Generally attributed to Mark Twain is the saying that politicians are like nappies in that they need to be changed regularly and for the same reason. And across the Atlantic, in the Land of the Free, it is almost changing time.
Predictably, the Clinton and Bush dynasties still feel they haven’t made enough of a mark on US politics, and their representatives, Hillary and Jeb, respectively, are desperate to secure their party’s nomination.
But it is one man that stands out from the rest, and to whom the media circus is attracted like moths to a flame. Donald Trump is the American radical of our time.
At the time of writing, Trump – or ‘The Donald’, as he likes to be known – has won the Republican nomination in 19 states. His most audacious coup so far being his victory over fellow runner Marco Rubio in Florida. Rubio was tipped to win big in his home-state, but Trump easily trounced him with a massive 45% of the vote, compared to Rubio’s dismal 27%. If Trump were to win in November it would be without precedent. As the BBC’s North America reporter Anthony Zurcher noted: “He would be the first man to take the White House without having previously held public office or served at a high level in the military.” To Donald Trump the normal rules do not apply. The reason he is able to call for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” and make a speech declaring that Mexicans are “rapists”, and thereafter see his approval ratings soar, is because he is judged to be a maverick, an anti-establishment conservative who simply wants to “make America great again”. To hell with political correctness and accepted norms – the unmistakable stamps of conformists. However, this appeal to national pride is nothing new. It has been the mantra of presidential campaigns from Nixon to George W. Bush. But since the Second World War, American power (at least, the justification for it) has always rested on the supposition, however spurious, that it can be used for good. What makes Trump radically different is that his desires for US hegemony are not accompanied by calls for overseas humanitarianism. America has had enough of policing the world, and that’s that. And this resonates with the voters. During the global financial crisis (which started in the U.S. with the sub-prime mortgage scandal), as many ordinary Americans were robbed of their homes, the government still managed to find over $1 trillion to wage foreign wars considered by most people to have had little strategic import. Indeed it is in foreign policy that Trump’s radicalism can be most easily viewed, and it is this which, if he is elected president, will change the world beyond all recognition. He is by far the most ruthless candidate when it comes to dealing with Islamic State, hinting that even nuclear weapons would be a perfectly reasonable way of defeating the terrorist group. When challenged on U.S. television recently over strategic nuclear strikes against ISIS he said: “I’m never going to rule anything out...I want them to think maybe we would use …show more content…
foreign policy has been divided into two camps: Idealist and Realist. Idealists think that a peaceful world can be obtained and America should lead by example, and the realists accept that the world is not perfect and America shouldn’t be expected to act any more benevolently than anybody else.
Placing past presidents neatly into each camp, however, is not always easy. Throughout his premiership Barack Obama has come under constant criticism from both sides – the Left accuses him of being mawkish and heavy-handed, the Right timid and with a tendency to vacillate. Indeed, commentators lack a consistent understanding of what is meant by the ‘Obama Doctrine’.
Critical of George W. Bush during his presidency, once in office Obama found himself having to deal with the same problems faced by Bush, and choosing to deal with them in much the same way. And had there been a 9/11 on his watch it is at least thinkable that he would have taken the same course of action as Bush.
Which poses a rather interesting question: what would be Donald Trump’s response to a terrorist atrocity committed on U.S. soil, if he were President? His idea for
Predictably, the Clinton and Bush dynasties still feel they haven’t made enough of a mark on US politics, and their representatives, Hillary and Jeb, respectively, are desperate to secure their party’s nomination.
But it is one man that stands out from the rest, and to whom the media circus is attracted like moths to a flame. Donald Trump is the American radical of our time.
At the time of writing, Trump – or ‘The Donald’, as he likes to be known – has won the Republican nomination in 19 states. His most audacious coup so far being his victory over fellow runner Marco Rubio in Florida. Rubio was tipped to win big in his home-state, but Trump easily trounced him with a massive 45% of the vote, compared to Rubio’s dismal 27%. If Trump were to win in November it would be without precedent. As the BBC’s North America reporter Anthony Zurcher noted: “He would be the first man to take the White House without having previously held public office or served at a high level in the military.” To Donald Trump the normal rules do not apply. The reason he is able to call for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” and make a speech declaring that Mexicans are “rapists”, and thereafter see his approval ratings soar, is because he is judged to be a maverick, an anti-establishment conservative who simply wants to “make America great again”. To hell with political correctness and accepted norms – the unmistakable stamps of conformists. However, this appeal to national pride is nothing new. It has been the mantra of presidential campaigns from Nixon to George W. Bush. But since the Second World War, American power (at least, the justification for it) has always rested on the supposition, however spurious, that it can be used for good. What makes Trump radically different is that his desires for US hegemony are not accompanied by calls for overseas humanitarianism. America has had enough of policing the world, and that’s that. And this resonates with the voters. During the global financial crisis (which started in the U.S. with the sub-prime mortgage scandal), as many ordinary Americans were robbed of their homes, the government still managed to find over $1 trillion to wage foreign wars considered by most people to have had little strategic import. Indeed it is in foreign policy that Trump’s radicalism can be most easily viewed, and it is this which, if he is elected president, will change the world beyond all recognition. He is by far the most ruthless candidate when it comes to dealing with Islamic State, hinting that even nuclear weapons would be a perfectly reasonable way of defeating the terrorist group. When challenged on U.S. television recently over strategic nuclear strikes against ISIS he said: “I’m never going to rule anything out...I want them to think maybe we would use …show more content…
foreign policy has been divided into two camps: Idealist and Realist. Idealists think that a peaceful world can be obtained and America should lead by example, and the realists accept that the world is not perfect and America shouldn’t be expected to act any more benevolently than anybody else.
Placing past presidents neatly into each camp, however, is not always easy. Throughout his premiership Barack Obama has come under constant criticism from both sides – the Left accuses him of being mawkish and heavy-handed, the Right timid and with a tendency to vacillate. Indeed, commentators lack a consistent understanding of what is meant by the ‘Obama Doctrine’.
Critical of George W. Bush during his presidency, once in office Obama found himself having to deal with the same problems faced by Bush, and choosing to deal with them in much the same way. And had there been a 9/11 on his watch it is at least thinkable that he would have taken the same course of action as Bush.
Which poses a rather interesting question: what would be Donald Trump’s response to a terrorist atrocity committed on U.S. soil, if he were President? His idea for