If not America First, who or what should be first?

That is a simple question that is begging to be asked.

Chris Matthews referred to Trump’s “America First” attitude as “Hitlerian.”  George Will had issues with Trump’s assessment of domestic manufacturing as “dystopian” and that somehow Trump was “exhilarated” from the assessment.

Pragmatism in the real world requires the identification of the problem and an approach to the solution.  This is the Trump animal, and it has been learned in a lifetime of application.  The bluntness of it all is disquieting to some, such as the likes of Chris and George.  The response is realistic and cold perhaps, but without a doubt targeted and effective.

Trump got himself in a bit of a tempest when he suggested the moratorium on Muslim immigrants.  He walked that comment back to a restriction and extreme vetting of those emanating from countries or areas rife with Islamic terrorism.  But the assessment and reaction is very similar.  In the terrorism case, Trump decided the supply of the problem must be reduced or the response to the problem increased, or both.  Sound and practical thought.  Indelicate, yet who could argue with the effectiveness?

But to the question, “If not America first, then who or what?”  Are we to allow countries to tax our exports as we do not tax theirs?  Do we carry obligations exceeding our NATO and the UN duties when others shirk their duties and commitments?  What leader of our country would allow such conditions to exist?  This isn’t “fair trade” and it isn’t adhering to crafted multinational agreements when others tax our imports or ignore their commitments.

Trump is correct.  He need not be delicate or politically correct, he merely needs to be right.  America first, until someone can come up with a better answer.

That is a simple question that is begging to be asked.

Chris Matthews referred to Trump’s “America First” attitude as “Hitlerian.”  George Will had issues with Trump’s assessment of domestic manufacturing as “dystopian” and that somehow Trump was “exhilarated” from the assessment.

Pragmatism in the real world requires the identification of the problem and an approach to the solution.  This is the Trump animal, and it has been learned in a lifetime of application.  The bluntness of it all is disquieting to some, such as the likes of Chris and George.  The response is realistic and cold perhaps, but without a doubt targeted and effective.

Trump got himself in a bit of a tempest when he suggested the moratorium on Muslim immigrants.  He walked that comment back to a restriction and extreme vetting of those emanating from countries or areas rife with Islamic terrorism.  But the assessment and reaction is very similar.  In the terrorism case, Trump decided the supply of the problem must be reduced or the response to the problem increased, or both.  Sound and practical thought.  Indelicate, yet who could argue with the effectiveness?

But to the question, “If not America first, then who or what?”  Are we to allow countries to tax our exports as we do not tax theirs?  Do we carry obligations exceeding our NATO and the UN duties when others shirk their duties and commitments?  What leader of our country would allow such conditions to exist?  This isn’t “fair trade” and it isn’t adhering to crafted multinational agreements when others tax our imports or ignore their commitments.

Trump is correct.  He need not be delicate or politically correct, he merely needs to be right.  America first, until someone can come up with a better answer.