DAVID MARCUS: Why Trump 2.0 is the beginning of history
In 1992, Francis Fukuyama penned his famous 'End of History' essay in which he argued that former President Ronald Reagan's Cold War victory had ushered in an age in which free market democracies would flourish almost by osmosis with a light, guiding American hand.
Thirty-five years on, after 9/11, after watching Communist China become a global powerhouse and Russia grow more belligerent, it is obvious that this careful management of neo-liberalism has failed. What we need is a new beginning of history, starting with President Donald Trump.
Of course, we all see the stark difference between the vibrant Trump and his immediate predecessor, Joe Biden, the first commander in chief who looked less alive in office than his Disney animatronic in the Hall of Presidents. But it's more than that.
Every president since Reagan has essentially been a caretaker for Fukuyama's vision of a world order in which the U.S., as the undisputed leader, puts its interests last, confident that "our way of life" will inevitably dominate the globe.
The Bushes, Clintons and Obamas did not shape the world so much as they sought to preserve the shape created by Reagan's Cold War victory. Today, we need Trump to see foreign affairs with fresh eyes, and so he is.
On Tuesday evening, the president shocked the world, and maybe even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with whom he was sharing a press conference, by suggesting that the United States should take over Gaza and turn it into the Riviera of the Middle East.
On the domestic political left, and internationally, the idea of American Gaza was met with scoffing scorn and incredulity. But given the horrible conditions under which those in Gaza live and the intolerable threat they pose to Israel, we must ask why that is.
The answer is that, while the global institutions which neo-liberals created and rely on would never agree to Trump's Gaza solution, these are the same groups that have failed to secure peace in the Middle East for decades.
Is trying something new so crazy? After all, it is the terrorists who favor the slow and steady status quo of death and destruction. Why give it to them?
And it isn't just in the Levant that Trump is making waves. Regarding strategically vital Greenland and the economically vital Panama Canal, the new Trump Doctrine is not just that American interests should come first, but that putting them first actually benefits the entire world.
In all fairness, it made some sense in 1992 to think that, as the world's lone superpower, the United States should be magnanimous and put developing nations first. But somewhere along the line, that magnanimity turned to self-loathing.
In all fairness, it made some sense in 1992 to think that, as the world's lone superpower, the United States should be magnanimous and put developing nations first. But somewhere along the line, that magnanimity turned to self-loathing.
Former President Obama took such a dim view of American moral power that he preferred our nation lead from behind.
Under these caretaker presidents, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which was designed to burnish our reputation abroad, instead spent millions criticizing Western Colonialism and telling Africans they aren't gay enough.
Reagan won the Cold War by keeping his eyes fixed on the aspirational America of the shining city upon a hill. Fukuyama mistakenly believed we had already achieved it and moved in.
Trump's shining city on a hill may be a hotel and casino in Gaza, or a submarine base in Greenland. It might be freer passage between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. But what it will not be is more of the same.
It was Nietzsche who wrote, "In the mountains, the shortest way is from peak to peak; but for that one must have long legs." For too long, American foreign policy has labored in the valleys of conflict and discord, always waiting for the safest and easiest way to climb out, never quite managing to.
Like Reagan, Trump knows how to walk from peak to peak and how to ignore the naysayers who say change is impossible.
At the end of history, one can only look backwards. Perhaps this is why we are a society of sequels and franchises rather than original stories, of old well-worn foreign policy paths, not new blazing trails.
At the beginning of history, all things are possible. There is no cynical past to foreclose on innovation and new ideas.
Trump has no intention of managing the slow decline of America, nor simply standing athwart that decline yelling "Stop!" No, for the first time in a long time, the American president sees new paths and visions for our nation, and under her leadership, for the entire world.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sen. Rand Paul Blasts Trump Over Revoked Invite To White House Picnic
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Wednesday slammed President Donald Trump for uninviting him and his family from the White House picnic. Paul has opposed the Trump administration's decision to 'actively' seek to suspend habeas corpus. Habeas corpus — the constitutional freedom that translates to 'you should have the body' in Latin — ensures that detained individuals, whether or not they are citizens, are able to physically appear in front of a judge. 'I think I'm the first senator in the history of the United States to be uninvited to the White House picnic,' Paul told reporters on Wednesday. 'I just find this incredibly petty. I mean — I have been, I think, nothing but polite to the president.' The picnic is an annual event held by the White House on the South Lawn, which members from both aisles of Congress typically attend. 'They've decided they want to declare war on my family and exclude us from the White House, and I just think it's incredibly petty,' Paul added on Wednesday, saying that White House staffers are 'running sort of a paid influencer campaign against me for two weeks on Twitter.' Paul said his son, daughter-in-law and infant grandson were supposed to attend the picnic with him. He also added that he did not receive an explanation as to why they all were no longer invited, and he's not sure if the revoked invitation came from Trump or his staffers. Habeas corpus is 'one most fundamental rights we have,' Paul said. 'And the same people that are directing this campaign are the same people that casually would throw out parts of the Constitution and suspend habeas corpus. So, I think what it tells it they don't like hearing me say stuff like that, and so they want to quiet me down. And it hasn't worked, and so they're going to try to attack me.' Paul has drawn Trump's ire on more than one occasion in recent days. Earlier this month, Paul voiced concerns about Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' prompting Trump to take jabs at him online. 'Rand Paul has very little understanding of the BBB, especially the tremendous GROWTH that is coming,' Trump said on his Truth Social platform. 'He loves voting 'NO' on everything, he thinks it's good politics, but it's not. The BBB is a big WINNER!!!' Paul also criticized Trump's upcoming military parade on Saturday, Trump's birthday. Paul told HuffPost the parade reminded him of the Soviet Union and North Korea. The White House did not immediately respond to HuffPost's request for comment. Trump Seethes Over Rand Paul Continuing To Oppose 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Trump Unironically Attends 'Les Misérables' As Protests Spread GOP Senators Freak Out When Asked About Trump's Military Parade Costing $45 Million
Hamilton Spectator
27 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
US governors are divided along party lines about military troops deployed to protests
California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is calling President Donald Trump's military intervention at protests over federal immigration policy in Los Angeles an assault on democracy and has sued to try to stop it. Meanwhile, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is putting the National Guard on standby in areas in his state where demonstrations are planned. The divergent approaches illustrate the ways the two parties are trying to navigate national politics and the role of executive power in enforcing immigration policies. In his live TV address this week, Newsom said that Trump's move escalated the situation — and for political gain. All 22 other Democratic governors signed a statement sent by the Democratic Governors Association on Sunday backing Newsom, calling the Guard deployment and threats to send in Marines 'an alarming abuse of power' that 'undermines the mission of our service members, erodes public trust, and shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement.' The protests in Los Angeles have mostly been contained to five blocks in a small section of downtown; nearly 200 people were detained on Tuesday and at least seven police officers have been injured. In Republican-controlled states, governors have not said when or how they're planning to deploy military troops for protests. Since Trump's return to office, Democratic governors have been calculating about when to criticize him, when to emphasize common ground and when to bite their tongues. The governors' responses are guided partly by a series of political considerations, said Kristoffer Shields, director of the Eagleton Center on the American Governor at Rutgers University: How would criticizing Trump play with Democrats, Republicans and independent voters in their states? And for those with presidential ambitions, how does that message resonate nationally? Democratic governors are weighing a number of considerations. 'There probably is some concern about retributions — what the reaction of the administration could be for a governor who takes a strong stance,' Shields said. And in this case, polling indicates about half of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling immigration, though that polling was conducted before the recent military deployment. On other issues, Democratic governors have taken a variety of approaches with Trump. At a White House meeting in February, Maine Democratic Gov. Janet Mills told Trump, ' we'll see you in court ' over his push to cut off funding to the state because it allowed transgender athletes in girls' school sports. Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer, a possible 2028 presidential candidate, publicly sparred with Trump during his first term but this time around, has met with him privately to find common ground. Initially, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green referred to Trump as a 'straight-up dictator,' but the next month he told a local outlet that he was treading carefully, saying: 'I'm not going to criticize him directly much at all.' Democratic governors speaking out — but some cautiously Apart from their joint statement, some of the highest-profile Democratic governors have not talked publicly about the situation in California. When asked, on Wednesday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul's office pointed to a Sunday social media post about the joint statement. Whitmer didn't respond. The office of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who is set to testify before Congress on Thursday about his state laws protecting people who are in the country without legal status, reiterated in a statement that he stands with Newsom. The office said 'local authorities should be able to do their jobs without the chaos of this federal interference and intimidation.' Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, in an interview Wednesday in The Washington Post, said Trump should not send troops to a weekend protest scheduled in Philadelphia. 'He's injected chaos into the world order, he's injected it into our economy, he is trying to inject chaos into our streets by doing what he did with the Guard in California,' Shapiro said. As state attorney general during Trump's first term, Shapiro routinely boasted that he sued Trump over 40 times and won each time. As governor he has often treaded more carefully, by bashing Trump's tariffs, but not necessarily targeting Trump himself. GOP governors weighing in Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has often clashed with Newsom, a fellow term-limited governor with national ambitions . Newsom's office said DeSantis offered to send Florida State Guard troops to California. 'Given the guard were not needed in the first place, we declined Governor DeSantis attempt to inflame an already chaotic situation made worse by his Party's leader,' Newsom spokesperson Diana Crofts-Pelayo said in an email to The Associated Press. Speaking on Fox News on Tuesday, DeSantis said the gesture was a typical offer of mutual aid during a crisis — and was dismissive of the reasons it was turned down. 'The way to put the fire out is to make sure you have law and order,' he said. States are preparing for more protests this weekend Protests against immigration enforcement raids have sprung up in other cities — and a series of 'No Kings' demonstrations are planned for the weekend — with governors preparing to respond. In Connecticut, Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont said he has spoken with his public safety commissioner to make sure state and local police work together. 'I don't want to give the president any pretext to think he can come into Connecticut and militarize the situation. That just makes the situation worse,' said Lamont, who called Trump 'a little eager to send federal troops and militarize the situation in Los Angeles.' It is unclear how many Texas National Guard members will be deployed or how many cities asked for assistance. In Austin, where police used chemical irritants to disperse several hundred protesters on Monday, the mayor's office said the National Guard was not requested. San Antonio officials also said they didn't request the Guard. Florida's DeSantis said law enforcement in his state is preparing 'The minute you cross into attacking law enforcement, any type of rioting, any type of vandalism, looting, just be prepared to have the law come down on you,' DeSantis said Tuesday. 'And we will make an example of you, you can guarantee it.' ___ Associated Press reporters Nadia Lathan and Jim Vertuno in Austin, Texas; Sophie Austin in Sacramento, California; Isabella Volmert in Lansing, Michigan; Andrew DeMillo in Little Rock, Arkansas; Susan Haigh in Hartford, Connecticut; Anthony Izaguirre in Albany, New York; Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Florida; and Sophia Tareen in Chicago; contributed. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Hamilton Spectator
27 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump's military parade is a US outlier in peacetime but parades and reviews have a long history
Troops marching in lockstep. Patriotic tunes filling the air. The commander in chief looking on at it all. The military parade commemorating the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary and coinciding with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday will be a new spectacle for many Americans. This will not be the first U.S. military parade. However, it is unusual outside of wartime, and Trump's approach stands out compared to his predecessors. The Army had long planned a celebration for its semi-quincentennial on June 14. Trump has wanted to preside over a grand military parade since his first presidency from 2017 to 2021. When he took office a second time, he found the ideal convergence and ratcheted the Pentagon's plans into a full-scale military parade on his birthday. The president, who is expected to speak in Washington as part of the affair, pitches the occasion as a way to celebrate U.S. power and service members' sacrifice. But there are bipartisan concerns about the cost as well as concerns about whether Trump is blurring traditional understandings of what it means to be a civilian commander in chief. Early US troop reviews Ceremonial reviews — troops looking their best and conducting drills for top commanders — trace back through medieval kingdoms to ancient empires of Rome, Persia and China. The pageantry continued in the young U.S. republic: Early presidents held military reviews as part of July 4th independence celebrations. That ended with James K. Polk , who was president from 1845 to 1849. President Andrew Johnson resurrected the tradition in 1865, holding a two-day 'Grand Review of the Armies' five weeks after Abraham Lincoln's assassination . It came after Johnson declared the Civil War over, a show of force meant to salve a war-weary nation — though more fighting and casualties would occur. Infantry, cavalry and artillery units — 145,000 soldiers, and even cattle — traversed Pennsylvania Avenue. Johnson, his Cabinet and top Army officers, including Ulysses S. Grant , Lincoln's last commanding general and the future 18th president, watched from a White House viewing stand. Spanish-American War and World War I: An era of victory parades begins The Spanish-American War was the first major international conflict for a reunited nation since the Civil War. It ended in a U.S. victory that established an American empire: Spain ceded Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and the U.S. purchased the Philippines for $20 million. Puerto Rico and Guam remain U.S. territories. New York City hosted multiple celebrations of a new global power. In August 1898, a fleet of warships, including the Brooklyn, the Texas, and the Oregon, sailed up the North River, more commonly known today as the Hudson River. American inventor Thomas Edison filmed the floating parade. The following September, New York hosted a naval and street parade to welcome home Rear Adm. George Dewey, who joined President William McKinley in a viewing stand. Many U.S. cities held World War I victory parades a few decades later. But neither Washington nor President Woodrow Wilson were the focal point. In Boston, a million civilians celebrated 20,000 troops in 1919. New York honored 25,000 troops marching in full uniform and combat gear. New York was the parade epicenter again for World War II On June 13, 1942, as U.S. involvement in World War II accelerated, about 30,000 people formed a mobilization parade in New York City. Participants included Army and Navy personnel, American Women's Voluntary Services members, Boy Scouts and military school cadets. Scores of floats rolled, too. One carried a massive bust of President Franklin Roosevelt , who did not attend. Less than four years later, the 82nd Airborne Division and Sherman tanks led a victory parade down Manhattan's Fifth Avenue. Gen. Dwight Eisenhower , the Allied commander during World War II, rode in a victory parade in Washington, D.C. In 1952, Eisenhower would join Grant and George Washington as top wartime commanders elevated to the presidency following their military achievements. Other World War II generals were honored in other homecoming parades. A long parade gap, despite multiple wars The U.S. did not hold national or major city parades after wars in Korea and Vietnam. Both ended without clear victory; Vietnam, especially, sparked bitter societal division, enough so that President Gerald Ford opted against a strong military presence in 1976 bicentennial celebrations, held a year after the fall of Saigon. Washington finally hosted a victory parade in 1991 after the first Persian Gulf War. The Constitution Avenue lineup included 8,000 troops, tanks, Patriot missiles and representatives of the international coalition, led by the U.S., that quickly drove an invading Iraq out of Kuwait. The commander in chief, George H.W. Bush , is the last U.S. president to have held an active-duty military post. He had been a World War II combat pilot who survived his plane being shot down over the Pacific Ocean. Veterans of the second Iraq and Afghanistan wars that followed the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks have not been honored in national parades. Inaugurations and a flight suit Inaugural parades include and sometimes feature military elements. Eisenhower's 1953 inaugural parade, at the outset of the Cold War, included 22,000 service members and an atomic cannon. Eight years later, President John F. Kennedy , a World War II Naval officer, watched armored tanks, Army and Navy personnel, dozens of missiles and Navy boats pass in front of his reviewing stand. More recent inaugurations have included honor guards, academy cadets, military bands and other personnel but not large combat assets. Notably, U.S. presidents, even when leading or attending military events, wear civilian attire rather than military garb, a standard set by Washington, who also eschewed being called 'General Washington' in favor of 'Mr. President.' Perhaps the lone exception came in 2003, when President George W. Bush , who had been a National Guard pilot, wore a flight suit when he landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq, which U.S. forces had invaded six weeks earlier. The aircraft carrier was not a parade venue but the president emerged to raucous cheers from uniformed service members. He put on a business suit to deliver a nationally televised speech in front a 'Mission Accomplished' banner. As the war dragged on to a less decisive outcome, that scene and its enduring images would become a political liability for the president. ___ Barrow reported from Atlanta. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
