Biden did inherit a growing economy that was escaping the fallout of the lockdown.  In spite of Trump Pandemic bumbling, the last six months of his administration featured a 20 percent increase of GDP growth and close to 55 percent of job losses due to the lockdown had already been recovered and it would take two years for Biden to complete the job.

Biden also inherited a world somewhat at peace with Middle East stable and the Abraham accord uniting Israel and many Sunni states against Iran who was suffering financially from the sanctions.  Ukraine was at peace, and we focused on China as a main threat.  Biden inherited an economy recovering from the lockdown and more stable world.  He could have done nothing with the economy and kept Trump policies in place on foreign policy, maybe the Middle East would not be exploding, and Europe still would be at peace. On the economic side, if Biden did not nothing and allowed the economy to recover, he would have an economic expansion without inflation and the middle class would actually have seen their income go up.  He would easily be on his way to winning an election rout over Trump instead of being neck and neck with Trump.

Biden record on civil liberty should be a red flag for we know that the Biden administration worked with or coerce social media to remove any individuals whose views didn’t correspond with theirs, the DOJ have gone after pro-lifers and treated parents who showed up at School board meetings as terrorists.  And the persecution of Donald Trump is nothing  more than banana Republic stuff in which we are still looking for a real crime in the “91” indictments just as the two impeachments were impeachments in search of impeachable offenses. What Biden has done is a real war on democracy. My own view is that many within the GOP or the conservatives who no longer support Trump might be concern over Biden’s lawfare against a political opponent.

As for Mike Pence recent proclamations that he won’t vote for Biden and won’t vote for Trump, leaves me to ask, who is he going to vote for?  The problem with Pence thoughts is that Trump populism he fears can be combined with traditional conservatism.   Henry Olsen wrote a book on Reagan combining populism and traditional free market ideas (The Working Class Republican: Ronald Reagan and the Return of Blue-Collar Conservatism: Olsen, Henry: 9780062475268: Amazon.com: Books)and Victor Davis Hanson discussed that there are different kind of populism and not all populism is bad (Dueling Populisms | Hoover Institution Dueling Populisms.)  Trump in his first term that one can combine Trump populism with Reagan conservatism.  Mathew Continetti acknowledge that Trump has put together a new coalition which has added many Hispanics and Black voters. (America’s Political Realignment Is Real (freebeacon.com)

As I have written, Republican governors are busy showing that ideas of tax reform, getting government spending under control, school choice and allowing parents to have more say in their children education as well as looking closer at what is taught in school.  These ideas are working, and many Republican run states are having an influx of people moving in and many Democratic run states are seeing many escaping their policies.( Update jobs recovery – by Tom Donelson/ F of F (substack.com) and Grand Strategy – by Tom Donelson/ F of F (substack.com)

My question for Mike Pence, what was so conservative about how his Covid task force in which he ran?  Much of our freedom ended up under siege and while it is true that Trump was the President and the buck stops with him, Pence did nothing to change policies that we know of. Pence has never stated on foolishness of the lockdown. He must along long with Trump answers for those mistakes.

I am sympathetic with many who view the Trump-Biden rematch as battle of which candidate is the worse, but it leaves the question, who do you vote for?  We know that four more years of Biden means less security abroad, less economic freedom at home, and our civil liberties will be under siege.  Trump is a flawed candidate and a flaw human being, but he is certainly better than Biden.  He and Pence botched the pandemic by allowing the lockdown to happen and not quickly reversing policies, but Biden approach was much worse and at least Trump allowed a federalist approach to happen which many Republican governors ignored Fauci’s science and opted for actual science.  Much of the recovery over the last six months of the Trump administration can be traced to these governors who ignored the Fauci’s approach. 

This week, Republican party showed itself willing to snag defeat from the jaws of victory first by putting a “bipartisan” plan to bail out Joe Biden out of a jam and gave him cover for his  immigration woes with a bad bill that allows close to 1.9 million illegals over the next year, which is more than what we do legally.  Republicans not only committed bad politics but bad policies that will give cover to Biden while in the long run do nothing to stem the illegal immigration. 

RNC is disarray with ten months left until the election and so far the Republicans are being outraised by the Democrats, and Democrats outstrip the GOP with money on hand but then GOP had a choice last year to change direction at the RNC but chose to stand pat and one person who supported RNC pat was Donald Trump who now wants McDaniel out.  There are state party organization like Arizona and Michigan in disarray, which will impact GOTV.   

Meanwhile, one of the worst Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, who simply decided not to enforce immigration laws, was not impeached by Congress and three Republicans supported Mayorkas. 

 Makes you wonder sometimes why have Republicans? 

The GOP descent began with the removal of Kevin McCarthy and Thomas Massie noted, “Getting rid of Speaker McCarthy has officially turned into an unmitigated disaster. All work on separate spending bills has ceased. Spending reductions have been traded for spending increases. Warrantless spying has been temporarily extended. Our majority has shrunk.”

Ronna McDaniel will step down after the South Carolina primary and Trump will attempt to get one of his guys or gals to run the party. (Trump did endorse McDaniel )  Ronna had the longest reign as the chief since Mark Hanna who reigned from 1896 to 1904 and might add the RNC won three straight Presidential election.  As for Ronna, the GOP had 52 Senators, 246 Representatives and 4,205 state legislatives for 57 percent of the seats. Now there are 49 Senators, 219 House representatives and 4022 state legislators for 54% of the seats.  And Republicans go into the 2024 election cycles with just eight million dollars available.

Jim Geraghty stated, “A major factor in all this is that House Speaker Mike Johnson is attempting to placate the erratic political desires of one guy down in Mar-a-Lago, instead of living with the reality of the extremely limited consensus among the 218 other guys in his caucus. This is what happens when the primary criterion for leadership within the Republican Party is public loyalty to Donald Trump, rather than competence, discipline, judgment, or strategic thinking.”  It is more than just loyalty to Donald Trump since even Andrew McCarthy, who is not a Trump supporter, viewed the border immigration bill as bad and should be rejected. It goes beyond loyalty to Trump but Republicans simply don’t know what kind of Party they want to be.   

As one pundit noted, The House counter to Biden on the border should be simple. Could almost do it in a one sentence bill. “Give the president Title 42-style authority to shut the border without triggers or limits. Take it or leave it.”    Steven Hayward added, “House Republicans already passed an immigration control bill last year, the Secure the Border Act of 2023. It calls for building a border wall, scaling back the grounds for asylum, and instituting employment verification measures. The Senate has not voted on it. Maybe the media should be asking why.”

Speaker Johnson simply should send to the Senate the Secure the Border Act of 2023 back to the Senate and tell them, border security of our southern border take priority. 

From this point, the Republican in Congress should worry less about reaching across the aisle and simply design a plan to win the election and govern afterwards. 

Ever get the feeling that whole world is going straight to hell?  Well, if you don’t I don’t blame you but there are some interesting things that could easily get out of control.   Right now, Ukraine is at stalemate with Russia, Middle East could easily spin out of control as Israel is finishing Hamas in Gaza, but Houthis are striking at shipping in the Red Sea and Hezbollah threatens Israel northern border and our own soldiers have been under attack in the Middle East and three have died. 

Our southern border is a sieve and who knows what terrorist have come across the border, putting a fifth column ready to strike as needed.

I have detailed a GOP foreign policy of modest foreign policy to defend our national interest but for the moment, we have a foreign policy in disarray.  Beginning the first day, Biden opened up the border and his pull out of Afghanistan and how it was done set the tone for his administration.  Before Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, Biden made a statement that it would depend upon Putin’s objective and he repeated a limited invasion as in 2014, he could live with it.  Putin took both the Afghanistan debacle and this statement as a sign he could get away with the invasion.

As Putin discovered, Biden had no choice but the respond after it became apparent that Ukraine would survive the initial shock and awe Russian campaign and now he faces a renewed NATO alliance, in particular the countries bordering Russia including Finland, Poland, and the Baltics. 

As for the Middle East Biden initial support for Israel has diminished and he is looking for a way to force Israel in a two-state solution to appease his anti-Jewish Democrats supporters which turned out to be more numerous as thought.   As for Ukraine, I suspect that Biden would love a cease fire and be willing to settle with a splitting of Ukraine into a Russian section and Free Ukraine.

As for the borders, Biden is hoping to sucker the Republicans with a compromise that will allow a significant number of illegals coming across the border for what will prove to be cosmetic changes and will be ignored by the Biden administration.

The Biden administration began with the following:

1. Reverse everything that Trump did even if it was good like the Abraham accord and border security.
2. He revived the Iranian deal that will allow Iranian the bomb and become a major player in the Middle East and move our policy away from support of Israel. He simply refunded the Iranian with billion of dollars.  We know how that works now.
3. Revive the Paris climate accord.
4. China policy resembled the weak policy of the Obama administration just as the Iranian policy resembled the Obama administration.
5. Attempted to restrict our energy policy.

The Biden administration foreign policy has been a disaster but look for the following:

1. Attempt to force Israel’s to do a two-state solution and allow the survival of Hamas.
2. Work to get a deal with Russian for a split Ukraine but the real question what guarantees will Ukraine get for security. If there is a demilitarized Ukraine, then there will be another war in the future.
3. Border compromise to allow significant numbers of immigrants crossing the border.

China invading or even blockading Tawain is the next shoe to drop and if that happens then all bets are off for any stability.

Advocate of an America’s First foreign policy might begin reviewing the former Secretary of Defense Cap Weinberger six rules for engagement.  The principles were:

1. Forces should not be committed unless the action is vital to national interest.

2. Forces should be committed wholeheartedly with the intention of winning – or they should not be committed at all (No half-hearted commitment).

3. Forces should be committed with clearly defined political and military objectives.

4. The use of force should be the last resort (after all diplomatic initiatives have been exhausted).

5. The relationship between objectives and the force committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.

6. Before committing forces abroad (in foreign countries) there should be some reasonable assurance of public support.

Casper Weinberger set these principles in the aftermath of the Vietnam war in which America was divided and there was serious question on how the war was conducted, and these are principal ideas that political leader needs to consider even today.  In 1983, two events occurred, one in which 240 Marines were killed as result of a suicide bomber in Beirut and the second, the invasion of Grenada in which United States removed a Marxist government that overthrew another leftist government, and the coup was supported by Cuban forces. The Beirut attack was part of an ill-defined peace keeping mission in Lebanon and eventually Reagan, left Lebanon as oppose to getting sucked into an endless morose and in Grenada, United States went into with overpowering force, and easily removed the Cuban forces in an island located in our backyard, the Caribbean. 

The first Gulf War was influenced by this principle as United States and their alliance went into Kuwait with overwhelming force, defeated the Iraqi army easily before ending the war.  And Bush administration went to the American people and Congress to gain approval to use force if diplomacy failed in persuading Hussein to leave Kuwait.  After the failure of diplomacy, the first Gulf War commenced.  The war was quick as the United States and its allies went in with overwhelming force, destroying the Iraqi’s army.  The big controversy was if United States should occupy Iraq, but Bush and his administration decided not to, figuring the military objectives were achieved, and there was not much support beyond the war for a permanent occupation but followed a containment policy against Hussein and Iraq. 

The second Gulf War and the war on terror began with these principles but after the initial victory, the United States expanded the objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan to reinstitute democratic government in both countries.  From there, United States engaged in long term engagement that ended in failure in Afghanistan and Iraq may yet end up in Iranian orbit.  The original war aims in Afghanistan was to dismantle the Taliban and terrorist network which was achieved in quick order.   Iraq represented a more nuance policy since it was believed that Hussien had a stockpile of chemical weapons and in the years following 9/11, the thought was could Hussien use his stockpile to fund terrorist activities?  The Second Iraq War had less conclusive goal to begin with and expanded into changing the focus of Iraqi’s government.  Post World War II began with the rebuilding of Europe not yet under the Soviet Empire beginning with the Marshall Plan to rebuild the European economy.  This effort proved successful as Western Europe became a bulwark against the Soviet Empire and West Germany because a Democratic beacon and economic powerhouse.  The objectives of the Marshal Plan were to remove trade barriers throughout Europe, modernize European industry, improve prosperity, and prevent the spread of communism in Europe.  In both France and Italy, the communist party were significant force in politics of both countries and Italy communist party was the second largest political party.  When the Soviet Empire collapsed, all of Europe became free. 

Truman Doctrine represented that United States would provide political, economic, and military assistance to combat external threats to Democratic countries, beginning in Europe.  Among the result of this doctrine was the formation of NATO which tied United States to Europe to combat the Soviet Empire.  Truman laid a vision for Americans to accept, a wiliness to defend Europe against the Soviet Empire and at the same time expand Western Europe, Japan economic performance, and create alliances needed to defend against the Soviet Empire.  Later these objectives were extended to the Middle East and Asia under the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations.  The Vietnam war began in earnest as the expansion of the Truman Doctrine by the Kennedy Administration.  The Eisenhower administration chose not to involve themselves heavily into Vietnam other than ushering an agreement of separating Vietnam into to two separate spheres, one run the communist the other not.  When the French were bogged down in the battle of Dien Bien Phu, Eisenhower would not intervene without Congressional approval and allies support. While Eisenhower supported South Vietnam, he did so with light footprint and privately opposed gradual escalation of the war privately in favor of a more overwhelming force.  

The lessons of Vietnam were the expansion of our obligation and the failure to use overwhelming force or lack of obtainable military goals to back the diplomatic efforts, thus Weinberger doctrine, designed to prevent another Vietnam while still giving United States officials a way to promote our national interest. 

The problem with post war Iraq is that this policy of restructuring  Iraq was never fully explained as an objective nor were the American people fully understanding the cost of Iraqi’s occupation and goal.  Obama administration first pulled out of Iraq while simultaneously moving toward rapprochement with Iran as part of “integrated Middle East Policy.”  What happened was the formation of Isis and Islamic terrorist taking giant  portion of Iraq and making an enemy, Iran, more powerful and influential in the Middle East.  Obama was forced to put American troops on the ground and Trump gave the military the ability to finish off Isis while playing nuance power game in the region, with the Russians Syria, Turks, and Iran among other players.

The question is how to use these principles in the future to protect American national interest and not lapse into an isolationist position.  During the Reagan years, the number one objective was to defend the West from the Soviet Empire and everything else was tied to that.  The Reagan administration inherited the policy of containment of Communism and also had to be aware that a general conflict with the Soviet Empire would go nuclear.  Reagan own view was the “we win, and they lose” a simplistic but accurate way the Cold War actually ended. Arming the Afghan rebels against the Russian was part of that strategy and within Congress there was bipartisan support for that and did not involve the use of U.S. troops.  Grenada could be justified since the threat was close to home and overwhelming force and clear military objectives were present. 

There is a bipartisan consensus among some Democrats and Republicans that China is the number one threat to United States and the question is how best to deal with this threat without getting into involved in a failed military operations or expanded war.  That requires alliances and it requires a strong Domestic economy.

Ukraine is interesting case point and not necessarily an easy case study.  The one thing that everyone agrees or should agree, that it is not in our interest to involved American troops in Ukraine. The problem has been that the Biden Administration has failed to garner bipartisan support among the American people for aiding Ukraine nor have there been an endgame defined for what is considered a victory or acceptable to our side and Ukrainians.  There are many who will not view this in our national interest, but others could argue that if Russia succeed in Ukraine, this could encourage China to move against Taiwan.  Using the ideas behind Weinberger doctrine, policy makers need to make case if this is in our interest and how our long-term interest is being served.  If China is our number rival, does this enhance or disrupt our objectives against China? It is the responsibility for Biden to explain to the American people why Ukraine matters and what support for Ukraine need to prevail.  For many Americans, there is no real national interest in aiding Ukraine when our own borders are open and wondering when the billions flowing to Ukraine will end?  

As for the Ukraine, is it similar to helping mujahideen to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan? After the Russian invasion, we aided the mujahideen against the Russians and they provided the blood and we the money and arms.  In the case of the Ukraine, there is no support for American troops to be involved in the defense of Ukraine and that Ukraine fate is up to the Ukrainian people.  Since Ukraine is not NATO country, there is no reason to involved European troops nor will NATO get involved as they already rejected Ukraine acceptance in NATO as long as the war continues. Any acceptance of Ukraine into NATO has to wait until the conflict ends.

Within the Republican primary, Republican candidates shows differences, but there are some similar takes.  Nikki Haley’s argument is that there is a connection between Tawain and Ukraine, if we fail to support Ukraine or China may view Taiwan as vulnerable whereas others fear that our we are concentrating on the Ukraine at the expense of the Chinese threat?  The reasoning begins with using up our own military stock and the billions we have spent with no end game in sight.  The one thing that everyone agrees with, no United States troop will enter the conflict to aid the Ukrainians and it is their war to win or lose.  

The question is how much support is too much and what is the end goal?  Has the aid been parcel out bits by bits and in a half-hearted fashion?  Has Biden’s administration delay in providing M-1 tank and F-16 fighters violated the dictum that forces should be committed wholeheartedly or not at all?  And what are the clearly defined political and military objectives?  What is victory?  And how does the definition of victory change in the course of war?  During Korean war, once the Chinese joined the fight, the objective went from unifying the entire the Korean peninsula as one entity favorable to the West to merely defending the status quo of independent South Korea not controlled by communists. South Korea has zoomed ahead of North Korean since then and is not just a developed nation economically but is a leading military power in the region.  The Weinberger doctrine makes it clear foreign policy and military activities need to be reassessed. 

In the case of the Ukraine, a NATO official hinted that a negotiated peace would allow Ukraine to be part of NATO and Russia in control of eastern portion of Ukraine.  Ukraine gets the protection of NATO in the future and aligned with NATO and EU, has a chance to provide its own economic miracle as a counter to Russia.  Certainly, having a military power of quarter of million soldiers with armed citizenry behind it will provide security for much of central Europe, the Nordic and Baltic states along with Poland which is in the process of strengthening their military.  The Polish-Ukraine alliance will include a minimum of 500,000 soldiers, well trained and with the latest military equipment.  Poland economy is on the verge of overtaking Great Britain by the end of the decade and many of the Baltic and Nordic states have their own sound economics bordering Russia.  This gives both United States and NATO option if Central European nations are capable of defending against Russia in the future.  This could be seen as a military objective in which followers of a modest foreign policy could get behind.  This is one policy that both Haley and DeSantis could agree on along most Republicans.    (There will be some debate on whether Ukraine should be a member of NATO, but the reality is that in order to gain a peace treaty, Ukraine has to be guaranteed some security arrangements against future Russian incursion and NATO is the only option that provides that.)

Frederic Fleitz noted, “That the heart of the Ramaswamy/Haley argument over the Ukraine War is the ultimate goal of the American policy on the war.  Ramaswamy’s position, though far from perfect generally adheres to the America First principles of prioritizing the security of the American people, keeping America out of unnecessary wars, and focusing actual threats to U.S. security like our southern border and China. Meanwhile Haley’s interventionist position, with no exit strategy and no limiting principles on foreign aid, is closer to President Biden’s.  … Vivek Ramaswamy has made some mistakes in his proposals to end the Ukraine war, but he realizes that the Biden Administration approach is feckless and unsustainable. I hope Mr. Ramaswamy quickly change his proposals on the war so they are not so generous to Russian and holds Russia accountable.”

Ramaswamy view that we are driving Russia into the hands of China does have some merit similar to Allies position in 1935 toward Italy invasion of Ethiopia.  Italy had not yet become a full ally of Nazis Germany and the year before, Mussolini protected Austria in a German attempt to overthrow the government and make Austria part of greater Germany.  The Allies and the League of Nation sanctioned Italy (except oil which would have hurt Italy) and drove Italy toward Germany.  Italy shortly afterwards joined Germany in a security pact and moved away from France and Great Britain.   That is also debatable point since Putin himself wants to rebuild a new Russian empire and build up Mother Russia with control of those nations like Ukraine.  So, lot depends how one feels about Putin own view.

An America first/Modest foreign policy begins with the control of the southern border. A nation that can’t control its border ceases to be a nation and massive illegal immigration along with the influx of drugs seeping through the border undermines any support for legal immigration and undermines the principles of successful immigration policy, assimilation.  An immigration policy without assimilation as its goal is national suicide and that is where we are right now. 

America First foreign policy begins with a strong economy at home, energy independent and controlling our southern borders.  It includes defining what is our greatest threat and most would agree it is China.  It also forces us to prioritize our objectives and working with Allies throughout the world but also understanding that there will be areas in which our Allies take the lead in their defense, example being Europe and NATO responsible for their defense from future Russian invasion.  It also means examining how best to defend ourselves from a Chinese threat in the future and what alliances it will require.  America First foreign policy allows us to redefine our defense for the 21^st century. 

I voted for Ron DeSantis in the Iowa caucus, and I like many other Iowans were the last to vote for DeSantis in this election cycle.  I already stated that Ron DeSantis would be the best choice for Vice President if governing is the most important thing.  Yes I know the biggest obstacles is that both men live in Florida so one would have to move, and the governor can’t move since he is the governor and Trump most likely is not moving from Mar-a-Largo so this is a pipe dream.  (I should point Dick Cheney changed his voter registration to Wyoming in 2000 from Texas since he could live in Texas and still be Bush’s Vice President. Somehow I don’t see Trump setting up a voter registration in New York just to have DeSantis as his Vice President.) 

There are those who criticized DeSantis not just dropping out but endorsing Trump.   There is a time when a politician looks at the road and see which the wind is blowing, and DeSantis saw it blowing Trump way.  Interesting enough, his closing statement was an endorsement not of Trump the man but of a movement of the middle class and the forgotten America, a vision of Republican Party for main street and not Wall Street.  He detailed the Trump agenda of border security and reminded Americas of the lawfare against Trump plus he added getting government spending under control, which is not exactly a Trump strength in his first term and reminded his fellow Republicans of his disagreement with Trump on the pandemic.  He also chastised Haley for being what he called corporate Republicans and there was not retreat back to establishment Republicans.

DeSantis is a politician with a  bright political future as one of Americas most successful governor and for him, the defeat of Biden and the Democratic leftist ideology.  To save America, you must first win and right now the leader of the GOP is Trump, and he is the horse the GOP is riding in November warts and all. I understand why some would not want to support Trump and certainly the last three years gives one pause in supporting him and his most recent comment of Taiwan makes you wonder what will a second Trump foreign policy look like.  I remember he was very supportive of Taiwan and even contacted the Taiwan President after his election.  And Trump has a history of going off script. 

There is much we don’t know what second term look like, will it be similar  to his first term in which he combines the best of Reagan and added his populist flair but hardly a radical departure.   Without participating in the debates, we don’t know and there are those who fear a second Trump term.  And with 91 indictments lined up, there is a very good possibility that he could be convicted.  I have friends, loyal conservatives, including many who voted for Trump, are not enthusiastic about voting for Trump,  and Iowa broadcaster Steve Deace noted that Iowa showed that our base is not enthusiastic as it should be presently.

The question is simple, do you hold your nose, vote for Trump and hope that he returns to the Trump of the first term and able to get right people in place or do you allow Biden to win, a man who is not fit for the job nor is his Vice President.  The Democrats are the Socialist party of America, and their goal is the complete transformation of America away from the Republican government we have.  DeSantis chose the path of holding his nose and supporting Trump.  I agree with that.