The Spire

This November, the World Order is on the Ballot

Published by

theholycrossspire

on

Rory McLaughlin ‘24

Guest Writer

Donald Trump’s disdain for NATO is no secret. As far back as 1987, he’s gone on record giving speeches lambasting NATO allies for “ripping us off” for not contributing as much of their GDP towards defense as us. On several occasions, he has expressed such frustration with the 75 year-old alliance that many former advisors fear he would pull out if given a second term. Indeed, Trump himself threatened to pull the US out at a 2018 summit if allies did not increase their spending on defense.

However, Trump’s business-wired brain demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the alliance operates: our place on the global stage has been precisely because we’ve led the charge on defense, and it has benefited American interests in all facets of society: economic growth, democratic values, and national defense. It’s the reason why NATO has been the most successful, largest, longest-lasting military alliance in modern history.

Trump’s threats to not send US assistance should Article 5 be invoked, the article which states that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all, demonstrates his short memory: the only time the article has ever been invoked was when the US was attacked on 9/11, right down the road from Trump Tower. While asking our NATO allies to increase their contributions is valid, particularly those who aren’t meeting the 2% of GDP target, this target is not rent, as the former real-estate tycoon would like it to be: our allies are not evictable for being short of the target. If that were the case, the entire institution would be undermined, and Vladimir Putin would almost certainly continue his campaign of Soviet restoration into the Baltic states and beyond– throwing our carefully constructed world order of liberal democracy completely out the window.

It is no coincidence that as this order has dominated over the last 75 years, the US economy has developed into the strongest in world history: national security and economic security are inextricably linked. A huge reason for why the US Dollar has been the dominant global currency is because of the credibility that the Fed has established for being the “world’s bank.” The Fed has always exhibited a strong degree of political independence, reacting with monetary policy decisions purely based upon economic realities– regardless of how said moves may impact the current administration politically. Take the Chairmanship of Paul Volcker: Nominated by Jimmy Carter during the “stagflation” period of the late ‘70s, Volcker took a notoriously aggressive approach to ringing inflation out of the economy, raising interest rates as high as 20%. This ground the economy to a halt, a tough but necessary therapy to curb high inflation. The ensuing economic freeze hurt Carter politically, and may have cost him a second term– but Volcker’s medicine worked, and inflation sunk to normal levels within 3 years.

Trump, however, has no such plans to honor Fed independence: Instead, he’s openly lambasted the Fed for not lowering interest rates to boost short-term economic growth so that he can take political credit. WSJ reported last week that Trump officials have already begun drawing up plans for the President to be consulted about every monetary policy decision in a second term– a move that would risk politicizing the central bank and undermining all credibility for dollar dependence (go ahead and ask Argentina what happens when the central bank becomes politicized).

Trump’s wishes for a world order run like one of his businesses would undermine everything we have worked for since WWII. Besides, if the world order ran like a Trump business, it’d go bankrupt anyway.

Featured Image Courtesy of CNBC

5 responses to “This November, the World Order is on the Ballot”

  1. Avatar
    Anonymous

    of the billion things that made trump a demon president, why are we choosing to lambast him for the fact that he would defund American imperialism which is like one of the four things he’d do in office that aren’t ontologically evil 😭

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous

      If you truly want to understand Imperialism, I’d take a page out of the book of Vladimir Putin. If his illegal invasion of Ukraine, a sovereign nation formally under the helm of both the Russian and Soviet Empires, isn’t a hugely profound example of Imperialism– then I quite frankly don’t know what is… Make no mistake, Vladimir Putin sees his war in Ukraine as an unofficial conflict with NATO and the United States. The fundamental truth that separates NATO from the Imperialistic aggressions of Russia is that NATO is an alliance of freely consenting independent nations with common defense and security goals, while Russia spends its time subjugating its neighbors and former fiefdoms back into its realm of control. While your use of words like “ontologically” are an interesting shield to hide your willful ignorance to the implications of the breakdown of NATO, and the suffering of the Ukrainian people at the hands of an Imperialist power that is currently subjugating, murdering, and torturing hundreds of thousands of people, I would think more critically about the implications that your comments have on people around the world who rely on NATO’s security apparatus.

      If you need more help understanding, here’s a link to an academy award winning documentary that shows the suffering for which I speak:



      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous

        this is literally “you like pancakes therefore you must hate waffles” logic. I don’t like Russia, but what I despise more is the significantly larger militaristic force that has also very much proven itself bad for Europe.

        NATO itself is a defense pact, sure, but they have certainly proven themselves to be a bloodlusted organization that serves solely to uphold American interests (look no further than the bombing of Yugoslavia for example, if you want to play “innocent victims” on me, let’s ask how the hundreds of civilians who died felt all the more secure by NATO’s presence).It’s also worth mentioning the Nazi roots the organization has (Adolf Heusinger being a notable example). The countries involved in NATO aren’t suffering from imperialism, but it represents a larger arm of influence for what is an imperialistic state, I.e, the United States.

        To be certain, Putin is dangerous for Europe, and a bad leader. What’s more dangerous is the implicit assumption the solution is American arms and American presence, which itself has proven, id dare say, to be a more objectionable nation than even modern day Russia.

        If you need more help understanding that, I encourage you to look into pretty much any conflict or issue America has been involved in for basically the last century.

        Reply
        1. Avatar
          Anonymous

          First off, let’s make a few things clear. Bombing Yugoslavia helped to end the genocide of thousands of Albanians. NATO’s presence in the former Yugoslavia not only ended the genocide but enabled the Albanian people to gain their first taste of freedom in nearly 5 decades. So, when looking into that particular conflict that “ America has been involved in for basically the last century,” I find nothing less than NATO serving its most important purpose. I am well aware that NATO’s security apparatus is full of ways in which it can be improved. However, make no mistake: the rejection of NATO’s bombing campaign in Yugoslavia would have exacerbated the loss of life of Albanians during that genocide and kept Slobodan Milosevic, a genocidal maniac, whose ideas were on par with the leaders of the Nazis to whom you so surreptitiously pass reference, in power. NATO remains the greatest force for deterrence against Russian aggression, and the aggression of strong men against the weak across the world. We remain its greatest advocates because of the responsibility we have taken on in the modern world. If we seek to control the global economy with the prosperity we now enjoy, profess our democratic values, and influence policy across the world to our benefit- then we can no longer live in a world where we act as though events, struggles, conflicts, and wars that take place around the world have no impact on us. NATO is the best facilitator of those goals. It also allows us to keep China and Russia at bay. If the US left NATO, thus disabling our ability to carry our values globally: the gap of responsibility would be filled. While in a perfect world, the balance of power would be shared equally amongst all nations – there is no scenario in which the balance of power wouldn’t shift dramatically upon our severance of ties with NATO. Russia and/ or China would fill that void. As a lover of freedom and democracy everywhere, I find this reprehensible. You mention Russia’s lack of intervention across the globe compared to that of the United States. Having seen the war in Ukraine these past few years, I invite you to ask: what would more Russian influence across the globe truly mean? You and I both know it means a world which is less free, less safe, and less democratic than ever.

          Reply
          1. Avatar
            Anonymous

            You’re being serious? Russia is not the greater evil here, and calling America a protector is, respectfully, the most sheltered thing I’ve heard in my life. “Our values” are infinitely more repugnant than Russia’s could ever hope to be. Russia, evil as it is, at least believes that food is a human right, and votes as such in the UN, unlike the United States. But obviously, of course, America loves the little guy! Russia violently silences protestors, has slave labor prisons meant more to break will than enforce justice, and rigged, corrupt elections that favor whoever can be bought, and fortunately America, land of the free and inventors of democracy™️®️, have nothing even remotely comparable. Be serious. If the US truly intervened in Yugoslavia against Milošević to “oppose naziism”, and not simply to put the nail on the coffin of resistance to economic liberalization, then why won’t they commit to banning neo-naziism today? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/u-s-opposes-nazi-speech-but-will-vote-no-at-un-to-banning-it? And, you know, why’d they bomb the Chinese embassy in Belgrade? Why not a surgical intervention if America intervened for the sole purpose of empathy instead of crippling the nation and killing indiscriminately in poorly-planned drone strikes? The fact that we didn’t, and don’t particularly care to fight fascism at home, while being more than happy to use it to justify war, should tell you something. There’s also that whole operation bloodstone/paperclip thing, but we don’t need to talk about that. The idea of the US as a protector of the innocent is simply just bewildering to me. in the few cases where you could make a case for America being on the right side of history, it’s involvement has been consistently opportunistic or nationalistic, not benevolent. In other words, a convenient coincidence. Russia is barely capable of ravaging a single country. America has ravaged the entire planet. Russia is simply not the threat you make it out to be, and even if it were, and they had our influence, next to nothing would change. I need not mention Latin America (operation condor, northwoods, mongoose, fast and furious, Cubana de Aviación Flight 455, Iran-Contra Scandal, I could go on…) all of American involvement (and lack thereof, see Gaza) in the Middle East (e.g. the many war crimes involved in the attacks against Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and more), Vietnam, the acknowledgement of a lack of strategic necessity in bombing Japan (and the commencement of it anyways), and probably so much more I’m simply forgetting. Bare in mind that’s solely the overt military operations, not scratching the surface of the vile aggressive economic policies America often champions (themselves very much guilty of debt-trap diplomacy, but I digress.). When every single thing you could say Russia, China, or FR Yugoslavia has done, combined, America has either done themselves and worse, overtly or covertly, or exacerbated (before you bring up the Uyghurs, I should remind you Japanese internment was very similar to this, and if that’s not enough, American businesses’ aiding in the holocaust (and America never really stopping them)), then you can’t pull a whataboutism on America’s behalf.  throwing your support behind America to do so is like supporting Nazis to take down communists (and in which case, it makes sense why you love America so much, seeing as how they love doing that). I know I’m not convincing you, because at the end of the day, the Spire loves to flag-hump America, but it’s my sincere hope that whoever else reads this can recognize how this is a flawed mindset. America isn’t justice, it’s the embodiment of tyranny. A “free world” means a world free both of American hegemony and of an imperialistic, individualistic mindset of any nation.

            Reply

Leave a Reply

Previous Post
Next Post

Discover more from The Spire

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading