A Vote for Trump

Those who followed the presidential debate this past Monday – and in particular those who favor Hillary Clinton – breathed easy when they brought up a segment on foreign policy. It was then that Hillary Clinton secured the match, showing the difference it makes to be the one with the know-how and thus winning the argument. The important part in all of this, in my opinion, is having peace of mind when we listen to the former U.S. secretary of state’s arguments, because it shouldn’t be forgotten that her foreign policy is conservative. Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy is naught but a tempered Republican version. This means the continued promotion of regime changes, the perpetuation of the war on terrorism and, in essence, the maintenance of the U.S. as more of a bystander than a definitive world player.

The two presidential candidates consistently represent U.S. conservatism. The methods change, but the objectives remain the same. Above all, again, in terms of foreign policy. The Obama administration has simply succeeded in outfoxing the Leviathan on the playing field of international forums and in making space for other players, but at the end of the day, the United States continues to be a determining presence in international conflicts.

A Trump administration could possibly result in some interesting circumstances that would, without a doubt, weaken U.S. influence. A result, perhaps, of his untenable proposals.

If the Trump administration revives the idiocy of the Bush Jr. administration’s unilateralism, the first thing we’ll see is the return of military troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. Keep in mind that the Obama administration has been pointed in complying with the return of forces laid out by his predecessor, but President Trump could ignore that agenda. In that case, relations between Arab and Muslim countries and non-Arab and non-Muslim countries would become even more inflamed, but it would also give Trump his first brush with his own two-party system. Don’t forget that sending troops can only happen in the context of war, and that requires statutory authorization by Congress. At this point, the erosion of the Trump administration would first begin, and his allies in the Middle East could give the U.S. the cold shoulder. Whether he wants it or not, the U.S. needs allies in that region.

As far as Latin America goes, a scenario in which the Trump administration demonstrates its foreign policy manliness with threats reminiscent of Reagan in Granada or of Bush Sr. in Panama is perfectly imaginable. And once that happens, the first to feel the effects will be Mexico. The Trump administration could militarize the border with ease, not that it isn’t already militarized. One difference would be that all border guards would have military-grade weapons, and all border crossings would be in the hands of the army. It would be a populist measure, but possible. We can plan on Trump’s intent to destabilize other Latin American governments in a much more direct way, turning back time to the 1980s.

Each of these scenarios, without even mentioning the possible reaction by the Trump administration to a terrorist attack on American soil – similar to the one that happened a few weeks back in New York – would put the U.S. in an unsustainable and very complex situation before the rest of the world, transforming it into somewhat of an outcast. And maybe, just maybe, a possibility will arise wherein the United States has to undergo drastic changes if it wants to survive all of this and understand that it can’t play Empire anymore.

So in the long run, a vote for Trump doesn’t seem like that bad an idea.