Skip navigation

Category Archives: Trumpedation

Recently there was a report suggesting that Vice President Pence is setting up a “shadow” campaign for a 2020 run for the Presidency. This has been vehemently denied by the VP and Kellyanne Conwoman/ Since these two have gone on record denying the report, it’s plausibility has been greatly increased. This administration  is built on lies and implausible deniability, so it is no big stretch to believe the report to be true or plausible at the least. The current administration is no more than a barely cohesive group of non descript talking heads serving at the pleasure of an adoration maniac. The GOP has flowed along with the machinations and unrealistic utterances of the White House with little or no reactions since they hope their own nefarious activities will be hidden. The turnstile actions of the administration’s press liaisons serves only to show the disarray in this White House. Looking at the fact that Mr. Trump really did not want this job but now has to do it gives rise to the question of “what Now?” Recent events in South Carolina show the impact of Trumps Presidency, the thugs of the alt- right, Neo Nazi’s and other aligned White supremacy groups feel they have the right to issue their non-American message with impunity. Donald aka TOTUS is too busy to perform the duties of his office since there is no adoration in it. The TWEETER in Chief reluctantly and begrudgingly  denounced the unrest in Charlottesville. His primary minion  ( Steve Bannon) has tacitly denounced the followers of his former entity (Breitbart) and that shows his lack of loyalty to anything or anyone that is not Steve Bannon). This situation is slowly coming to a head along with the Head of DJT aka TOTUS. As an added message to the members of the Alt Right, Neo Nazis and White supremacists- The Native Americans were here first and you stole the country from them! 

Please Donate

America has become the country that we have defended against and revolted against over 200 years ago. The reasons, we have elected a child as President whose sole objective is to undo anything done by the Former President.  This undoing is not done in a context of  having a better way  or getting knowledge of the laws or orders he is undoing. It appears that he is seeking adoration much like Hitler and Caligula. There is no substance to his speeches as he is still on the campaign trial rather than schooling himself in governing and the issues that affect that governance. His cabinet picks are wealthy people (for the most part) whose experiences do not relate to the American public so cannot make judgements or decisions that do any good for us. This President has one source of information (more uninformed opinion than fact) and that is the Fox news network. He seemingly pays no heed to his cabinet so gives no guidance to them. This method of governing is a formula for disaster as we are beginning to see with a Congress that is using his ignorance as a reason to unleash their worse on the American people. Our European and Asian partners are looking at this and have decided that they no longer have a strong ally or trading party. This situation has given rise to the Russian surge in conflict areas and the radical sectors of many areas. Mr. Trump  has used Twitter as his primary communication media but gives no substantive meaning or background to his tweets. His Whitehouse staff have spent much of their time parsing his tweets rather than issuing meaningful information (which appears to be lacking). His ”command staff” have gone from parsing to outright lying about his meanings and offering “alternate facts”. If the signal for liars were truly flaming pants then the White house as well as the Congress would be burned to the ground.


Please Donate


The current administration has demonstrated the worst of America, we have a Congress for the most part That has no moral compass and they are set on removing healthcare from millions while attempting to convince the people that what they are doing is for their own good. We have a Commander in Tweet who is no more than a ego driven bully. Our prime drive should be to carefully vet anyone we vote for from the local level up to the Federal level. We as voters need to ignore campaign rhetoric as these “speeches” are just talk. Researching the record and background of current servers and aspiring candidates is the best option for choosing who you vote for. The toughest job we have is responsible voting , that is look at the representatives we currently have and deciding if they are standing up for you. Lies fall easier on the ears than the truth but we need a lot of truth now? The backers and spokespeople for the White house are now attempting to persuade us that vetting candidates , as stated below:

Top White House adviser Kellyanne Conway said Thursday on “Fox & Friends” that having to complete financial disclosure forms demoralizes qualified people from serving in government. “There are so many qualified men and women who wanted to serve this president, this administration and their country, who have been completely demoralized and completely, I think, disinclined to do so based on the paperwork that we have to put forward divesting assets, the different hoops you have to run through,” Conway said.

Meanwhile TOTUS is issuing tweets as policy and executive orders rather than do the work of governing, that is ask questions , research the legality of what he wants to do. Instead he gets his information from Faux news and his close aides who have a goal of creating a antebellum nation. The President is using these tweets as a way of Governing yet nothing of substance is coming out the Oval office. We are in the grips of a small man who through the lack of voter involvement got into office.

Please Donate


The state of hate in America
19 / 19

Alia E. Dastagir

It feels like nearly every week, America is rattled by a new incident of hate.

In June, a white man in a Chicago Starbucks was filmed calling a black man a slave, and a white woman in a New Jersey Sears was videotaped making bigoted comments against a family she believed was Indian (they were not). In May, two men on a Portland train were stabbed to death trying to stop a white supremacist’s anti-Muslim tirade against two teenagers.
Hate symbols are showing up around the country: nooses in the nation’s capital, racist graffiti on the front gate of LeBron James’ Los Angeles home, a banner with an anti-Semitic slur over a Holocaust memorial in Lakewood, N.J. On Saturday, the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan rallied in Charlottesville, Va., less than two months after white supremacist Richard Spencer — who coined the term “alt-right” — led a similar protest in the city against the removal of a Confederate monument. Several white nationalist groups are planning another rally for Aug. 12.
In an America where deep divisions exposed in the presidential election have only intensified in the past eight months, these incidents take on new meaning as they become more widespread.
“They’re increasing not only in number but in terms of their ferocity,” said Chip Berlet, a scholar of the far right.
Groups that track these incidents — including the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the non-profit news organization ProPublica, which is creating a national database of hate crimes and bias — say hate incidents are a national problem whose scope we don’t fully grasp. Tracking them is notoriously difficult:
Not all law enforcement agencies send hate crime data to the FBI.
Five states don’t have any hate crime protections.
Many states don’t include protections for LGBTQ people.
Incidents of public harassment motivated by hate bias may not meet the legal definition of a “hate crime.”
While a patchwork of data means we don’t have a complete picture of the problem, the SPLC and the ADL say available numbers show disturbing trends. In its most recent hate crimes report, the FBI tracked a total of 5,818 hate crimes in 2015, a rise of about 6.5% from the previous year, and showed that attacks against Muslims surged. The SPLC documented an uptick of hate and bias incidents after the presidential election, tracking 1,094 in the first month alone. The organization also says the number of hate groups in the U.S. increased for a second year in a row in 2016. In April, the ADL reported anti-Semitic incidents in the U.S. rose 86% in the first quarter of 2017.
“Even though the data is incomplete, we still think it’s statistically significant, and in that it’s troubling to see more manifestations of prejudice than we’ve seen in the past,” said Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the ADL.
Minorities feel less safe
By 2055, the U.S. will not have a single racial or ethnic majority, a change driven by immigration, according to the Pew Research Center. An analysis conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute and The Atlantic — based on surveys taken before and after the election — reveals that members of the white working class concerned about immigration were more than 3.5 times more likely to vote for President Trump. Nearly half of white working-class Americans said, “things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own country.”
Heidi Beirich, leader of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project — which publishes the organization’s Hatewatch blog — said right now minorities feel less safe, particularly Muslim and immigrant communities. According to the Pew Research Center, 41% of Hispanics say they have serious concerns about their place in America since the presidential election.
“People feel like they could be attacked at any moment,” she said. “Often, they also don’t trust the police to help them.”
While the FBI’s data typically show 5,000 to 6,000 hate crimes a year, the Department of Justice’s estimates are much higher. A report out this month from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, show Americans experienced an average of 250,000 hate crime victimizations each year from 2004 to 2015. About a quarter of hate crime victims who didn’t report said they feared police wouldn’t be able to help them.
Us vs. Them
For years before he ran for president, Trump roused the “birther” movement that falsely questioned the legitimacy of Barack Obama, the nation’s first black president. During the presidential campaign, Trump said an Indiana-born federal judge was biased because of his “Mexican heritage.” Since becoming president, Trump has taken a hard stance on immigration, instituting a travel ban on immigrants from six Muslim-majority countries, which the Supreme Court partially reinstated in late June.
Trump’s ascendance, Berlet said, was built upon a narrative of “us vs. them,” language that resonates with many Americans who fear cultural shifts brought on by changing demographics.
After the deadly shooting at Pulse nightclub in June 2016, then-candidate Trump said, “The Muslims have to work with us. They have to work with us. They know what’s going on. They know that he was bad. They knew the people in San Bernardino were bad. But you know what? They didn’t turn them in. And we had death and destruction.”
“When a public figure with a high status identifies a group that is described as threatening to the stability of the community or the nation, in certain conditions this can lead people to conclude that they have to defend their way of life from these ‘others,'” Berlet said. “These scapegoated or demonized others have to be either silenced or eradicated.”
Trump has been repeatedly asked to do more to denounce hate associated with his name. Expressions of bigotry among his supporters were well-documented during his campaign and Trump himself has been accused by civil rights groups of using hateful and violent rhetoric, as well as being too reticent in condemning it. Just this month, Trump posted a CNN smackdown clip on Twitter that was taken from a Reddit troll who the ADL says has “a consistent record of racism, anti-Semitism and bigotry.”
Of the 1,094 hate and bias incidents the SPLC counted in the month after the election, 37% of them directly referenced either Trump, his campaign slogans or his remarks about sexual assault.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer has denied that such hate incidents have increased since Trump’s election victory. And many Americans who support Trump — though they admire his bluntness and tendency to eschew political correctness — say they don’t condone racism or violence either.
“It doesn’t make one racist to have voted for Trump, and I’m sure many didn’t pay that much attention to the campaign,” Beirich said. “That said, Trump’s rants against Mexicans, Muslims and women were widely reported. So clearly Trump’s views on these matters weren’t disqualifying for many Trump voters. For those Trump voters bothered by this racism, I hope they will speak out against it. It could help increase civility in the U.S.”
A nation divided
Increased political polarization is part of what moves hate from the margins to the mainstream, Greenblatt said. Sentiments once considered extreme become validated and “people feel the pain of prejudice in a manner that is really beneath our values as a country,” he said.
The Pew Research Center found about half of Democrats and Republicans say the other party makes them feel “afraid.” More than 40% of Democrats and Republicans say the opposite party’s “policies are so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being.”
“I don’t think either side of the ideological spectrum is exempt from intolerance,” Greenblatt said. “Whether it’s the U.S. president, or a university president … I think we should expect our leaders to stand up and speak out against manifestations of hate.”
And the rest of us? We remain where we always have, Greenblatt said, capable of moving the country away from cruelty and toward greater justice.
When the approximately 50 KKK members converged on Charlottesville this weekend to protest what Klan member James Moore called “the ongoing cultural genocide … of white Americans,” more than a thousand counter protesters showed up to decry hate in their city. The Klan members were heavily outnumbered, chants of “white power” drowned out by “racists go home.”
“I think all of us have an obligation to interrupt intolerance when it happens and to be an ally when we see others being subjected to harassment and hate,” Greenblatt said. “We owe it to ourselves to make sure we call upon our better angels when we see people that we know, or don’t know, who are being treated unfairly because of how they look or how they pray or who they love. Every one of us is capable of rising to that occasion.”

Please Donate

Everything coming out the white house is riddled with almost and alternate facts. No “poor people” in the cabinet, these are rich people who have nothing in common with the neediest people who are and have been under represented by Congress (the people they elected to serve them) , now they (the “poor people”) are served by Rich people who have no interest in serving people they have exploited for years and now have even less interest in serving them. All of the past administrations have been attempting to better the conditions of the oft cited “American people” but instead the long serving Congress has short circuited those efforts whenever they could and making the American People drink the “poison Kool-Aid” while telling us it is good for us. If you are an ardent Trump supporter it may be too late for an antidote. The campaign for the office is over , it is time to govern not tweet us into more problems. Most people who do not know something, will look it up, ask for help and learn what needs to be done but that cannot be done on social media from possibly a Loo. The main issue is that many Americans with justification are fed up with Government’s lack of or poor administration. This issue has been around d for many years before President Obama yet the blame was placed on him because of skin color. Too many people have allowed their personal bias to get in the way of facts and these biases were stirred up by the lesser an among us who have not gotten past post civil war feelings. If we as Americans do not or chose not to understand that we are the actual “illegal aliens” since we decimated the Native American populations through wars, disease and attrition. It is time that we as Americans understand that our “leaders (on)” will mouth any homilies or quotes that will get them what they need , whether it’s a political office or just the purchase of their products. The loss of jobs has more to do with the involved Companies need for maintaining revenue than anything else. The coal companies did not want to upgrade facilities to insure the safety of the workers and allow for pay increases to insure the workers ability to care for families. Think about the runoff or slag that pollutes the air and water supplies. This administration is a dream come true for industries but a larger boot on the backs of Americans. Do not drink the Kool-Aid!

Please Donate

I would like to write about someone or something else besides the current administration and the majority party however the TOTUS continues to be a child who has not the wherewithal to govern and cannot or will not learn what his job actually entails. The majority party is busily trying to use the President’s ego to pass legislation that benefits them while telling the public that what they are doing is good for us. Looking at historical facts: A man named Adolph used the tactic of telling the same big lies on a regular basis to sell the public on the idea that someone else (the Jews and non Aryans) was responsible for their problems. People were so desperate for some relief that they accepted the lies as fact even though many of them saw no improvement especially once the war really started. Once the war got into full swing in Poland and then the attack on Russia at a cost of millions of German soldiers lives (and money). This Russian front drained the treasury which in turn reduced funds available for the pubic services. Thereafter the attacks on the rest of the world began in earnest with the cooperation of Italy and Japan according to history. What we now have is the assumption of power by a known personality with megalomania as a trait whose sole purpose is to be lauded for his sake not for what he has accomplished. I would like to write about something like former coal miners retrained into other energy jobs, Puerto Rico considered for Statehood, US-Cuban relations being normalized or common sense budgets including infrastructure repairs (job creator), proper immigration rules or perhaps a condemnation of other country’s interference in US affairs. A first giant step towards actually Governing would be truthful reporting of personal interest divestiture.

Please Donate

June 1, 20173:36 PM ET
NPR Staff

The main goal of the Paris deal was to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius. Beyond that point, scientists worry that catastrophic impacts of warming become irreversible.
NASA Handout/Getty Images
President Trump announced Thursday that the U.S. will leave the Paris climate deal.
Here are five things that could be affected by the decision.
1. The coal industry
Even coal companies had lobbied the Trump administration to stay in the agreement.
They said they needed a seat at the table during international climate discussions to advocate for coal’s place in the global energy mix. The industry also wants financial support for technology to capture and store carbon emissions, something that could keep coal plants operating longer even as cities, states and other countries work to address climate change.
While President Trump had promised to “cancel” the Paris deal to boost coal, the decision is not likely to create more jobs. The industry is in a long-term decline as it faces competition from cheaper natural gas and — increasingly — wind and solar. Some utilities are also responding to customer demand for renewable power, and the policies of any one administration have little impact on those decisions. “As a utility, we’re trying to plan many years out into the future,” says Ron Roberts of Puget Sound Energy.

2. The climate
The main goal of the Paris deal was to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius (or, aspirationally, even 1.5 degrees). Beyond that point, scientists worry that catastrophic impacts of warming become irreversible. The various Paris pledges by each nation were not actually enough to achieve that target. And even with the environmental regulations passed under President Barack Obama, the U.S. was unlikely to meet its original commitment — to reduce carbon emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels. Now, the U.S. may fall further from that goal.
That said, U.S. carbon emissions will still probably continue to decline, at least for a few years. Market forces are pushing utilities to switch from coal to natural gas or renewable power. “We are on a path to reduce emissions below 2005 levels by about 15 to 17 percent in 2020,” says Kate Larsen of the Rhodium Group.
But the Trump administration is rolling back a host of other climate regulations, and that impact will start to be felt in a few years. Economist Marc Hafstead of Resources for the Future says if economic growth picks up, leaving the Paris deal may mean overall U.S. emissions drop only by 10 percent.
3. U.S. global leadership
Trump’s top diplomat, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, warned against leaving the Paris deal. It puts the U.S. in a very small camp; the only other countries not part of the agreement are Syria, which is in the midst of a civil war, and Nicaragua, which argued that the Paris accord did not go far enough to curb global emissions. Former Secretary of State John Kerry calls Trump’s decision “an irresponsible walking back of American leadership.”

Instead of putting America first, Kerry tells NPR’s Morning Edition, Trump is putting the nation last. Kerry accuses Trump of basing his decision on “alternative facts,” calling it “one of the most disastrous, shallow, untruthful decisions a president of the United States has made in my lifetime.”
The European Union’s top climate change official, Miguel Arias Canete, calls it a “sad day for the global community” but adds that the “world can continue to count on Europe for global leadership in the fight against climate change.” China, too, is poised to take a stronger role on climate diplomacy. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres is counting on that and argues there are economic benefits to this. “The sustainability train has left the station,” he said earlier this week. “Those who embrace green technologies will set the gold standard for economic leadership in the 21st century.”
4. President Trump’s public support (but maybe not the part that counts)
Most Americans want the U.S. to stay in the Paris climate accord. But in bucking that broad public opinion, Trump is playing to his base.
A Washington Post poll in January found just 31 percent of those surveyed supported withdrawing from the Paris deal, while 56 percent were opposed. But conservative Republicans are far less supportive of the Paris agreement than liberal Democrats, according to the Pew Research Center.
Before taking office, Trump repeatedly dismissed climate change as a hoax and suggested that Obama-era climate regulations put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage. Many conservative Republicans share the president’s climate skepticism. And less than a third support measures like the Clean Power Plan — Obama’s principal tool for meeting America’s Paris climate commitments.
Pulling out of the Paris accords will undoubtedly anger many Americans, but it keeps a promise to Trump’s core supporters. As small-government activist Grover Nyquist told the New York Times, “Everybody who hates Trump wants him to stay in Paris. Everybody who respects him, trusts him, voted for him, wishes for him to succeed, wants him to pull out.”
5. The U.S. economy
President Trump has repeatedly called the Paris accord a “bad deal” for the U.S. and said it will hurt the economy. One big outlay is the Green Climate Fund set up under the deal. Obama had committed the U.S. to contributing $3 billion to the fund, which aims to help developing countries adapt to climate change and develop low-emission energy technologies. Under Obama, the U.S. transferred $1 billion, but Trump’s budget proposal does not include payments for the rest.
Opponents of the Paris agreement also say imposing regulations to reduce carbon emissions is too costly. “It’d be very, very expensive,” Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, who has denied climate change is real, told WBUR’s Here & Now. “It’d constitute probably the largest tax increase in the history of America.” It’s not clear whether that is true, but the coal industry has spent many millions installing technology to curb its emissions in recent years.
That said, the White House could easily have stayed in the Paris accord even as it opted not to pay into the climate fund or impose emissions cuts.
Of course, supporters of Paris say if the U.S. withdrawal leads to more severe climate change, that would greatly harm the U.S. economy.
Nate Rott, Chris Joyce, Michele Kelemen, Scott Horsley and Jennifer Ludden contributed to this report.

Please Donate

Rick Newman
Yahoo Finance   June 1,  2017
Coal miners and alienated workers just trumped corporate America.
By canceling America’s participation in the 2015 Paris climate agreement, President Trump snubbed many of the nation’s biggest businesses. Corporate giants including Exxon (XOM), General Electric (GE), Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT) and Alphabet (GOOGL) urged Trump to stick with the agreement, which nearly every other country in the world has signed on to. Tesla (TSLA) CEO Elon Musk said he’ll quit as an informal White House adviser on account of Trump’s decision to withdraw. The only major businesses supporting Trump’s move are energy firms dependent on coal and oil.
“The Paris accord is very unfair to the United States,” Trump declared at the White House on June 1. He claimed the agreement imposes “draconian financial and economic burdens” on the United State, while linking it to the loss of nearly 3 million jobs–a claim economists strongly dispute. Trump did say he was open to re-entering the Paris agreement under different terms, leaving some wiggle room amid the criticism he is sure to get for the decision.
Withdrawing from the deal probably won’t be as catastrophic for business or the climate as overheated news coverage might suggest. The Paris deal relies on voluntary reductions in carbon emissions, according to standards each nation sets for itself. Countries can change their standards or simply not abide by them. Enforcement is weak, at best. And market incentives to adopt cleaner energy are becoming stronger, in some cases obviating the need for government incentives or mandates.
A headache for American businesses
But abstaining from a global agreement embraced by every other developed economy is a headache for American businesses all the same. Multinational companies want to sell their goods and services everywhere, which is easier when their home country is following the same agenda, more or less, as other countries they want to sell to. The Paris agreement will likely spur spending on new climate-friendly technologies, and US firms want a cut of that as well. They could lose out to foreign firms whose home governments do more to cultivate such technologies.
By appeasing America firsters and legacy industries such as coal, Trump has obviously fulfilled a campaign promise, while demonstrating solidarity with workers stuck in fading 20th century industries. But that will do nothing to increase demand for dirty coal or create jobs in industries the free market is closing the books on anyway. Natural gas burns much cleaner than coal and is nearly as cheap, thanks in large part to America’s fracking revolution. Pollution-free solar power is becoming cost-competitive without any need for government incentives. States such as California and many municipalities have their own reasons to encourage the use of renewables and cleaner-burning fuels, regardless of what Trump wants. That’s why Exxon and many other oil companies favor the Paris agreement—it helps them gain a foothold in the energy market that is slowly but surely replacing carbon.
Trump probably could have found different ways to help the beleaguered coal industry—powerful federal incentives to draw companies to coal country, say—while keeping American firms under the Paris umbrella. But he disregarded the pleas from corporate America, with no apparent concern for whether that could impede economic growth or cost American jobs. At some point business leaders must rightfully ask whether Trump represents their interests or not.
Trump rode to Washington on a pro-business platform, but his actions in office haven’t been so business-friendly. He has left health insurers and other companies in the medical industry deeply uncertain about the business climate they face, since he has vowed to dismantle the Affordable Care Act without an obvious replacement. Insurers are bailing out of ACA markets where they can’t make money, a problem that existed before Trump took office but has since gotten worse.
Trump has threatened the auto industry with tariffs and other punishments (and consumers with higher car prices) if they don’t create more American jobs. He has lambasted pharmaceutical firms for their high prices. His threat to tear up the North American Free Trade Agreement would roil thousands of business that rely on those trading relationships. He may still seek tariffs on Chinese imports, as he has frequently threatened, which would upend supply lines for many other US companies.
Offsetting all of this, from a CEO’s perspective, is the promise of tax cuts and deregulation, two of Trump’s top priorities. Tax cuts could directly boost corporate profits and stock prices along with them. Deregulation could lower the cost of doing business, which is almost as good as a boost in net income.
But Trump obviously faces difficult challenges getting major legislation through Congress, and he’s adding to the burden with controversies such as the Russia investigation, weakening his political hand and overburdening Congress. It’s now unlikely Congress will pass any kind of tax reform in 2017, and the longer it drifts toward next year’s fall election season, the less likely it becomes. Trump has undone some minor regulations with executive orders, but major pruning would require Congressional action, and that is nowhere to be seen.
Take tax cuts and deregulation away, and Trump looks more like a self-preserving political boss playing favorites than a businessman-president. He favors downtrodden industries on their way out over ascendant industries such as technology and renewable energy, because that’s where his “base” resides. He talks up the need for stronger growth while explaining away political decisions that could impede growth. And he accepts symbolic wins that save a few endangered jobs without talking at all about how to create and secure the jobs of the future. Eventually, we’ll need them, because you can’t prop up the jobs of the past forever.
Confidential tip line:

Please Donate

This posting indicates the results of a current trend in the White House regarding European relationships. This mindset can leave this country more vulnerable than ever as information sharing could diminish.MA.
Isolationism refers to America’s longstanding reluctance to become involved in European alliances and wars. Isolationists held the view that America’s perspective on the world was different from that of European societies and that America could advance the cause of freedom and democracy by means other than war.
American isolationism did not mean disengagement from the world stage. Isolationists were not averse to the idea that the United States should be a world player and even further its territorial, ideological and economic interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere.
The colonial period

The isolationist perspective dates to colonial days. The colonies were populated by many people who had fled from Europe, where there was religious persecution, economic privation and war. Their new homeland was looked upon as a place to make things better than the old ways. The sheer distance and rigors of the voyage from Europe tended to accentuate the remoteness of the New World from the Old. The roots of isolationism were well established years before independence, notwithstanding the alliance with France during the War for Independence.
Thomas Paine crystallized isolationist notions in his work Common Sense, which presents numerous arguments for shunning alliances. Paine’s tract exerted so much political influence that the Continental Congress strove against striking an alliance with France and acquiesced only when it appeared probable that the war for independence could not be won without one.
George Washington in his Farewell Address placed the accent on isolationism in a manner that would be long remembered:
“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”
Washington was promulgating a perspective that was already venerable and accepted by many. The United States terminated its alliance with France, after which America’s third president, Thomas Jefferson, admonished in his inaugural address, “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”
The 19th century
The United States remained politically isolated all through the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, an unusual feat in western history. Historians have attributed the fact to a geographical position at once separate and far removed from Europe.
During the 1800s, the United States spanned North America and commenced to piece together an empire in the Caribbean and the Pacific — without departing from the traditional perspective. It fought the War of 1812
the Mexican War, and the Spanish-American War without joining alliances or fighting in Europe.
The isolationist point of view was still viable in 1823 when President James Monroe gave voice to what would later be termed the Monroe Doctrine, “In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do.”
Nevertheless, pressures were mounting abroad that would undercut and demolish that policy near the mid-20th century. The advent of German and Japanese expansionism would threaten and later nearly snuff out the contented aloofness enjoyed by the United States. The United States’ occupation of the Philippines during the Spanish-American War thrust U.S. interests into the far western Pacific Ocean — Imperial Japan’s sphere of interest. Such improved transportation and communication as steamships, undersea cable, and radio linked the two continents. The growth of shipping and foreign trade slowly enhanced America’s world role.
There also were basic changes at home. The historic ascendancy of urban-based business, industry, and finance, and the sidelining of rural and small-town America — the bastion of isolationism — contributed to its eventual demise.
World War I
Germany’s unfettered submarine warfare against American ships during World War I provoked the U.S. into abandoning the neutrality it had upheld for so many years. The country’s resultant participation in World War I against the Central Powers marked its first major departure from isolationist policy. When the war ended, however, the United States was quick to leave behind its European commitment. Regardless of President Woodrow Wilson’s efforts, the Senate repudiated the Treaty of Versailles that ended the war, and the United States failed to become a member of the League of Nations.
Indeed, isolationism would persist for a few more decades. During the 1920s, American foreign affairs took a back seat. In addition, America tended to insulate itself in terms of trade. Tariffs were imposed on foreign goods to shield U.S. manufacturers.
America turned its back on Europe by restricting the number of immigrants permitted into the country. Until World War I, millions of people, mostly from Europe, had come to America to seek their fortune and perhaps flee poverty and persecution. Britons and Irishmen, Germans and Jews constituted the biggest groups. In 1921 the relatively liberal policy ended and quotas were introduced. By 1929 only 150,000 immigrants per year were allowed in.
During the 1920s and 1930s, the preponderance of Americans remained opposed to enmeshment in Europe’s alliances and wars. Isolationism was solid in hinterland and small-town America in the Midwest and Great Plains states, and among Republicans. It claimed numerous sympathizers among Irish- and German-Americans. William Jennings Bryan of Nebraska, Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin, and George W. Norris of Nebraska were among western agrarian progressives who argued fervently against involvement. Assuming an us-versus-them stance, they castigated various eastern, urban elites for their engagement in European affairs.
World War II
The year 1940 signaled a final turning point for isolationism. German military successes in Europe and the Battle of Britain prompted nationwide American rethinking about its posture toward the war. If Germany and Italy established hegemony in Europe and Africa, and Japan swept East Asia, many believed that the Western Hemisphere might be next. Even if America managed to repel invasions, its way of life might wither if it were forced to become a garrison state. By the autumn of 1940, many Americans believed it was necessary to help defeat the Axis — even if it meant open hostilities.

Many others still backed the noninterventionist America First Committee in 1940 and 1941, but isolationists failed to derail the Roosevelt administration’s plans to aid targets of Axis aggression with means short of war. Most Americans opposed any actual declaration of war on the Axis countries, but everything abruptly changed when Japan naval forces sneak-attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Germany and Italy declared war on the United States four days later. America galvanized itself for full-blown war against the Axis powers.
The demise of isolationism
The isolationist point of view did not completely disappear from American discourse, but never again did it figure prominently in American policies and affairs. Countervailing tendencies that would outlast the war were at work. During the war, the Roosevelt administration and other leaders inspired Americans to favor the establishment of the United Nations (1945), and following the war, the threat embodied by the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin dampened any comeback of isolationism.
The postwar world environment, in which the United States played a leading role, would change with the triumph of urban industry and finance, expanded education and information systems, advanced military technology, and leadership by internationalists. A few leaders would rise to speak of a return to America’s traditional policies of nonintervention, but in reality, traditional American isolationism was obsolete.
– – – Books You May Like Include: —-
FDR and Chief Justice Hughes: The President, the Supreme Court, and the Epic Battle Over the New Deal by James F. Simon.
The author of acclaimed books on the bitter clashes between presidents and chief justices—Jefferson and Marshall, Lincoln and Taney.

Please Donate

We have all heard people say what they are not, in reality they usually are. If you have to say you are not Racist, sexist or any other disparagement, then you are. Your beliefs right or wrong are your beliefs, own them or change them. It is unfortunate that many of our high profile people in government and private industry have mastered ( or attempted to) the art of “double speak”. Double speak is the way a person will say one thing to your face and something else in private. This type of person is why we have Donald Trump as President. No matter if you voted for Mr. Trump or not, it is important for  each person to be as honest with themselves before they (we) can be honest with anyone else.  This lack of moral compass has brought us our Current Congress which is steeped in rhetoric that sounds like the truth but is fueled by lies that serve the liars not the people who elected them. Right now we have an incompetent National leader who is on a path of creating a split country that surpasses the pre and post civil war divide which still has not completely healed. To add to the already  downward spiral , there is the withdrawal from the International climate accord which will allow China to assume a leadership position. This coupled with the recent European visit which netted nothing more than a sale of arms to a known sponsor of terror and pushed  other European leaders away. The Neer do well Congress has taken a “let it ride” attitude that needs to be addressed in the voting booth. The combination of  Administrative Naiveté and incompetence will cause many years of problems for us at home and abroad. The actions of this administration seem to be reversing anything done in the Obama years no matter what effect it has on ALL of us. The trump supporters are lauding his actions but do not realize these actions will have no effect on job loss, will not bring back lost coal jobs and will not move us ahead as a Nation. The lies issued during the campaign have no basis in fact and will ultimately create larger problems for us all.

%d bloggers like this: