I hate the term “America First.” To clarify: I don’t hate the idea of putting America first. On the contrary, the idea the American government should prioritize the interests of Americans seems so patently obvious I question the need for adopting an “America First” slogan at all. And that cuts to the core of the issue with Donald Trump’s slogan: “America First” sets up a false dichotomy. It allows Trump to present himself as the patriotic defender of Americans striving to defeat a sinister cosmopolitan elite that believes the very concepts of the nation-state and nationalities are outdated. It’s this commitment to globalism that allegedly motivates the hated “establishment” to adopt free trade agreements, open borders and entangling international alliances, all to the detriment of the American worker. This worldview offered by “America First” advocates has the benefit of being simple and easily understood. But it is also ignores how the policies so derided by Trump and his cohorts benefit Americans.
Adopting the slogan “America First” implies our current policies do not serve American interests. The doctrine’s preachers are not short of perceived enemies in both parties. Seen as opposing the “America First” advocates are the likes of President Obama and House Speaker Paul Ryan, castigated for their support of the not-yet-ratified Trans-Pacific Partnership deal. Also indicted is the foreign policy establishment, for its steadfast commitment to NATO and other American allies, even if they don’t pay as much as Trump desires. Thus in the name of helping the average American, Trump and his like-minded compatriots rail against the previously bipartisan consensus of trade agreements such as NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, and against our security agreements which have helped ensure a relatively stable world order since 1945 but compel us to spend our own blood and treasure while our allies appear to duck the tab.
This rhetoric makes for a compelling narrative — “America should look out for Americans!” — as stories of factory workers now unemployed because their jobs were outsourced are easier to absorb than the intricacies of complex but beneficial trade and security agreements. But this narrative only obscures the problem: the policy prescriptions offered by those who proclaim to put American interests first will undermine the very interests they want to serve.
Consider the issue of free trade. Despite the vociferous hatred NAFTA inspires in Trump and his nationalist cheerleaders, it has contributed to vastly lower prices for American consumers. This has the practical effect of enriching Americans, as they now spend less money than they otherwise would for the same products. Moreover, scrapping the agreement could actually benefit Mexico to America’s detriment. Freer trade, just like automation, will result in some job losses. But politicians don’t pursue trade deals solely to benefit the global poor; they do so because, as Bloomberg News notes after discussing the possible costs of China’s entrance into the WTO, “UCLA and Columbia University concluded that trade increases the real incomes of those in the middle of the economic spectrum by 29 percent while raising it for poor households by 62 percent.” In what world is that not in the interest of Americans?
Trump and his cheerleaders also question our security agreements with Eastern European allies, sometimes shockingly hypocritically. These qualms have some prima facie appeal: How does it benefit Americans to oblige them to die for Estonians if Putin decides to invade? As Trump stated at a rally: “How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing.”
Wait, my mistake; those are not Trump’s words, as the error-free syntax and relative eloquence probably make clear. That phrase belongs to Neville Chamberlain, uttered in September of 1938 shortly before signing the Munich Agreement with Adolf Hitler that carved up Czechoslovakia to appease the Third Reich. While Russia today does not constitute the same threat as Germany did in the 1930s and 40s, I include the quote to illustrate a point. Refusing to defend democratic countries from revanchist and unfriendly powers — and especially reneging on our treaties with one of the few nations that actually adheres to its NATO requirements — is not in the interest of Americans. We commit so many resources to ensuring the relative stability of Europe not because of some utopian ideal of putting small Baltic nations’ interests above our own, but because deterring aggression in order to preserve Pax Americana is in the interest of Americans. As Council on Foreign Relations fellow Stephen Sestanovich recently explained in The New York Times, sowing doubt about America’s commitment to our allies “encourages participants in an increasingly stable and legitimate political system to try confrontation rather than compromise,” creating a more dangerous world that would only further imperil American interests.
The term “America First” is not new. Originally the rallying cry of a group of isolationists, anti-Semites and crypto-fascists who hoped to prevent American entrance into World War II, the subsequent bombing of Pearl Harbor appeared to marginalize the phrase permanently. Now it’s back and espoused by a major party nominee. The phrase remains just as obsolete and dishonest now as it was then and should again be excised from political discourse. American policymakers should of course prioritize the interests of Americans, but the criticisms charged by the “America First” sloganeers are a combination of misguided and shortsighted, and their proposed solutions — tariffs and isolationism — even worse.
Matt Winesett is a Senior Associate Editor for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at m.winesett@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: Sometimes it’s okay to fake a smile
By Alexandra Holmes | 13 hours agoI surrounded myself with people who were so enthusiastic about the University and its potential, that after a while, it was impossible not to feel their passion and their convictions rub off on me.
PARTING SHOT: Girl, what did you expect?
By Cecy Juárez | YesterdayAdvocate for yourself unabashedly, even and especially when you feel like you don’t belong.
PARTING SHOT: Revisiting old comments
By Claire DiLorenzo | YesterdayIn retirement, I am also trying not to be hard on myself — I don’t have to hold onto all the mistakes that I made as an editor.
