Are Spheres of Influence to be the New International Order?

 

If so, America's power to stand for freedom in the world – as it has since its founding – will not only be greatly diminished but may lead to the nation's demise.  

Various Trump administration adherents have suggested that US activities around the world have ill-served our national interests and are misplaced. Examples.  Publicly singled out have been the Agency for International Development and Ukraine as unimportant for America. There are very strong arguments to the contrary, but the White House seems unimpressed.

 Rather, the sentiment that seems persuasive is that America is not what it used to be in its capacity to sit alone on the top of the world. It has no alternative but to acknowledge its diminished power and influence on the world stage.

 Trump gives credence to this view by his scarcely concealed affection for Putin's Russia and sympathy for China's claim to Taiwan and sovereignty over the regrettably named China Sea.

 What this means, probably, is that the US should concede, at least, two spheres of influence on the globe which would recognize nations with huge land masses dominating those states nearby.  Thus, Russia would assert its control over Eastern Europe and southward while China gets Asia with presumably an exception for India which would unavoidably be isolated (without American naval presence in the China Sea).  America gets the North and South under its sway with the Monroe doctrine reinvigorated

 The result of such divisions will be fatal for the cause of freedom within the jurisdictions of the tyrannical regimes of Russia and China. The City of Light on the American Hill will not only be hard to see but its intensity will dim.

 The US will no longer come to the aid of the world's Ukraines and Taiwans. They will be in areas off-limits to outsiders and there will be no rescue of such entities by outside friends of liberty, namely us.

 What’s wrong with that? What concern of ours are the freedom and democratic rights of others?

 Simple. America was founded on the ideas of freedom and human rights. We still have these values and most of us are willing to fight for them. That commitment and follow through is part of what makes us exceptional.

 Are we willing to concede our at least partial abandonment of our historic identity? And do we realize that leaders of other spheres – given the perspective opposed to ours – may long to invade and conquer ours?

 Trump may be tempted by isolationist urges to think he can duplicate the 19th century's balance of power in Europe which is heralded as having prevented major wars for 100 years.  Powers today, of course, are global in potential reach.  Thus new spheres are contemplated.

 But America is not ready to be limited. That's not us, Trump and his legions notwithstanding.  Nonetheless, what if their hopes come to pass and the  U.S. has only a “sphere” in the world?  Will we have any allies? From where? Will they be precluded from coming to our aid if we are attacked because of the domination of Russia, or China or some other power? Will fortress America be strong enough to fend off the new alignment of interests arrayed against us?

 Is Trump that much of a fool to start America's descent into oblivion?

The Plight of Republican Sycophants

Donald Trump has an affinity for Russia with Putin in charge. His Fox  sycophants (the opinionated as opposed to the news announcers) take their lead from him as do fellow travelers such as former Fox personality Tucker Carlson ("Moscow has better supermarkets than we do " – the one he visited and gushed over is owned by a Danish company.)

 The affection for our past – and current – enemy is not shared by most rank-and-file Republicans. 80% view Moscow unfavorably. But few GOP legislators voice that sentiment.

 So what is going on?

 Donald Trump's friendly view of Russia is nothing new. From his pre-politician days when his "Miss Universe" enterprise held an event in Moscow decades ago to the early days of his first presidency when he sided with Putin's view on electoral fraud over that of American intelligence agencies, our president has been unwilling to speak ill of the Kremlin.

One can speculate that he simply admires the Russian tyrant's ability to get his own way. (Some observers think Trump's regard for the Chinese leader has the same foundation.)

 The conspiratorial-minded could speculate that Trump's conduct is part of a broader plan, sponsored by Putin, to undermine the West. Of late, Trump has indeed taken actions regarding Ukraine, Europe, Mexico and Canada which threaten Western unity as well as Ukraine's survival. There has even been talk of the president's ceding "spheres of influence" to Russia and China which endanger America's interests and friends around the world.

 On their face, such thoughts are preposterous. Donald Trump is incapable of strategic thought. With him, everything is personal. He thrives on flattery. If Putin, et al., tell him sweet nothings, he'll do their bidding or at least what he thinks will please them. That makes him a malleable fool, not a Manchurian candidate character.

 Members of Congress and administration officials fall into line with Trump's solicitude toward Russia as being in their personal interest (to disagree can be political suicide). They are cowards. Or maybe others are simply intellectually vapid.  They used to spout anti-Russian language because that is what Republicans were supposed to say. But Trump's attitude has changed that. Their fingers in the wind causes them to shift their views. And then there are people who were seen as principled, such as current Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who have changed  from being hawks to parrots reciting lines from Trump's script.

 For those GOP leaders who were actually sincere in their previously expressed hostility toward Russia, the question lingers. Why sacrifice your soul –and the nation's interests (and the world's too) – for the ephemeral fruits of ambition?

 One hopes their comeuppance will not be long delayed. Trump will jilt them– as he always does to those prostitutes whose flattery eventually bores him.  

 

Is There a Political Home for a Traditional Conservative?

 

In times past the Republican Party fit that bill with its pledged allegiance to limited government, lower taxes and a strong national defense. 

Today that's a questionable choice. 

It's not Donald Trump as the party leader which raises the most important concerns. After all, he will be gone in 2028 (ignore the Trumpian trial balloon for a third term – it's already been popped). Rather it is the obsequiousness displayed toward him by the bulk of GOP officeholders and much of the party's rank-and-file (80% or so). They are the Republican core now and will remain so after Trump's departure. Will they be able to reclaim their integrity then? 

Doubtful. 

Who can forget, for instance, the role played by GOP senators constitutionally required to provide "advice and consent" to the president's selections for high public office. A rubber stamp was used instead. Although the U.S. Constitution does not define the standard for approval, being complement for the position sought to include such attributes as intelligence, experience and knowledge, would seem implicit. Did the 40-year-old Fox News host satisfy them? Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a hawk on military matters equivocated -- his vote was needed for senatorial consent for the nominee for secretary of defense – but went along. 

Why? 

No one of any substance claimed Pete Hegseth was competent to be Secretary of Defense. That included Sen. Tillis. But he's up for reelection in two years, faces a vocal Trump supporter in his primary and wants to win. Trump would certainly oppose him if he had voted no. 

Plainly Tillis chose self-preservation over integrity and the national interest. 49 of his colleagues made the same decision. 

Sure, being a Senator is a prestigious position which a holder would like to keep. Being in the good graces of the president will help secure that objective. But concern for status and power is more important than doing what's right? Of course that query appears naïve. People can justify their selfish actions by engaging in all sorts of self-deception. And they do. 

Are GOP legislators and general party members so blinded by fear and/or adulation that they have abandoned their duties as citizens to serve and support America? 

As a Republican and conservative my entire life, I'm ashamed of the party now. But where am I to go? 

Note there is merit to the claim that the president should be able to choose those who will implement his policies. But the Constitution imposed a potential check on those to be selected. GOP senators have ignored that authority.