Several comments. First, the FP article “Walz for Trump” and all the comments below sadden me. Together they take away from my perception of TheFP as being a moderately conservative, but disciplined & not blind outlet. Bummer.
Second, the comments below devolve into a pro-Trump narrative. That’s not what Mc!aster is doing here.
Several comments. First, the FP article “Walz for Trump” and all the comments below sadden me. Together they take away from my perception of TheFP as being a moderately conservative, but disciplined & not blind outlet. Bummer.
Second, the comments below devolve into a pro-Trump narrative. That’s not what Mc!aster is doing here.
I wish he’d gone on to say that the job of our leaders is to be firm on the “what” - the values to which we as a nation, and to which they as a President, will be true, and be willing to work with others on “how” we achieve them in a given time & circumstance.
For instance. This is a foreign policy debarpte. In that, I value:
- US as the strongest global power & influencer. If we are not, others (China) will step into that role. We will no longer control how we operate, travel, conduct business, and influence other countries to accomplish our goals. Trump, Harris: Tell me about a time when you demonstrated valuing unequivocal US hegemony over China. What actions will you take in the future to assure it?
- Related: Preserve US power in the 21st Century. In the 20th Century, military power was our superpower. We could achieve our ends based on our sword. China is proving that money & trade matter more now. Its Belt & Road initiative is more powerful than guns. Harris, Trump: Prove this value by showing what you’ve done, or will do, to wield the biggest stick possible on the global stage to stop China from replacing the US as the most important country to so many nations around the globe? What matters most to those nations? How will we be their best friend?
- Excellence at partnering to be so. From Ben Franklin and his influence in Paris to help us achieve our goals of independence from Britain, to our post-WW II alliance with Japan to stabilize our relationship with Asia, we do better when we partner well. They may have their own reasons for joining with us; but simultaneous common action increases the chance to achieve a shared goal. E.g. we helped Japan build production capacity after being enemies and became a huge customer of their products to our benefit. So, Trump, Harris: Tell me about how you’ve partnered in the past; did everybody get what benefitted them - including you/us? What potential exists around the globe to leverage for our benefit?
- Be consistent on goals & values, & flexible on the how to achieve them. The job of a President is to lead by goals & values, not specifics. The latter is Congress’ job. See JFK & the moonshot. A President should be willing to debate, experiment, and compromise on how we achieve goals. For instance, I strongly support the right to freedom of people to choose their national governance. I also value life such that I don’t want indiscriminate slaughter - unless the opposition leaves no alternative. (See Hitler, notwithstanding Tucker Carlson’s revisionist history.) This is complicated in the Middle East, but I want my candidate to share those values and take a stance that shows it. So, Trump, Harris: tell me how you’re going to enable both Israel & the Palestinians to have self-governance with minimal loss of life?
The same principles apply beyond foreign policy. For instance, we can agree that no child should go hungry in the US; that every vendor should have an equal opportunity to reach the same customers. In both, there are multiple ways to achieve the goals. Let’s experiment, and adjust if one way doesn’t work. Or try several at once.
It’s no doubt that there are hard questions: What is “Life” and how do we each value the government’s role in preserving it as a matter of law? But I assert the number of these is small, indeed. They should be influential in value-selecting leaders; should they be absolutely determinative? Hmmm.
My position as a voter is not to focus on the “how” but on the “what”. What are the values & goals each candidate espouses? Then, I will vote in line with value expressions, not with policy.
Several comments. First, the FP article “Walz for Trump” and all the comments below sadden me. Together they take away from my perception of TheFP as being a moderately conservative, but disciplined & not blind outlet. Bummer.
Second, the comments below devolve into a pro-Trump narrative. That’s not what Mc!aster is doing here.
I wish he’d gone on to say that the job of our leaders is to be firm on the “what” - the values to which we as a nation, and to which they as a President, will be true, and be willing to work with others on “how” we achieve them in a given time & circumstance.
For instance. This is a foreign policy debarpte. In that, I value:
- US as the strongest global power & influencer. If we are not, others (China) will step into that role. We will no longer control how we operate, travel, conduct business, and influence other countries to accomplish our goals. Trump, Harris: Tell me about a time when you demonstrated valuing unequivocal US hegemony over China. What actions will you take in the future to assure it?
- Related: Preserve US power in the 21st Century. In the 20th Century, military power was our superpower. We could achieve our ends based on our sword. China is proving that money & trade matter more now. Its Belt & Road initiative is more powerful than guns. Harris, Trump: Prove this value by showing what you’ve done, or will do, to wield the biggest stick possible on the global stage to stop China from replacing the US as the most important country to so many nations around the globe? What matters most to those nations? How will we be their best friend?
- Excellence at partnering to be so. From Ben Franklin and his influence in Paris to help us achieve our goals of independence from Britain, to our post-WW II alliance with Japan to stabilize our relationship with Asia, we do better when we partner well. They may have their own reasons for joining with us; but simultaneous common action increases the chance to achieve a shared goal. E.g. we helped Japan build production capacity after being enemies and became a huge customer of their products to our benefit. So, Trump, Harris: Tell me about how you’ve partnered in the past; did everybody get what benefitted them - including you/us? What potential exists around the globe to leverage for our benefit?
- Be consistent on goals & values, & flexible on the how to achieve them. The job of a President is to lead by goals & values, not specifics. The latter is Congress’ job. See JFK & the moonshot. A President should be willing to debate, experiment, and compromise on how we achieve goals. For instance, I strongly support the right to freedom of people to choose their national governance. I also value life such that I don’t want indiscriminate slaughter - unless the opposition leaves no alternative. (See Hitler, notwithstanding Tucker Carlson’s revisionist history.) This is complicated in the Middle East, but I want my candidate to share those values and take a stance that shows it. So, Trump, Harris: tell me how you’re going to enable both Israel & the Palestinians to have self-governance with minimal loss of life?
The same principles apply beyond foreign policy. For instance, we can agree that no child should go hungry in the US; that every vendor should have an equal opportunity to reach the same customers. In both, there are multiple ways to achieve the goals. Let’s experiment, and adjust if one way doesn’t work. Or try several at once.
It’s no doubt that there are hard questions: What is “Life” and how do we each value the government’s role in preserving it as a matter of law? But I assert the number of these is small, indeed. They should be influential in value-selecting leaders; should they be absolutely determinative? Hmmm.
My position as a voter is not to focus on the “how” but on the “what”. What are the values & goals each candidate espouses? Then, I will vote in line with value expressions, not with policy.
You?
Argh - McAlister….