Wednesday, June 20 , 2018, 12:48 am | Fair 61º

 
 
 
 

Michael Barone: ‘America First’ Is Not a Threat but a Promise

"From this day forward, it's going to be only America first, America first," Donald Trump proclaimed in his inaugural address. As has been his habit, he added to the prepared text the word "only" and employed the rhetorical device of repetition by repeating "America first."

The phrase sticks in some critics' craws. It was the name of a bipartisan organization opposed to U.S. aid to Britain in 1940-41, and its leader, Charles Lindbergh, claimed that the main groups pushing America to war were "the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration."

The phrase "America first" in an inaugural address in, say, 1949 or 1953 would have been disturbing for many understandable reasons. But it doesn't have any resonance for today's voters.

In an earlier passage in his speech, Trump made clear what he had in mind.

"At the center of this movement" — which brought him to the presidency — "is a crucial conviction, that a nation exists to serve its citizens." Not people in other countries, not foreigners who are visitors or legal residents or would like to live here someday.

At many points in American history, that statement would have been unremarkable. Not so today.

As scholar Walter Russell Mead writes in Foreign Affairs, "many Americans with cosmopolitan sympathies see their main ethical imperative as working for the betterment of humanity in general."

Speaking in Berlin in 2008, Barack Obama identified himself as a "citizen of the world," as well as of the United States. In a well-compensated speech to a Brazilian bank in 2013, Hillary Clinton said, "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future."

The phrase "open borders" is ambiguous, but it's consistent with the prevalent view of recent presidents of both parties that freer trade and robust immigration are, on balance, good for America.

That's in line with the broader notion, widely shared since Pearl Harbor, that American interests are served by promoting free trade and free movement around the world.

In the process, American governmental, financial and media elites have become more comfortable with their counterparts in other countries — the people they see at Davos and Bilderberg — and more out of touch and uncomfortable with large masses of their countrymen.

In response, many of those countrymen, in Mead's words, see "the cosmopolitan elite as near treasonous — people who think it is morally questionable to put their own country, and its citizens, first."

Trump, as he took care to make clear, is speaking for them.

For cosmopolitan elites, any form of nationalism is akin to Nazism. But history teaches that there are many healthy forms of nationalism and that such nationalisms are not inconsistent with — and indeed they have often promoted — a high regard for human rights.

Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt and Charles de Gaulle were all nationalists, as were the postwar American presidents who built and maintained our treaty alliances and trade regime.

A healthy nationalism includes respect for other healthy nationalisms. Trump pledged "friendship and goodwill" with other nations and conceded "the right of all nations to put their own interests first."

"We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones," he said, "and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism."

Unless one assumes the verb "reinforce" was carelessly chosen, that doesn't sound like a renunciation of the NATO alliance or our responsibility to defend fellow members against attack.

Foreign leaders are scrambling to engage with Trump on his terms — Britain's Theresa May, Canada's Justin Trudeau, Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu — even as corporations from Wal-Mart to Foxconn scramble to announce plans to create American jobs.

American media struggle to delegitimize him, but foreign leaders aren't following suit.

As for the "cosmopolitan elite" who disdain Trump's defiant nationalism, his inaugural address reminds them of a lesson understood by the postwar presidents who integrated the military and enforced school desegregation orders: that a healthy nationalism can bring people together.

"When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice," he said at one point. "Whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots."

Current American elites seek to palliate victim groups whose memberships transcend international boundaries. A corollary is a polarized politics in which those outside the groups — white married Christians — are villainized as oppressors.

A healthy nationalism based on "America first" points toward a less polarized, more inclusive country.

Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. Click here to contact him, follow him on Twitter: @MichaelBarone, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Enter your email
Select your membership level
×

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >