Not the best article I've read of yours. Your research is poorly founded (even after reading some books), you conflate timelines, events, presidents, etc throughout (Biden was President during the NordStream explosion) and you clearly do not understand Trump in the slightest. He's anti war as a key example. He also doesn't fancy the US as an imperial power who must attack others or seek to use it's power to stay #1. You obviously missed many public internal battles between Trump and military leaders re:Afghanistan, Syria, Africa, etc where Trump was attempting to remove troops only be to be undercut by Flag officers. Finally (for the purposes of this post) you fail to understand Trump's ideology for tariffs. While you've read some books on neoocnservatism, you've never read Trump's books or listened to his speeches. You also don't accurately apply Kristol's book and tenets making everything fall apart. Disappointing.
I have tried to listen to Trump many times, but have found him constantly contradicting himself, making any analysis very hard.
My understanding on Trump pulling out of the middle east was that the US was energy independent, so why should it be spending money to protect oil supply when China is the biggest importer. Fits in with the neo-con view I have laid out.
I am happy to be educated on where I have made mistakes. I have no fear of being wrong, i have a fear of not learning and get stuck in old ways of thinking.
But to me a Neo-con wants to be everywhere, all the time. I view Trump as much more suspicious of long term foreign commitments. He's essentially nationalist rather than internationalist.
I understand the sentiment. Trump has issues at times and I'm of the opinion that he tends to overcompensate to try to look mistake free because of how much the media attacks him. That said some hallmarks of a great analyst are being open to other POVs and acknowledging your biases. You've done that, so kudos to you.
I disagree with the assertion that the w/d from Afghanistan was US energy independence. 1) they have no oil - they have lithium and other rare earth minerals 2) I'm not sure how that fits the neo-con POV. They are war hawks and love using military power to "influence" other nations. IMO, it's pretty clear that Trump does not feel that way. First president in 75 years or so that didn't start a new war/ conflict. As I mentioned previously, he actively tried to remove troops from Afghanistan, Syria, Africa, etc but was stymied by the highest-ranking military leaders. This led directly to the deaths of US assets abroad like Shannon Kent and her CIA team in Syria and 13 dead soldiers and the loss of critical military assets in Afghanistan which is now in the hands of the Taliban and the Chinese. Trump had been negotiating with the Taliban for roughly a year on a structured withdrawal from the country. Again, stuffed by military leaders. These aren't the actions of a NeoCon. A NeoCon would stay and maybe even expand on activity.
I do applaud your attempt to expand your knowledge, but I think you need to keep reading and learning. NeoCons are the George W Bush wing of the GOP (Lindsey Graham is another one) and more recently, we've seen that move to the Democrats. Trump is America First which means not wasting resources on useless, forever wars, making other countries pay their weight (as we've served as the global police since WW2 while they ride our coattails - I'm talking to you Europe), and using tariffs as a billy club to open markets and prevent abusive behavior by some trade partners. Hope that explains my POV more. Happy to continue with civilized conversation.
I tend to disagree to a large extent with your opinion here, Leo. Trump TALKS like he's anti-war, but in reality does the opposite (the Iran situation, for example is a clear rebuttal to your position). Also, it wasn't until Biden that Afg. was de-escalated. Also, Trumpo has always talked tough on the Taiwan situation with his advisor Pompei telling them to "be like a porcupine"... So, while you've done a good job of listening to what they say, you've done a poor job of looking at what's actually been done. I've listened to Trump enough to know that he often says one thing and does another. I feel you are WAY overly critical here to the point where you're actually wrong relative to Russell and you seem to listen to too much Marty Armstrong or similar person afraid to call a spade a spade. I'm also very impressed how Russell is able to be so flexible with his opinions and explore all sides of the issues. Your reply is sophomoric at best. Thanks for the exposition of neo-con thinking Russell (great point about China and the ME, hadn't considered it from that angle)....
edit: Trump doesn't want America to use its power to be #1? What planet are you on my guy ... YOU clearly haven't listened to his speeches where he talks about forcing others to pay for their defense ... Or, where he talks about how other nations see us as weak b/c of Biden ... Or, the entire slogan of his last campagain (MAGA) ... You sound like a d rider of Trump and its disgusting.... TBH
Using Iran actually counters your entire argument. Trump had every right/ excuse to attack Iran AND DID NOT. I do find your projection in the rest of your comment to be interesting/ telling. Your bias is DRIPPING and quite clearly skews your every thought. The fact of the matter is that pretty much everything you've said is factually incorrect, you're clearly not suited to have a reasonable discussion, and this will be the last time I address you.
There were always some problems with the pro-labour theory... It predicted stagnant asset markets, and central banks acting to have a strong currency to keep real wages high. Asset markets have not really been stagnant. Furthermore, Japan has seemingly had no problem with allowing the currency and real wages to fall.... I had also expected to see a bigger move away from right wing parties - which we have only seen in part.... Neo-con policies also help explain collapsing Chinese yields.... When something fits better, I like to use it. Look at stock markets in the US since the debate... they are reacting as you would expect.
Does this mean you feel the long GLD/short TLT trade has run its course?
Not necessarily disagreeing - I feel the Fed is doing a lot to protect demand for Treasuries (i.e. the recent Discount Window adjustments), which is keeping yields in check. Also, I wonder if gold prices are getting a bit bubbly along with other assets.
Intriguing as always. I agree with the conclusion but I'm trying to think through some of the issues that got you there. I tend to agree with some of the other posters that using the term Neo-con with Trump is iffy. Just look at where Irving's son is: hanging with the Dems. Trump also explicitly rejected the Iraq invasion and was ambivalent toward Afghanistan. But I take your point that he is pursuing pro corporate and pro deficit policies. Could some of this be the confusion of a mid-stream political realignment. If you look at where the National Conservatives are going (JD Vance, Hawley, etc.) it seems like they are going to align working, non-college educated voters with small business owners against large business and professional class voters along with the dependent class. Trump is still playing footsie with big business even as it increasingly moves into the democratic camp because it used to be Republican? Maybe? I'd guess the entire corporate leadership of the Mag7 votes Dem. Also check out Walter Russell Mead's four category look at American foreign policies views. He contrasts internationalist vs nationalist and pro-war with anti-war. So Trump might be a pro-war nationalist while Sanders is an anti-war nationalist.
you finally got it! the only thing you haven't understood ! only I would not say it is neoconservative only, as Democrats do the very similar - just take a look at current situation. the only thing you have to come up with is, that its not the voters who decide...
That's basically my point. The Team R establishment wailed and called for the fainting couch in 2016 when Trump won the nomination. They even called on him to suspend his campaign.
Then, after Trump won, they became his new best friends.. Trump, being weak, stupid and easily manipulated, went along, enjoying the flattery. His administration quickly came to resemble a more dysfunctional Dubya administration in everything but name.
Not the best article I've read of yours. Your research is poorly founded (even after reading some books), you conflate timelines, events, presidents, etc throughout (Biden was President during the NordStream explosion) and you clearly do not understand Trump in the slightest. He's anti war as a key example. He also doesn't fancy the US as an imperial power who must attack others or seek to use it's power to stay #1. You obviously missed many public internal battles between Trump and military leaders re:Afghanistan, Syria, Africa, etc where Trump was attempting to remove troops only be to be undercut by Flag officers. Finally (for the purposes of this post) you fail to understand Trump's ideology for tariffs. While you've read some books on neoocnservatism, you've never read Trump's books or listened to his speeches. You also don't accurately apply Kristol's book and tenets making everything fall apart. Disappointing.
I have tried to listen to Trump many times, but have found him constantly contradicting himself, making any analysis very hard.
My understanding on Trump pulling out of the middle east was that the US was energy independent, so why should it be spending money to protect oil supply when China is the biggest importer. Fits in with the neo-con view I have laid out.
I am happy to be educated on where I have made mistakes. I have no fear of being wrong, i have a fear of not learning and get stuck in old ways of thinking.
But to me a Neo-con wants to be everywhere, all the time. I view Trump as much more suspicious of long term foreign commitments. He's essentially nationalist rather than internationalist.
I understand the sentiment. Trump has issues at times and I'm of the opinion that he tends to overcompensate to try to look mistake free because of how much the media attacks him. That said some hallmarks of a great analyst are being open to other POVs and acknowledging your biases. You've done that, so kudos to you.
I disagree with the assertion that the w/d from Afghanistan was US energy independence. 1) they have no oil - they have lithium and other rare earth minerals 2) I'm not sure how that fits the neo-con POV. They are war hawks and love using military power to "influence" other nations. IMO, it's pretty clear that Trump does not feel that way. First president in 75 years or so that didn't start a new war/ conflict. As I mentioned previously, he actively tried to remove troops from Afghanistan, Syria, Africa, etc but was stymied by the highest-ranking military leaders. This led directly to the deaths of US assets abroad like Shannon Kent and her CIA team in Syria and 13 dead soldiers and the loss of critical military assets in Afghanistan which is now in the hands of the Taliban and the Chinese. Trump had been negotiating with the Taliban for roughly a year on a structured withdrawal from the country. Again, stuffed by military leaders. These aren't the actions of a NeoCon. A NeoCon would stay and maybe even expand on activity.
I do applaud your attempt to expand your knowledge, but I think you need to keep reading and learning. NeoCons are the George W Bush wing of the GOP (Lindsey Graham is another one) and more recently, we've seen that move to the Democrats. Trump is America First which means not wasting resources on useless, forever wars, making other countries pay their weight (as we've served as the global police since WW2 while they ride our coattails - I'm talking to you Europe), and using tariffs as a billy club to open markets and prevent abusive behavior by some trade partners. Hope that explains my POV more. Happy to continue with civilized conversation.
I tend to disagree to a large extent with your opinion here, Leo. Trump TALKS like he's anti-war, but in reality does the opposite (the Iran situation, for example is a clear rebuttal to your position). Also, it wasn't until Biden that Afg. was de-escalated. Also, Trumpo has always talked tough on the Taiwan situation with his advisor Pompei telling them to "be like a porcupine"... So, while you've done a good job of listening to what they say, you've done a poor job of looking at what's actually been done. I've listened to Trump enough to know that he often says one thing and does another. I feel you are WAY overly critical here to the point where you're actually wrong relative to Russell and you seem to listen to too much Marty Armstrong or similar person afraid to call a spade a spade. I'm also very impressed how Russell is able to be so flexible with his opinions and explore all sides of the issues. Your reply is sophomoric at best. Thanks for the exposition of neo-con thinking Russell (great point about China and the ME, hadn't considered it from that angle)....
edit: Trump doesn't want America to use its power to be #1? What planet are you on my guy ... YOU clearly haven't listened to his speeches where he talks about forcing others to pay for their defense ... Or, where he talks about how other nations see us as weak b/c of Biden ... Or, the entire slogan of his last campagain (MAGA) ... You sound like a d rider of Trump and its disgusting.... TBH
Thanks for taking the high road. smh
Using Iran actually counters your entire argument. Trump had every right/ excuse to attack Iran AND DID NOT. I do find your projection in the rest of your comment to be interesting/ telling. Your bias is DRIPPING and quite clearly skews your every thought. The fact of the matter is that pretty much everything you've said is factually incorrect, you're clearly not suited to have a reasonable discussion, and this will be the last time I address you.
Keynes once quipped: "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?".
But it's astonishing that a single debate performance has derailed your pro-labour world analysis.
There were always some problems with the pro-labour theory... It predicted stagnant asset markets, and central banks acting to have a strong currency to keep real wages high. Asset markets have not really been stagnant. Furthermore, Japan has seemingly had no problem with allowing the currency and real wages to fall.... I had also expected to see a bigger move away from right wing parties - which we have only seen in part.... Neo-con policies also help explain collapsing Chinese yields.... When something fits better, I like to use it. Look at stock markets in the US since the debate... they are reacting as you would expect.
Does this mean you feel the long GLD/short TLT trade has run its course?
Not necessarily disagreeing - I feel the Fed is doing a lot to protect demand for Treasuries (i.e. the recent Discount Window adjustments), which is keeping yields in check. Also, I wonder if gold prices are getting a bit bubbly along with other assets.
Neo-con theme implies conflict... which should be great for GLD/TLT
I think you'd enjoy this recent interview with Jeffrey Sachs, which covers many or the points you raise
https://hiddenforces.io/podcasts/deep-state-and-the-war-in-ukraine-part-i-jeffrey-sachs/
Also available on Spotify/Apple, etc
Intriguing as always. I agree with the conclusion but I'm trying to think through some of the issues that got you there. I tend to agree with some of the other posters that using the term Neo-con with Trump is iffy. Just look at where Irving's son is: hanging with the Dems. Trump also explicitly rejected the Iraq invasion and was ambivalent toward Afghanistan. But I take your point that he is pursuing pro corporate and pro deficit policies. Could some of this be the confusion of a mid-stream political realignment. If you look at where the National Conservatives are going (JD Vance, Hawley, etc.) it seems like they are going to align working, non-college educated voters with small business owners against large business and professional class voters along with the dependent class. Trump is still playing footsie with big business even as it increasingly moves into the democratic camp because it used to be Republican? Maybe? I'd guess the entire corporate leadership of the Mag7 votes Dem. Also check out Walter Russell Mead's four category look at American foreign policies views. He contrasts internationalist vs nationalist and pro-war with anti-war. So Trump might be a pro-war nationalist while Sanders is an anti-war nationalist.
With this view of the world, does the USD strengthen? And commodity currencies?
you finally got it! the only thing you haven't understood ! only I would not say it is neoconservative only, as Democrats do the very similar - just take a look at current situation. the only thing you have to come up with is, that its not the voters who decide...
I would simply say that Trump is weak, stupid and easily manipulated.
Fair enough - but to.what.end?
There isn't any coherent ideology there, and he tends to agree with whatever the last person who talked to him said.
He, or the group around him, have done a good job in enacting many of the neo-con policies.
That's basically my point. The Team R establishment wailed and called for the fainting couch in 2016 when Trump won the nomination. They even called on him to suspend his campaign.
Then, after Trump won, they became his new best friends.. Trump, being weak, stupid and easily manipulated, went along, enjoying the flattery. His administration quickly came to resemble a more dysfunctional Dubya administration in everything but name.