Trump doesn’t believe in our values. Only in our interests.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
President Trump and
French President Emmanuel Macron.
Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
Unlike, say, French President Emmanuel Macron. Indeed, according to my colleague Josh Rogin, Macron recently turned down Trump's offer for France to leave the European Union in return for a better trade deal from the United States, because, well, of course he did. France isn't about to throw away its 60-year project to make another European war impossible just so it can sell us some more wine. It's insulting to even ask.
Not that Trump seems to understand. How could he when he erroneously believes that the E.U. was “set up to take advantage of the United States”? Nothing could be further from the truth. It was about stopping Europe's new 30 years' war from turning into a 40 or 50 or even 60 years' one. Back then, you see, the Marshall Plan had been enough to jump-start a recovery in Western Europe, but not the self-sustaining one that its still-precarious democracies needed. The problem was that Europe's economic engine — Germany — hadn't been allowed to restart. The rest of the continent still didn't trust it. And so they were stuck. As much as they might have feared Germany as a rival, they needed it as a trading partner. That meant they could either try imposing another Carthaginian peace on Germany — because Versailles had worked so well, right? — or try to come up with another, less punitive way to make Germany safe for the rest of Europe.
It started with coal and steel. The idea, as French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman put it in 1950, was to make another war between France and Germany “not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible.” So to that end, he proposed putting all of their separate coal and steel production under a single transnational authority. That would not only let the rest of Europe get the raw materials it needed from Germany without having to wonder what it was using them for, but also give them the market they needed to sell things in. It took two years for Schuman's vision to come to fruition, but when it did, the European Coal and Steel Community was as much of a success as could have been hoped.
From a single market for coal and steel, it wasn't that big of a leap to a single market for everything else. The result, in 1957, was the European Economic Community, which was the precursor to the European Union itself. It took awhile for it to be expanded beyond its six original members — France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg — but when it did, it codified the values of cooperation and integration into Europe's DNA. That's not to say, though, that the E.U. hasn't been without its faults. Its reliance on bureaucratically created rules rather than democratically enacted laws has created a lack of legitimacy for its grander ambitions of an “ever closer union.” Its decision to go beyond a single market to a single currency has caused the exact type of problem — persistently high unemployment in some countries — that economists warned it would. But on balance, the E.U. has still been one of the biggest contributors to peace and prosperity there has ever been.
The E.U., of course, is far from the only international organization Trump has a problem with. The same could be said for pretty much all of them: NATO, NAFTA, the WTO — if there's an acronym or initialism involved, chances are Trump hates it. What they all have in common, other than being the subject of Trump's 280-character rebukes, is that they were set up in the postwar period to try to stabilize the world by aligning it with our long-term values. We understood that creating a rules-based order that constrained us in some ways still served our long-term interests better than anything else could, because we wouldn't have to bully other countries to be a part of it. They would want to be.
Trump, though, doesn't see these benefits. He sees only the costs. To him, everything is just a transaction where there's a winner and a loser. There's no such thing as something that makes everyone better off. Which is why he's not only trying to tear down the liberal international order we've worked so hard to build the past 70 years — and, in the case of Canada, over dairy tariffs! — but also can't understand why anyone wouldn't want to go along with it. What could be more important than trying to sell more stuff?
It's a question Russian President Vladimir Putin and every other dictator has wanted us to ask for a long time now. That's because creating a world based on interests rather than values really means our values won't get in the way of their interests — even if those are, say, annexing part of a neighboring country.
“America First” means our values last.
Tags
Who is online
119 visitors
our politicians were killing our steel production for the same reason. no transitional authority but putting production overseas does the same thing
but now the liberal world order just lost its biggest contributor. (the fire sale is closed for good)
our values include putting the long-term interest of our country first. before any other country and even before "profits"
so we will be keeping and increasing our steel and aluminum production even if it costs more to produce in the long run.
ever hear the expression?
where the USA goes the world follows
not just a bumper sticker
... whatever...
of course, you would have no reply.
that is a core american value which trumps every other issue. (pardon the pun)
we do not have a history of sacrificing national security for any reason.
our govt was designed to defend this country at any and all cost.
we need steel and aluminum to defend our country. so we are keeping production in our country.
trade is a national security issue and so is our economy.
(national security is priority one)
you are the put our country second kind of guy huh?
I will remember that if you ever try to claim you are a patriot in the future and refer you back here when ya do.
cheers
keep digging... LOL
china could not be that far away
cheers
I believe Bob is getting at you completely missed the entire premise of the article and jumped str8 to the America First screw the rest of them mentality.
That mentality is not the what this country was born upon nor is it the mentality that made us great. The ability to work with others and protect the little guy, cooperating with like minded nations all while looking at the big picture is what has kept America safe and has generated long lasting alliances.
Isolationism/protectionism while in the short term sounds great and will provide some benefit only hurts the country and our security in the long run.
Yup!
Its not really either of those. Its only asking for a fair deal. Equalism if you will and most Americans are all for it. That is to say, not screw the little guy but also not get screwed by the little guy.
There is a big difference there in todays world compared to previous generations.
For too long the United States has been the dumping ground for foreign goods, and a punching bag for the European liberal elites. We've repeatedly bailed them out and helped them out by providing most of their security and all kinds of financial aid. We've gotten the short straw when it comes to the balance of trade. We've gotten little in return for our long term largesse. This needs to change and that is what Trump is trying to do. It'll take time and both sides have to give in order to get. The same will occur with our other trading partners
Some will argue it is our own fault. I remember a time when Made in America meant something and people went out of their way to only buy American. Somewhere that changed and cheaper was better (maybe it was stagnant wages that pushed us there). American manufactures saw an opportunity to make cheaper goods that Americans wanted and as a bonus without the EPA regulations. The moved and then sold the cheaper quality and priced goods back to the US. We bought it and never looked back.
The effect of that transition has left those countries an environmental nightmare and the US manufacturing industry may never recover. It is up to the corporations to decide if saving American middleclass is worth a few % in profits, my guess is it is not and when the American consumer dies off they will find bigger markets in India and China and that is what they are truly banking on.
It's called "bargaining chips". Trump will need two full terms to get it all accomplished. His reelection is assured.
then bob missed the bigger picture
the same thing was being done to our country. and trump put a stop to it.
trump only does what is best for him? winners losers?
yet our steel and aluminum production is a national security issue. it is best for all of us if we produce. we like to win.
if all do is consume from china? that makes us losers aka "their bitches" and nothing more.
america first values last?
hate to break the news... our values include putting our country first.
cheers
If we were the ones that had the higher tariffs on incoming products compared to our exports in the countries that are going to be affected by the tariffs, then it would be protectionism. The problem is that we have higher tariffs being put on our exports by Canada, China, and a whole myriad of countries that are being affected by the tariffs. What Trump is doing is called reciprocity; which is what Brazil does. If a country places a tariff of 25% on one of their products, they place a 25% tariff on an import from the country in question. That is true Fair Trade.
We actually have Free Trade agreements which as the name states is free of tariffs. Open global market was the goal of the Free trade agreements.
I would argue it is better to preserve our resources and buy foreign so that in times of crises we can use our saved internal resources while outside entities supplies are depleted from them selling to the world.
I100 % agree and have always thought that. Let the greedy ignorant countries of the world deplete all their natural resources build our military and see which country rules the world in the end. otherwise, get used to eating rice.
Yep, it's already been envisioned ...... Mr Fusion ...... throw a banana peel in there and run your car for days, weeks, months even.
Not just oil; but iron ore, copper, and rare earth resources are included.
If that is the case why do Mexico and Canada place tariffs on our food exports?
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is one of trade’s greatest success stories for food and agriculture. The trilateral agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico removed many tariff and non-tariff barriers that paved the way for U.S. agricultural exports to our two partners to quadruple from $11 billion in 1993 to over $43 billion in 2016.
Which Agriculture products do you know of continue to have tariffs and why have they not been lifted?
Industry Success in North America
With a few key exceptions , intraregional agricultural trade is now free of tariff and quota restrictions, and in many of those cases the agricultural sectors of the North American region have become far more integrated, as is evidenced by rising trade in a wider range of agricultural products and substantial levels of cross-border investment in the processed food sector.
NAFTA has benefitted America’s food and agriculture sector in many specific ways:
Really tell that to US dairy farmers:
I don't agree with Trump's tariffs against US allies. Withdraw from NATO. Sign individual packs with each country stating the US will come to their aid if they are directly attacked (meaning their homeland). That will force them to pay for their own defense. Let them decide between guns and butter for a change.
Wonder if your example would be considered one of the FEW KEY EXCEPTIONS. Need to look at the big picture.
Funny how the article doesn't even state what America's values are, so how can it be about how Trump is ignoring those values when they aren't even mentioned? The article really talks about France and its influence in the run-up to the creation of the European Union, which did not exist until 1992. Everything else before 1992 was just the foundation that the EU was built upon. Heck, it doesn't even mention the values of France in the article only its interest in keeping Germany in line. This is just a very, very bad essay.
Indeed. France and Germany have a HUGE interest in making the EU work because not only does it get them what they have both wanted for centuries (hegemony over the continent) but it also prevents those two nations from once again being decimated by a continental war. The EU is ultimately built upon the graves of tens of millions of Europeans, and it is out of fear and respect of those graves that many nations in Europe want the EU to succeed.
I'm enjoying the hell out of today's news that Boris Johnson and one other hardline Brexiter resigned due to May's attempt to give the UK a "soft" landing. Of course, the EU was probably not going to give that to her anyway but her government is in chaos right now (as it should be) and the anti-Brexit movement is gaining strength by the day because of what a cockup the Tories have made of this whole mess from the beginning.
why do the interesting articles always fall off so fast =(