Surely, once Trump is gone, the US can return to normal? Right? And then America’s diminished capacity will hurt my quality of life.

In order to understand why, you have to get past the polling that shows Trump has 40% approval. If an election were held today, and he were on the ballot, he would not lose 40% to some Democrat’s 60%. It would be surprisingly close. Trump would likely lose, because many people are not happy with the economy, but at most by by 2 or 3 percentage points. A large number of Americans that identify as independent, or who are “disapproving” of what Trump is doing, are actually neither. The threat that someone comes into office and treats all people with dignity or provides them health-care is unconscionable. Despite all the contrary evidence on spending and deficits, they would say the spendthrift Democrat would raise the debt. They worry more about fantasies of shared bathrooms (something common in many other parts of the world). And some people are just hateful bigots that do not like people based on their race and creed.

If Trump were to go tomorrow, those people persist. The 40% that approve of threatening allies, of imposing tariffs, and rounding up people that look foreign, because they’re brown, aren’t going away. Nor are the 10% or so on top of of the 40% going away who claim to be independent, claim to not like the policies, but are in the bag for Trump. If there’s a little bit of an economic boom, or the Democrat says something a little too weird, we might even get an illegal Trump 3rd term. The opposition has been ineffective, his own party will do nothing to moderate him, and the Supreme Court has given him more than one inexplicable pass. But advocating for a move away from the dollar as a reserve currency doesn’t address that issue. It will raise US interest rates and make it harder for the US pursue policies like sanctioning Russian oligarchs.

I would say a world where three great powers divide up the globe under their patronage systems, will be a poorer, less free, and more miserable world. Russia is one example, but China also engages in state sponsored kleptocracy to maintain its power base. America doesn’t want a transition to “multi-polarity” where different regional powers take responsibility for the security and prosperity of their regions. The American President, along with the Chinese and Russian leaders, want a tri-polar world where they get to dictate the policy they see fit in their assigned area of influence. With an endless series of proxy wars to try to expand or counter the expansion of those spheres. But that’s making the Chinese rich, right? Yes and no. It’s making some Chinese rich, but mostly the politically connected people. Outside the glamorous coasts, most of China is a backwater or epic proportions. And being rich does not guarantee you are not disappeared. The same is true of Russia, with a resplendent metro in Moscow, and outhouses in other parts of the country. The most autocratic countries in Europe, like Hungary and Belarus are also the poorest. If you want to be rich, live in a strong liberal democracy.¹

If you care about being a moral, good person, with values you want to pass on to your children to also lead good lives, you do not want a might-makes-right world. Nor do you want to live in a world where you are not secure in your rights as a first principle, but only secure in your rights based on race or political favor. We’ve had that world in the past and it was not good. As we evolve we came to reject absolute monarchy or Jim-Crow style laws. There are plenty of people who would rather be poor and in charge than rich and powerless. Although the already rich would love to have more power, imposing their stamp on policies and places to feed their ego. That’s the path down which we are heading. And that should not be allowed. And as that world won’t be safer and the vast majority of people will be poorer, anyway, why not sabotage the movement toward that end?

Until this last Spring, I thought it would be good to have more boots in each of the services. The US armed forces have shrunk to such an extent that I began to wonder if we could hold our own if China tried a quick dash-and-grab for Taiwan, leading to a protracted, regional fight.² In both Europe and Asia, we had too few people dependent on too few high-tech weapons, that once fired are not easily replaced. Ukraine was bringing back good-old-fashioned 155mm artillery in a war of attrition. The way the US and allied forces were structured, we would have to go home once the supply of pricey missiles are exhausted. They take weeks or months to manufacture and the planes that deliver them sometimes equally long to repair. Now, I want to see the size of the armed forces cut. To a small degree because of the horrific deficit, but mainly because I see the threat of those forces being turned against cities in the US. That’s why I would argue to cut military spending. The administration has threatened to turn it into an occupying force. Why give them more guns and boots?

Arguing for certain policies that would slow the de-evolution of the us US to keep the world more prosperous, safer, and free is not in conflict with being an American. Even a patriotic American. Because when everything is said and done, America is about the constitution and those liberal, enlightenment values. Without that we are no more exceptional than Argentina. And with an electorate that produces Trump, based on the whims of a few counties in four states, that’s not a bad thing. When about half the electorate is fine with racism and autocracy, I have to ask if such a country should lead the world in any sense. The Republican party likes to make a big deal about their pocket constitutions. But if you don’t live the words, you have is a tribal talisman, not a blueprint for liberty and justice. What is shown to be possible by their support of an unhinged autocrat, leads me to think they do not care about what made American a beacon to others. That means a safer world is one where, should this continue or the racist and autocratic forces come back to power, America is least able to act.

1. A lot of Americans don’t understand what the world ‘liberal’ means in this case. They think it means “lefty,” rather than the idea we have inalienable rights and the state should guarantee that we are secure in our persons and our possessions. ↩︎
2. Many people are fixated on the boats China has but it would likely use air assets to quickly move troops across the straight. ↩︎