“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to Foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled, with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”
– George Washington
The majority of Conservatives and moderates who voted for Trump during the 2016 presidential election did so due to several factors, but most were primarily contingent upon the Constitutional values of Patriotism, Nationalism, Isolationism and Nativism. Trump’s assurance of the American people that the preservation of the interests of the United States would be prioritized over those of foreign countries appeared reminiscent of the similar doctrine that was established by George Washington and the founding fathers. This was the primary catalyst in Trump’s campaign that provided him with sufficient nationwide support, to secure the election.
Now, however, Trump has made two decisions recently regarding foreign policy that cause Conservatives to observe his actions with greater hesitance.
The first of these instances was his decision to intervene within the Syrian conflict and bomb the airfield within the territory. This decision sparked outrage from Conservatives worldwide, who found the action to be a hypocritical violation of Trump’s original non-interventionist doctrine that would halt the neo-conservative endeavor to eliminate foreign political leaders and establish pseudo-democracies to spread “freedom” globally. Indeed, Trump’s decision to act in this manner created further tensions with Russia and Syria, which he had previously expressed a desire to cooperate with. This was primarily instigated by the United States’ relation with Israel, and likely influences of neo-conservatives in close proximity to the President.
This was further troubling to those who have followed the United States’ destructive paths in Foreign Policy for the last few years, particularly under the Obama administration. Both the elimination of Gaddafi, as pursued by Hillary Clinton and the State department, as well as the elimination of Bin Laden under Obama, provided ISIS with the opportunity to expand. This was solidified by the American weapons that had been virtually abandoned in Iraq, and the fact that Al Qaeda was all but in shambles due to the death of Bin Laden. There remained no one to maintain authoritative order after this. The destruction only continued throughout Syria as the United States financially aided the “rebels” who sought to overthrow the government, eliminate Syrian President Bashar Al- Assad, and throw the country into anarchic disarray. This was further complicated by Russia’s support of the Syrian government, which provided direct military opposition to both the “Rebels” who were actually members of ISIS, as well as the United States, who funded said rebels.
The U.S.’s naive, ominous neo-conservative endeavors to “spread freedom” has always been a destructive, counterproductive action, and has thoroughly destabilized the Middle East. Conservatives have hoped that Trump would bring an end to these globalist monstrosities, as well as drastically reduce the contingency of the United States upon foreign nations’ resources.
This hope, however, has swiftly become jeopardized, in the wake of Trump’s recent meeting with Saudi Arabia, and the consequential agreement to a 110 billion dollar arms deal. While mainstream Conservatives that refuse to deviate from Trump’s agenda insist that this decision is one that would ultimately benefit the United States both monetarily, and aid in dismantling ISIS, this assumption may quickly be refuted in a simple observation of Saudi Arabia’s relations with other predominantly Islamic countries. Saudi Arabia, being an Islamic country, can obviously be considered a formidable threat to Western civilization on its own, but is particularly dangerous in its relation to other countries that likewise possess a disproportionate amount of terrorism.
This decision by Trump will inevitably alienate those Conservatives whose vote for him was contingent upon Nationalism and Isolationism, and thus severely damage his established support.
Trump had made a statement that he is both a “Nationalist and a Globalist” without acknowledging that the two are antithetical to one another, and oxymoronic. This demonstrates that he has likely succumbed to neo-conservative influences, and no longer adheres to such a staunchly Isolationist perspective regarding foreign policy. This should serve as a cautionary indication to Conservatives: Be wary of globalist tendencies under the guise of “America First” implications.
“The Nation that delivers itself to habitual sentiments of love or of hatred towards another becomes a sort of slave to them. It is a slave to its hatred or to its love.”
– George Washington