The Trump Doctrine: Pay Your Share or Lose Your Peace and Freedom

mount rushmoreThis is really way out of line with American policy for almost seventy years. Actually it is the type of thinking you can attribute to no other American president in our history.

Donald Trump has analysed the world and put it on a profit and loss sheet to determine how it should operate. There is nothing on the sheet about freedom or about war. it is all about costs of operation without the faintest hint of the idea of deterrence or showing resolve.

It is what a businessman does. All that matters is making a profit; if lives are adversely affected by the decision to fire people so be it. The one important thing is to get a good return on one’s money.

No charity here (that’s why he hides his tax returns).  Our country will rename itself as the United Scrooges of America. When other countries experience a disaster or epidemic that won’t concern us unless they are willing to pony up big for our help. Nothing for nothing will be his motto.

That’s the man who some, fortunately a minority, want to elect as our president. He thinks like a business man. We hear it every day. He acts as if the United States is a profit-making company. He acts as if any other nation that deals with us will have to pay for the cost for us helping them (Mexico will pay for the wall?)

Nothing is free anymore. Not even freedom from  war. We will no longer protect your liberty unless you pay up. Our U.S. Navy will not guarantee any country freedom of the seas unless they pay their fair share of the costs.

Here is Trump: “[A]sked about Russia’s threatening activities that have unnerved the small Baltic States that are among the more recent entrants into NATO, Mr. Trump said that if Russia attacked them, he would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing whether those nations “have fulfilled their obligations to us.”

He also said: ““This is not 40 years ago, ”  . . . . Reiterating his threat to pull back United States troops deployed around the world, he said, “We are spending a fortune on military in order to lose $800 billion,” citing what he called America’s trade losses. “That doesn’t sound very smart to me.””

He wants to increase our military spending, Why if we are no longer going to be the guarantor of freedom to free people. He has repeatedly called NATO obsolete.

Since when is peace obsolete. NATO established in 1949 has given us a peaceful Europe (except for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine) for the past 67 years. How much is peace in Europe worth to America? Have you been there? It is a nice place to visit; not so nice to have to go and fight.

We went to war there twice. We and lost much wealth and young Americans. The main body that is responsible for us not having to go back there since 1945 is NATO. Along comes a business man who is going to tally up the cost rather than understand this is not a money issue.

Trump’s view on NATO alone should have any thoughtful person running scared. The commitment that kept the peace, the crux of the NATO agreement, was that an attack on one member is an attack on all. NATO’s foes believed that was the case. Trump now waffles on it.

President Reagan boldly asserted our commitment to Europe. He said: ‘‘The purpose of this summit is not self-congratulations. Our responsibility is to the future. Our first priority is to maintain a strong and healthy partnership between North America and Europe, for this is the foundation on which the cause of freedom so crucially depends.”

He also said about NATO: ‘‘If our common approach to the East over the years has given coherence to our message of peace and world freedom, it has been our unwavering commitment to defend ourselves that has given it credibility.”

Freedom can not be cost analysed. You cannot put a price tag on it anymore than on the air we breathe. Nations, some recently freed from enslavement, joined NATO because they value freedom. NATO guarantees it. Under Trump they will no longer have it if they are unable to meet his price.

That is no way to run America, it is an insult to all those troops who have died over the years for others to be free. It is certainly no way to inspire a nation or make other people feel confident in your resolve.

It was not too long ago we heard from another American president who said: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”


America is not a company. We are the beacon for peace in the world. We have made the world free  for people who want to be free. Our navy keeps the seas open for all. It is a costly endeavor we have willingly paid for and sacrificed for.

Every president from Truman to the present knows that peace comes from strength. Enemies of freedom must know  we are willing to bear any cost to achieve it. We know a peaceful world with free people is a safer word and over time costs of peace are much less than those of war.

Tonight if you listen to him he will talk mainly about how great he is. When he talks about foreign policy it will be about the cost of defending other nations. Listen to see if he understands that our willingness to take on the costs of keeping people free is to our benefit as well as theirs.

Keep in mind that there is no value you can put on freedom of people nor any value you can put on peace in Europe or Asia. Keep in mind America defeated the Soviet Union not as a Scrooge hoarding our dollars but as one willing to pay any price to win. Keep in mind the men on Mount Rushmore and ask yourself which of them would have treated America as a business.



  1. The opportunity cost for America is just too low, and the potential return too damn attractive ……not to buy NOW.

    My prediction:

    Triumphant Trump will Bury Billary in 2016.

  2. We already know Hillary’s record on the subject of your post today……..
    And you are comfortable with that?

    The things Trump doesn’t know about foreign policy, he will learn quickly. As for being a businessman…good for him….it will do the country good.

    The things Hillary (and the guy behind her )know and have done (breaking laws and proven lying) can’t be undone.

    It’s time for a fresh start.

    • …and NO, my reply above has NOTHING to do with Matt ‘s post today about his Warren dream.

    • Rather:

      I’m comfortable with the foreign policy we have had under Obama. For the last eight years he has minimized the loss of American live in the Middle East – we are getting back in now because things deteriorated so much – our Arab allies are worthless without our help – but we are trying to do it intelligently recognizing we can only do so much and that we never should have gotten there in the first place. It was not Obama that created the mess but it was Obama who kept us out of war with Iran.

      I don’t think the presidency is a place to start learning foreign policy. If you listened to his speech you should have asked yourself why he has no plan for anything even though he says he does. You don’t have a fresh start in a race by starting to build the automobile from scratch. The man is unskilled in government affairs and his ideas on undermining alliances based on costs is a real threat to America.

      • Matt,
        What the hell did Barack, GW, or Slick Willie know about foreign policy when they got in office?
        And where is it written that only career politicians (lawyers, really) can run for president?
        Maybe that’s the problem…..and the source of your bias.

        Who the hell is Hillary if Bill didn’t exist? A nobody.

        • Rather:

          None of those men based their campaigns on dividing America. Bill Clinton was a smart man who had lived in England for a bit so he was aware of how others thought; George Bush grew up in a family deeply involved in foreign policy but in retrospect the time he could have spent learning more about it he was out on an fling; Barack Obama is a smart man who also lived in other countries who would have an appreciation of them. Both Obama (48), Bush (56) and Bill Clinton (47) were young men still capable of building on their knowledge.

          No one said career politicians can run for office we have had many presidents who were developed by service in the armed forces. The one constant in American history is a president must have had prior military, elective or public service prior to his election. It tests a persons and gives one a record upon which to determine a person’s competency. Trump is an unknown who came to his position through divisive comments. My bias is to have a president who I can trust and who has some background I can look at. With Trump you cannot even see his tax returns.
          Feel free to vote for him but he is just not my cup of tea.

        • Career politicians and generals, but I repeat myself.

  3. GOK, Bill C., and Tadzio,

    Well said, Gentlemen.

    If not now…………..when?
    If not us…………who?

    Revolution is in the air…….and change is just around the corner.

    One point I would like to make:
    The fact that Trump is not a Politician is the biggest thing he has going for him. And he is not beholden to a party, PAC, Super PAC, or 1% contributors.

    He may not be the voice of all the people…..but a large percentage who want change.

    GO TRUMP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  4. Matt, it was a fine job you did tearing down Hillary.

    With Trump, however, I must say that your uber-Democrat roots are clouding your thinking. 1. Painting businessmen, including Trump, with such a broad brush in this post makes me think you never worked in business at all, which likely taints your world view some — to your detriment — as your writing indicates. 2. I don’t feel the need (maybe you do) to cling to the notion that any Presidential candidate must have some kind of background in and experience in public service or politics in order to perform well as President. 3. Yes, all other presidents had that experience or military service, but to oppose Hillary, to make sure that the Clintons’ poison never reaches the Oval Office again, to derail the Clintons and all their nasty, damaging works, to work against the dangerous Federal political machine (especially where Dems and the MSM are involved) is all to the good. 4. Call Trump a wild card if you will but, especially given the alternative, this election is a superb time (for those who look at it this way) to shoot for a real chance for change and vote for someone other than a warped, disgraceful machine politician, especially this Hydra (and all its lethal doings).

    • GOK:
      I try to judge a man by his words. As for working in a business I worked in the private sector for a while but never owned a business (outside of my law practice) where I had to buy tangible goods, keep an inventory, sell them or build buildings although I am familiar and have worked in most trades at an apprentice level. If you consider my not having worked in business a detriment then it sort of supports my position that Trump never having served his country in any way in the military, elective office, or public service is a detriment. I am trying to be CEO of a major corporation; Trump is trying to run something he has no idea about how it operates. That follows your reasoning to a T.
      2. You seem to contradict yourself here where you lament my lack of business experience in making comments about businessmen but give Trump’s lack of experience a pass.
      3. You have no idea who Trump is. You cannot even explain why he is hiding his taxes. Trump for all we know might be more of a liberal Democrat than Clinton who is probably a lot less liberal than you think. Did you hear Trump’s daughter speech? Was that the real Trump speaking inadvertently telling us how liberal he really is? Did you hear his comment telling the Republicans it was nice to hear them cheer when he said members of the gay community should not be murdered? What did he mean by that? Doe he think all Republicans are anti-gay? You don’t know anything about the man when it comes down to it. He was pro-choice just recently but changed when he wanted to run for office. He tells us he is going to bring into help him the richest men in America. Do you want that? Do you know who they are? Do you think they are going to help the average persons like us?
      4. The problem is Trump may be worse than Hillary at her worst. She has a track record as a senator and secretary of state. Trump has none. She has experience at the highest levels of government; Trump has none. You think Trump is better than her but I am trying to explain he could also be far worse.

  5. Matt: Tadzio is right! We are not the World’s Policeman. There’s nothing wrong with ensuring our allies pay their fair share. If America goes broke, worldwide freedom will take a nose dive. We must strengthen America first, militarily and economically and morally.
    2. NATO is not perfect, it is not a paradigm. NATO was wrong to bomb Serbia and to bomb Libya. NATO was the aggressor in both instances. NATO was never attacked. It was supposed to be a defensive alliance, not an aggressor.
    3. Many NATO members are freeloaders, not even forking over their pledged 2%.
    4. NATO is needlessly provoking Russia, putting missiles and troops in Eastern Europe.
    5. NATO should be reigned in. Let’s take a new look at NATO and reform it or shrink it or let the Europeans run it.
    6. The U.S. should become an associate member of NATO, and European Countries should begin to provide for their own defense.
    7. The U.S. and Europe should make friends with Russia and fight the Common Enemy, Radical Islam.
    8. Washington was right: America should avoid excessive foreign entanglements.
    9. I liked JFK and his idealism, but unfortunately his “pay any price” rhetoric to defend “freedom” throughout the world lead us into Vietnam. How did Vietnam interventionism work out?
    10. America has limited resources. America should expend those resources cautiously and wisely, especially when it comes to the commitment of our young men and women to combat.
    11. Trump is new to the political theater; some of his ideas are off base; some are refreshing; Why not exercise more cost control over government and be more cost conscious in dealing with other countries? Why not rethink NATO?
    12. Or shall we blindly follow Hillary’s New World Order, Big Government, Internationalism, Interventionistic thinking which may lead us into more wars and perhaps into World War III? How have Obama-Hillary done in solving the problems of the Middle East or anywhere else in the World.
    13. Jimmy Carter says that we have worse relations with every country on the planet under Obama-HillaryClinton, except Cuba. Why not try a new direction?

    • Matt, you are aware that British, Canadian, and American troops have now been placed on the border with Russia in Estonia, Latvia and Poland. Talk about NATO provocations! I wonder how we’d respond if Iranian, Chinese or Russian troops and missiles were stationed just south of the Rio Grande.
      P.S. I enjoy the comments of those who comment on this blog, pro and con. I learn a lot.

      • Bill C.

        Wow! That is shocking. You would think that Russia did something to deserve having our troops on its border like invade another country, seize its territory and then invade it again with its proxy soldiers. Are you telling me we are worried about protecting Estonis, Latvia, Lithuaania, and Poland based on nothing.

        I suppose if we decided to take Baja California and Sur Baja California and make them part of our country and Mexico called on others to protect the rest of its country and Russia, China, or Iran respoded I’d respond that it was a smart move by Mexico to protect itself.

    • Bill C.

      1. Tadzio is wrong in most of what he believes. We are the world’s policeman. That is why we spend so much money on our armed forces. We keep the world seas open for commerce with our Navy. We keep the control of the air with our Air Force. Our ground forces are superior to any others. We took that role on many years ago and in doing it we have maintained peace in most areas. If America withdrew from its job then the world would spin apart. Many of our allies are poor nations who cannot afford to pay us anything; others who are first world countries depend on our largesse to give their people a better way of living. It has worked well for many years and has not affected our ability at home to do what we want to do. America will never go broke but if it did the center which is America will no longer hold and anarchy will be loosed upon the world (Yeats) America is strong militarily and economically; morally we need a little boost.

      2. NATO is not perfect. It is a human institution. It did keep peace in Europe since 1949. It did keep the Soviets from invading other states aside from those it had enslaved. NATO was right in Serbia – the results of stopping the killings by the Serbs resulted in peace in that region rather than the genocides that would have occurred. NATO was right in Libya because Kadaffi’s troops were on their way to commit a genocide that it had to stop. It did not aggress. It came to the aid of distressed people. Libya unraveled because unlike in the Balkans the people were less civilized which seems to be a problem among Arab states.

      3. Many NATO nations are just getting back on their feet after years of being under the thumb of the Communists. Even East Germany almost destroyed the powerful West Germany economy as the German nation tried to unite. Understand that under the Soviet (Russian) model countries become rotten to the core and to recover takes many years. You cannot expect all those nations to have the ability to pay what the others are able to do.

      4. When Obama came to office he withdrew plans for putting missiles in Europe to protect us against Iran. This was to obviate Russian complaints. The result of that was that Russia invaded and independent country, Ukraine. It seized part of its territory and stripped it from that country. It then launched a second invasion of Ukraine on its eastern border where it is still supporting ex-Russian servicemen who are leading the insurrection. When Russia became the first country in Europe to invade and seize another’s land (it had already done it in Georgia) the NATO countries justifiably worried. They decided to better protect themselves. If protecting one’s territory is provoking another country then these countries might as well just become enslaved again. Does the existence of our powerful armed forces provoke Russia and China? By your reasoning you would have to answer yes.

      5. America is a necessary element to world peace. Take America away and countries that like to invade other countries will start doing it. NATO can change to start addressing the terrorist problem but it can never weaken itself to the point it tempts Russia from invading other countries.

      6. See number 5. Have you seen pictures of once beautiful towns in Syria or Eastern Ukraine. Do you want Europe to become a land of devastation?

      7. You seem to forget Russia is the aggressor. You sound like the people who wanted to make friends with Hitler back in the 1930s as he was invading Austria, Sudentenland, Czechoslovakia. The only way to be friends with countries like that is to resist them with all your might. They are no longer civilized (civilized countries don’t invade and seize others territory) and have to be dealt with realistically and not through some idealist notion.

      8. Washington is dead over 216 years – he knew nothing about the modern world – he died before Jefferson found it necessary to fight the Barbary pirates our first foreign entanglement -nothing about WWI or WWII – nothing about how it is incumbent upon our country to keep the peace in the world. His ideas like those of the writers of the Second Amendment have no relevance to today.

      9. Historians say JFK would more likely than not have pulled us out of Vietnam. He never would have gotten us involved like the phony Silver Star wearer did who did not want to be the first American president to lose a war. When Kennedy died there were less than 16,000 troops in Vietnam. Two years later the figure was 184,000 and one year after that 385,000. When a man sends young men off to die to preserve his reputation then things will not turn out well.

      10. True – before we go to war we should be sure it is what we should be doing. That is the great thing about Obama – he did not want to go to war – his instincts were to negotiate rather than fight. His only involvement in Libya was to stop a genocide. He tried to pull American troops out of areas where others put them in expecting people who we trained for years would become self sufficient in their own defense.

      11. Judging from his speeches Trump is a brash bigot who gained prominence by his language dividing Americans. That does not tell us who he really is since it could be one big act. He might be more liberal than Hillary. He told us he is going to rely on the richest men in America – you think that is the way we should go as a country. He has no military, elective, or public service background. He is 70 years old and will not change. He wrote in his book that came out in 2000 that: “I support a woman’s right to choose but I am uncomfortable with the procedures.” He was 55-years-old supporting the pro-choice position. He was a registered Democrat up until 2009. Read all the things he wants to spend money on.

      12. Under Obama we did not war with Iran – under Romney and Trump it is more likely than not that we will. Trump is going to tear up the agreement with Iran. That will be a recipe for more turmoil. It was Bush who got us into Iraq which is the reason the Middle East is a mess. Obama tried to put bandages on it not wanting to lose American lives over there. How has any American president even Reagan done in solving the problems of the Middle East or any place else in the world? You think Trump with no experience at all in government will be able to do it?

      13. Since when do you quote Jimmy Carter? He’s been mad at Obama since he did not invite him to the White House.

  6. The purpose of America is clearly defined in the Preamble to the Constitution. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” Not a word about establishing an Empire or securing anything for anyone else. The Father of Our Country George Washington advised against foreign entanglements. Donald Trump promises to return to that wise policy.

    • Tadzio:

      Trump want to build up our armed forces – he wants to tear up the Iran agreement – he wants to defend our best ally in the Middle East – he wants to wipe out ISIS – how does that figure into the equation?