Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (118) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84350 
Subject: Re: war with Denmark or Panama??
Date: 01/08/25 5:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 9
If one wanted to take the Maximalist view of "America First" and assign only the worst motives to what Trump is saying, then sure. But a realistic reading of the world situation would cause any serious student of foreign policy to reject such a posture.

It's not a maximalist view.

For "America First" to have any meaning, it has to signify something more than just acknowledging that America has interest and those should be taken into consideration in our foreign policy. Because no one has every disagreed with that, ever.

Presumably it reflects a change in our foreign and economic policy - reprioritizing the importance of America's direct interests relative to those interests we pursue by taking into account the interests of our allies. Of course that doesn't mean that we're going to start treating a nation like Canada as an enemy, but it means we're going to start treating them more as a rival for economic and foreign policy position than we have historically. Denmark as well.

But it's irrational to think that we can pursue that type of foreign and economic policy and not expect other countries to respond in kind. That somehow we can de-emphasize their interests in our calculus without having them de-emphasize our interests in theirs.

Of course it's a spectrum, not a binary. But if we're shifting the way we treat other countries along that "Allies-Rivals-Adversaries" spectrum so that we can put "America First," we have to expect that they'll respond in kind.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (118) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community