America First

raduv1

Outstanding Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
21,514
Reaction score
18,988
Points
6,324
Location
kent
Hi all , don't delve to much into the P&E section as a lot smarter peeps than I with more understanding of the finer points of the political animal are here to fill in my many blanks.

So I ask is this America First administration actually harmful to America itself internally and on the world stage ?

From outside looking in ( for myself ) the administration policy is targeted for that minority base audience whilst completely ignoring the wider US population and indeed the world.

I'll pick up on one point , two countries do not agree ( one pulling out ) on the Paris Climate Accord. The US ( now ) and Syria . That says a lot to me how far down on the world stage the US has fallen .

Wow managed to get through the OP without one mention of Trump ......... oh bugger me :(.

So over to you dudes and dudets to discuss.
 
America First is an absolutely ridiculous policy which makes no sense at all.
 
It is said that "America First Policies is a non-profit organization supporting key policy initiatives that will work for all citizens in our country and put America first". It was initiated by a group of Trump's aids who got together to push forward Trump's agenda.

The problem is that 'America First' is causing disruption and proving frustrating to many US senior players who are trying to promote USA agenda in a positive way, especially overseas. It's causing a radical shift in US foreign policy and generating much criticism.

However, Trump was elected on 'America First' policy and he is rolling out his promises with the help of his aids. Basically he is putting America first and the trade off is worldwide laughter and derision (so it seems in the media).
 
It is said that "America First Policies is a non-profit organization supporting key policy initiatives that will work for all citizens in our country and put America first". It was initiated by a group of Trump's aids who got together to push forward Trump's agenda.

The problem is that 'America First' is causing disruption and proving frustrating to many US senior players who are trying to promote USA agenda in a positive way, especially overseas. It's causing a radical shift in US foreign policy and generating much criticism.

However, Trump was elected on 'America First' policy and he is rolling out his promises with the help of his aids. Basically he is putting America first and the trade off is worldwide laughter and derision (so it seems in the media).

From the outside all I see is China / Russia taking full advantage politically and economically of this America First policy ATM. They both now seem to be the bigger players on the world stage than the US . That in itself is a worrying prospect and trend.
 
From the outside all I see is China / Russia taking full advantage politically and economically of this America First policy ATM. They both now seem to be the bigger players on the world stage than the US . That in itself is a worrying prospect and trend.

It's a change.

China and Russia have been big players for many years. The difference is they are using their industrial and economic muscle on the word stage in a less communistic fashion, so they are now in manufacturing and buying/selling goods to democratic countries. This aspect is making them rich in assets.

In other words more competitive and less combative.

The US of A, rather than facing the challenge out on the world stage, is looking more and more inward and 'America First' is the result, hence the radical change in foreign policy.
 
I think we are seeing something similar in Britain. There are frequent calls to stop our involvement in wars overseas and the cutting of international aid. We don't say Britain First but many on the left and right would like us to concentrate on our our internal problems, rather than some far off country.
 
The US of A, rather than facing the challenge out on the world stage, is looking more and more inward and 'America First' is the result, hence the radical change in foreign policy.

I think we are seeing something similar in Britain. There are frequent calls to stop our involvement in wars overseas and the cutting of international aid. We don't say Britain First but many on the left and right would like us to concentrate on our our internal problems, rather than some far off country.

It's a major mistake that will not only effect those countries following an insular 'us first' set of policies, but also will have a negative effect on everyone else to lesser and greater degrees.

Up until 160 years ago, if you were traveling from Manchester to London it would take on average 5 to 6 days.
Up to about 120 years ago, the fastest way to send a message from London to Australia took over 2 months.
It is only around 85 years ago that the early exploratory flights traveled from London to Australia in a record breaking 25 days.

What is 'far away' is a very relative term.

The Chernobyl incident left some British farmers still restricted from moving their sheep for 26 years until 2012 when the final restrictions for Wales and Cumbria we finally lifted.
That's something that happened 1,300 miles away, in a 'far away' country.

With the advancement of technology and the resources and materials it demands, along with the increasing demands for food, goods, fuel other items, few if any countries, especially those in the first world can afford to not pay serious attention to what is going on around the globe.

We are now in a position that we effect and are effected by each other internationally at levels economically, environmentally and stability wise that are too significant to ignore.
The point at which we could dismiss things happening in other countries as 'far away' has passed.
 
Hi all , don't delve to much into the P&E section as a lot smarter peeps than I with more understanding of the finer points of the political animal are here to fill in my many blanks.

I wouldn’t make that assumption. Read a few threads in P&E and you will soon think you are a genius compared to what you see being posted. :laugh:
 
It doesnt matter what the US do it will always be wrong. If they become internationalist then they will be criticized for getting involved in other peoples wars, if they turn insular they are criticized for standing by and not doing anything while people get slaughtered.

After the last decade in Afghanistan and Iraq perhaps the time has come for them to step back a bit and let others try something else.
 
From the outside all I see is China / Russia taking full advantage politically and economically of this America First policy ATM. They both now seem to be the bigger players on the world stage than the US . That in itself is a worrying prospect and trend.

Well China are buying up great swathes of Africa, if that means a return to a more stable continent then surely a good thing?
 
It doesnt matter what the US do it will always be wrong. If they become internationalist then they will be criticized for getting involved in other peoples wars, if they turn insular they are criticized for standing by and not doing anything while people get slaughtered.

After the last decade in Afghanistan and Iraq perhaps the time has come for them to step back a bit and let others try something else.

Any and every country, government and organisation will face criticism internally and externally no matter what policy, action or inaction they take, be it within or without their own boarders.
That is just par for the course of fallible and having to deal with other fallible human beings.

How much or how little criticism you get is not an actual measure of doing the right or best thing for yourself or others.
It is far better to suffer criticism from a child for not giving them all the sweets they demand than to take the easier route of giving in to avoid the tantrums and then having to deal with a grossly overweight diabetic teenager in the future.

Within a democracy, that means the additional burden of sacrificing re-electability, working hard to get as much as you can done, or working even harder to balance getting as close to what is needed to be done with making sure that a significant enough of your population is educated, informed and on board to keep it moving forwards.....

.... or you could just give in to and ride the waves of popularism, letting the world go to hell in a hand basket, lining your pockets with as much as you can while sitting on your luxury yacht out at sea while the mainland burns.
 
China has such a trade surplus it can afford to spend money in projects overseas. But make no mistake they are doing it for the benefit of China. Africa for its raw materials, middle East for oil an the UK for technology and famous brands.
 
This American policy is just a slow down in the hyperglobalisation of the previous yrs, a different strategy especially after the financial shocks to the money markets. Not really a big deal.
 
This American policy is just a slow down in the hyperglobalisation of the previous yrs, a different strategy especially after the financial shocks to the money markets. Not really a big deal.

In a large part, the 'financial shocks' originated in the US - had the US been more insular and the rest of the world hadn't invested so much money in stocks and 'packaged' funds from the US, the crash would still have hit them(the US) hard, it would have just left us a hell of a lot better off in that respect.

There is also a significant difference between foreign and international policy, co-operation and engaging in international bodies and organisations in contrast with attempting to encourage businesses and especially multinationals to maintain jobs and taxes geographically relative to their source of profit.

In other words, being part of Nato, the Paris Climate Accord, international research, developement and aid packages etc is a completely seperate issue from trying to reduce shell companies, offshoring and international job outsourcing.

If it were simply policies and reaction to hyperglobalisation, I would be more than happy to support them, but it isn't.
America First is about America becoming more insular and/or self interested with regards to the world on all fronts, including the environment, security, aid and politics, non of which are related to hyperglobalisation.
 
Last edited:
Hyperglobalisation is the metaphoric term that covers every aspect of governmental involvement outside of its own space, such as environmental, political, foreign economic, agricultural polis, etc, etc. I picked just one example eg the financial markets as an example.

That's it, one word to describe what you said in 5 paragraphs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'globalist' is favourite term of derision from the (alt-)right and their attached conspiracy wackjobs spreading actual fake news like Alex Jones. They use it to attack anyone - virtually a catch-all label for those not with them - it was Steve Bannon's insult of choice to anyone he saw pulling Trump away from him. When I hear the term these days, it automatically evokes Jones shouting some ridiculous shit and dribbling.
 
Yes but in academia it has nothing to do with the alt right or anybody involved in that mud fight. I don't even know who Alex Jones is, I just don't have the time nor the headspace to listen to that drivel.
 
Globalism places the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations, which of course goes against Trump's America First Policy. So his aids use the word 'globalist' as a derogatory term.

That's politics.
 
Hyperglobalisation is the metaphoric term that covers every aspect of governmental involvement outside of its own space, such as environmental, political, foreign economic, agricultural polis, etc, etc. I picked just one example eg the financial markets as an example.

That's it, one word to describe what your said in 5 paragraphs.

Hyperglobalisation is not generally used to refer to nor explicitly linked to governmental/political systems.

It isn't a metaphor, it's a literal description, or mistaken/accidental hyperbole presented and/or believed to be literally descriptive.

The primary and most understood usage of the term is with regards to commerce - banks, industry, corporations and multi nationals along with communications and travel.
It can be used and related to governmental and political systems, but it isn't implicit and needs to be explicitly stated.
 
Globalism places the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations, which of course goes against Trump's America First Policy. So his aids use the word 'globalist' as a derogatory term.

That's politics.

We need to be careful with these types of terms.

The -ist, ism and -s(z)ation while sharing the same base word, often can mean explicitly different things.
It is often the case that while one variant is simply a neutral/natural and/or literal description of a thing or process, other variants describe an idea, ideology or belief.

Globalism(Ideology) and a globalist(follower of Globalism) are related to by distinct from globalisation(neutral literal description OR used as an ideologically pejorative term).
 
Hyperglobalisation is not generally used to refer to nor explicitly linked to governmental/political systems.

It isn't a metaphor, it's a literal description, or mistaken/accidental hyperbole presented and/or believed to be literally descriptive.

The primary and most understood usage of the term is with regards to commerce - banks, industry, corporations and multi nationals along with communications and travel.
It can be used and related to governmental and political systems, but it isn't implicit and needs to be explicitly stated.
Back onto ignore then.

Whilst you pretend to enlighten everyone with wiki.
 
Back onto ignore then.

Whilst you pretend to enlighten everyone with wiki.

You probably won't see this if you've used the 'ignore' - a rather sad and childish thing to do considering the circumstances:

I don't 'pretend to enlighten everyone with wiki' - It's rather insulting and ignorant to assume that just because someone expresses their views and communicates in a particular way that it can't be their own ideas, knowledge and style.
Isn't it possible that some people may be well read, knowledgeable or have a wide vocabulary and good diction rather than having to 'cut and paste' ideas ?
Not that I am declaring my own knowledge, vocabulary or diction to be particularly expansive, but it certainly appears that it is at the very least, greater than you judge it to be.

Maybe if you opened your mind to the idea that just because you don't understand or can't make sense of a thing, it doesn't mean that others can't. In simple terms, don't place scope and limits on others based upon your own personal understanding, limitations and competence.
 
I sometimes use cut and paste when a meaning is defined by someone on the 'net who does a much better job than me. As far as -ism goes the definition of 'globalism' was taken off a dictionary website. The rest of my post was mine.

Why I do that is to cut out any verbosity or misunderstanding over definition.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom