Well, comrade, a writer for the National Review wants you to forget all that. Hillary Clinton is better than Donald Trump on foreign policy. She's Reagan. He's Hitler.
David French of the National Review wrote:
We know what we’ll get from Clinton when it comes to foreign policy. She’s an internationalist interventionist with more muscular instincts than Barack Obama and less resolve than George W. Bush. She voted for the Iraq invasion but then went wobbly as the war dragged on. She backed the surge in Afghanistan, advocated intervention in Libya, and was famously more skeptical of the Arab Spring than Obama. Her “reset” with Russia was a disaster, but she’ll broadly back American allies, maintain our stewardship of NATO, and keep our other international commitments.
Trump’s foreign policy, insofar as he has a coherent foreign policy, is by contrast an entire casserole of crazy. At various points in the campaign, he’s promised that he’d order the military to commit war crimes by torturing terrorists and killing their families; he’s called our core alliances in question; he’s pledged to remain neutral in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians; and he’s switched anti-ISIS strategies so many times that no one has the slightest clue what he’d do. This is a man who has on multiple occasions endorsed a “bomb them all and take their oil” strategy for fixing the war-torn Middle East. He’d alienate every Muslim ally America has, including the Kurds, and he’s still completely mystified by the most basic defense concepts. The entire world would be less secure with his finger on the button.Amusing. The writer praised Hillary for voting for a war that turned disastrous -- thanks in no small part to her abandoning our efforts and our soldiers in the middle of the war -- but David French denounces Trump for endorsing bombing people. He says that will alienate our Muslim allies.
Like the Iraq War just did.
You know, the one the National Review and I endorsed.
In reviewing her foreign policy credentials, David French made no mention of Benghazi, but he seems to think getting rid of Gadhafi was a good idea. Of course, that led to people crossing the Mediterranean from Tripoli, an invasion Italy could do without. But hey, Sarah Palin said bomb Libya, so it must be a good thing.
I was going to call the magazine the Irrational Review but I lost my appetite for such hijinks when I discovered Twitter is full of such nonsense.
And there is a rationality to the magazine. It is all about free trade and open borders.
On trade, Clinton will almost certainly be superior to Trump. Trump pledges to “win” through punitive tariffs that would increase the price of consumer goods and trigger trade wars, but he gives little indication that he understands the economics of trade, the reality of the American economy, or even the truth about American manufacturing. (It is not, in fact, disappearing.) Clinton, by contrast, would probably maintain the trade-policy status quo, and while that status quo creates winners and losers — as any status quo would — free trade has long been an overall positive for American families.Of course, free trade is not an overall positive for American families. It is a negative. A Democratic Congress and a Democratic president foisted this upon the people in 1994 and since then, manufacturing jobs have given way to welfare and Walmart. Just how you connect this catastrophe to Reagan is beyond me. But the National Review does, because its staff thinks the Reagan argument wins every time.
But I make the Lincoln argument. He opposed having Free Labor compete with Slave Labor, having been both (Lincoln's father rented him out as a day laborer until Lincoln turned 18 and was emancipated).
Lincoln had insights sorely absent at the National Review.
But just as socialists cling bitterly to their discredited doctrine, so do these internationalists. They want cheap stuff and if the commies in China use slave labor, so what? Tough nookies on American workers. They should be smart enough to become National Review writers.
From Kevin Williamson two days ago:
It is also immoral. It is immoral because it perpetuates a lie: that the white working class that finds itself attracted to Trump has been victimized by outside forces. It hasn’t. The white middle class may like the idea of Trump as a giant pulsing humanoid middle finger held up in the face of the Cathedral, they may sing hymns to Trump the destroyer and whisper darkly about “globalists” and — odious, stupid term — “the Establishment,” but nobody did this to them.
They failed themselves. It wasn't Beijing. It wasn't even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn't immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn't any of that.
Nothing happened to them. There wasn't some awful disaster. There wasn't a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence — and the incomprehensible malice — of poor white America.
The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too.Weird.
Anyway, the National Review through its staff writers wants you to forget Benghazi. And at this point in time, what difference does it make?
By the way, I am back to thinking the general election will be Bernie versus The Donald. I await the National Review's endorsement of Sanders.