Foreign Policy

As discussed in my previous post, Mr. Trump’s domestic policy largely turns its back on basic conservative principles and is riddled with gaping holes. Having said that, there are at least a few points that deserve praise, especially his willingness to cut personal and corporate tax rates, curb federal economic regulation and backing of school choice.

When looking at his foreign policy “plan”, however, I see no such bright spots. It’s simply a bizarre combination of straw man arguments, outdated information, horrendous inconsistencies, criminal naiveté and a fundamental misunderstanding of the world beyond our borders.

In one breath he tells our allies that if they don’t pick up a larger budgetary portion of the global security we provide, we will turn our backs on them. And in the next, he criticizes the Obama Administration for alienating our friends around the world.

He calls for us to “Advance America’s core national interests, promote regional stability and produce an easing of tensions in the world.” Yet, he states, “We will no longer surrender this country, or its people, to the false song of globalism.”

What false song of globalism is he referencing? This is 2016, not 1816. We live in a world where events on the other side of the planet have a direct impact on our day-to-day lives. Believing that building figurative, and in Mr. Trump’s case, literal walls around our country will somehow be the antidote to all of our nation’s ills is preposterous. We as a nation are far too interconnected with the rest of the world from an economic, cultural and security standpoint for Mr. Trump’s paranoid brand of American nationalism.

Receding from the global stage, leaving a power vacuum for bad actors to fill is exactly what has plagued the Obama Administration for the past eight years. And that is exactly what Mr. Trump is proposing we do.

We need a Pax Americana foreign policy, one where global peace and order is overseen by the U.S. and the West. Yes, it is expensive and, yes, it does cost resources, but it is the far preferred option to the international chaos we’re experiencing now. And for those of you that roll your eyes at this and label me an establishment globalist, please note that Pax Americana was our foreign policy from 1945-2008. Precisely the “America” those of you who support Mr. Trump supposedly want to return to.

Troubling Views and Statements

At various points during the campaign, Mr. Trump has…

• Expressed an admiration for Vladimir Putin
• Claimed Bashar al-Assad gets things done
• Stated he understand ISIS better than our generals
• Supported the use of torture
• Said he is willing to dissolve NATO over funding levels
• Freely tossed around the term “America First”, which was the name of a group of American Nazi sympathizers that believed the Roosevelt Administration was duped into joining the Allied forces by a cabal of Jewish organizations
• Flippantly discussed using nuclear weapons
• Bragged about getting his foreign policy beliefs from, “the shows”
• Proposed carpet bombing Iraq’s oil fields to cut off ISIS funding, even though that would  cripple the Iraqi economy
• Shown complete ignorance about the nation’s nuclear triad
• Lumped Sunni and Shiite Muslims together as if they are allies
• Gone back on his support of the Iraqi War of 2003

These are not the stances, statements or beliefs of a man qualified or fit to be commander in chief.

President of the United States of America is the most difficult job on Earth, and the most difficult part of the most difficult job is foreign policy. Alliances shift (the enemy of my enemy isn’t always my friend), intelligence is sometimes impossible to obtain and cultural nuances are tricky to master. Successfully wading through the confusing foreign policy waters takes tireless dedication, boundless effort and a sincere desire to listen and defer to experts.

Mr. Trump has exhibited none of these qualities.

Case in point-his criticism of the invasion of Mosul. Read this excellent account of the efforts in Mosul from last week’s Wall Street Journal and honestly ask yourself if you believe Mr. Trump has the patience and discretion to properly handle this situation.

These are the pitfalls of foreign policy. Each decision one makes has the potential to set off a seemingly endless labyrinth of unintended consequences. You have to perfect strategic decision making, while winning hearts and minds. This is why acting like a demagogue in terms of immigrants, especially when it comes to Muslims and Mexicans, is a dead end. If we want cooperation in the War on Terror and if we want to clean up our immigration issues at the U.S./Mexico border, we need partnership with foreign nations.

Sincere doubts abound about Mr. Trump’s lack of preparation and appreciation for the power of the presidency. I for one do not want to find out if he’s up to the challenge.

Domestic Policy

While I find Mr. Trump’s crudeness, habitual lying and insensitivity towards pretty much everyone to be incredibly disconcerting, the real reason I became and remain #NeverTrump is due to his lack of conservative policies or ideology.

While it’s difficult to pin down where Mr. Trump stands on nearly any issue, I’m going to examine some of his domestic policies and stances.

Now to be fair, Mr. Trump is offering some policies I, like most real conservatives, can get behind. As a supply sider, I’m happy to see his desire to reduce personal income and corporate tax rates across the board. In that vein, I also applaud his willingness to cut back economic regulations that are strangling our economy, especially small businesses.

His support of unlocking our natural resources to continue towards the goal of total energy independence and backing of school choice also get high marks.

That is where the praise ends.

Looking at the remainder of his domestic policy finds little that conservatives should take solace in.

The Economy

Perhaps the most bewildering aspect of Mr. Trump’s campaign is his stance on trade agreements. He has frequently promised to renegotiate North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or “rip it up”, while also vowing to not sign Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) because it’s too complex and not good enough of a deal for the U.S.

Not to sound too much like him here, but in this case, Mr. Trump sounds like a loser. So just because we don’t get an absolutely perfect deal for the country, Mr. Trump is going to take his ball and go home? That’s a loser’s mentality. So often in life, you cannot get everything you want, so you take a good, but not perfect deal in absence of no deal at all. Waiting around for a perfect deal means you’re going to be waiting around forever.

For NAFTA, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Since its inception in 1993, it has:

• Quadrupled trade between the U.S., Canada and Mexico
• Lowered prices on many products, but especially oil and food
• Boosted overall economic growth
• Created nearly five million U.S. jobs
• Increased foreign investment in the U.S.
• Reduced government spending

I can’t sit here and claim that NAFTA is perfect. In fact, I’m sure there are some aspects of it that do help our economy, but looking at the totality of its success thus far, why would anyone want to do away with this agreement?

Yes, the U.S. has the world’s largest economy, so we do have leverage in negotiations. However, there are countless other nations that would gladly fill the economic void left by us if we abandoned trade agreements like NAFTA or TPP. And our trading partners, in absence of our presence, would just as gladly trade with them.

Let us not forget Mr. Trump’s desire to impose higher tariffs on goods coming in from China. Surely nothing bad could possibly come from that, right? Ask people that lived through the Great Depression, which was made far, far worse by the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Act how they feel about this.

Free market capitalism, fueled by global trade is the greatest humanitarian vehicle the world has ever known. It has saved 10s of millions of lives by rising people out of poverty, has crushed oppressive regimes across the globe and given most people on Earth a quality of life not even thought possible a century ago. Any presidential candidate (especially the Republican Party nominee) who so casually risks the future of free global trade with such a flippant attitude clearly illustrates that they do not understand the importance of free markets to the U.S. and the rest of the world, and thus, should not occupy the Oval Office.

Spending

Since President Obama took office nearly eight years ago, one of the biggest criticisms hurled at him from republicans and independent conservatives alike is his mismanagement of the federal debt (When he took office, it stood at $10.6 trillion. Today? An appalling $19.8 trillion). It was this mismanagement, along with the proposal and eventual passing of the Affordable Care Act (A.K.A Obamacare) that launched the Tea Party movement that allowed the Republican Party to retake the Senate and House of Representatives.

This criticism of out-of-control federal spending from republicans and conservatives is nothing new. In fact, one could argue that it forms the foundation of conservative ideology. That is why it is so troubling to see Mr. Trump not only refusing to stop the debt crisis that is careening out of control, but willing to exacerbate it.

According to American Action Forum, a right-leaning think tank, Mr. Trump’s tax and spending plans would add nearly $6.8 trillion to the U.S. debt over the next decade. This is in sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton’s tax and spending plans that would add $1.5 trillion over the same time. This should come as little surprise to anyone, considering Mr. Trump’s business practices over his career, where he has regularly taken on large sums of debt. A recent Forbes article just calculated his personal debt to be at $1.1 billion.

Now I’m fully aware that presidents Reagan and W. Bush helped make the federal debt worse. But those situations were different in the sense that the bulk of their additional deficit spending related to military expenditures during the Cold War and the War on Terror.

Mr. Trump’s extremely high levels of spending have nothing to do with national defense; rather all they do is increase an already-pork laden federal bureaucracy, which is the antithesis to conservative ideology.

Healthcare

You will not find many people more critical of the Affordable Care Act than I. It has resulted in poorer care for people from coast to coast by simultaneously reducing the choice consumers have in selecting coverage plans, preventing them from keeping their doctor and exploding costs.

However, what Mr. Trump is proposing isn’t a feasible plan.

He offers seven parts to his “plan” (I put plan in quotes because we have no idea on how he will actually do any of this)-some good, some simply not feasible:

1. Completely repeal Obamacare
2. Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines
3. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system
4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)
5. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers
6. Block-grant Medicaid to the states
7. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products

Let me briefly take one at a time.

1. I agree with this, but only if there’s a comprehensive plan to replace it. Whether we like it or not, people are enrolled in the federal and state healthcare exchanges. We cannot just throw them off of insurance without something in place for them. And thus far, Mr. Trump hasn’t convinced many that he’s capable of doing this.
2. This already happens. For example, United Healthcare sells plans in many, many states-so long as the plans comply with each state’s insurance regulations. This portion of the plan means Mr. Trump thinks insurance companies should be able to sell plans in one state under the regulatory regime of another (this will never happen) or the federal government should take over all health insurance regulation and create a single national market (no thank you).
3. This is fine, but doesn’t really do anything to impact the affordability of coverage.
4. This is a great idea, but it needs to be the centerpiece of the plan, as it would allow people to remove healthcare coverage from their employment-a critical step in reforming the nation’s healthcare issues. 
5. Almost impossible to implement.
6. Very good idea.
7. Not feasible considering the role the FDA has in drug approvals.

So, again, there is some promise here, but ultimately this isn’t a healthcare plan. It’s just a mashup of different stances without an organizing blueprint around it.