{"id":14670,"date":"2016-11-10T06:16:37","date_gmt":"2016-11-10T06:16:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.biphoo.com\/bipnews\/?p=14670"},"modified":"2016-11-10T06:16:37","modified_gmt":"2016-11-10T06:16:37","slug":"world-is-about-to-find-out-what-donald-trump-really-believes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biphoo.com\/bipnews\/elections\/world-is-about-to-find-out-what-donald-trump-really-believes.html","title":{"rendered":"World Is About to Find Out What Donald Trump Really Believes"},"content":{"rendered":"

World Is About to Find Out What Donald Trump Really Believes<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

World Is About to Find Out What Donald Trump Really Believes:-<\/strong> In Donald J. Trump\u2019s private conversations and public commentary, one guiding principle shines through: The world is a zero-sum place, and nations, like real estate developers, are either on the winning side of a deal or the losing side.<\/span><\/p>\n

Yet he also is the ultimate pragmatist, perfectly willing to dispense with seemingly core beliefs in return for negotiating advantage. That is why many of his closest supporters have long cautioned that the most headline-grabbing proposals of his run for the presidency should not be taken literally \u2014 they are guideposts, the supporters suggest, not plans. Even Mr. Trump once described his proposed ban on Muslim immigrants as a mere \u201csuggestion.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

As he enters the Oval Office that Ronald Reagan \u2014 another populist pragmatist, but one who had served in public office before the White House \u2014 left nearly 28 years ago, the world is about to find out what Donald Trump really believes. Or at least what he is going to try to do, in partnership with Republicans who on Tuesday retained control of both houses of Congress.<\/span><\/p>\n

It was in Mr. Reagan\u2019s last months in office that Mr. Trump took out a full-page ad in several newspapers complaining that \u201cfor decades, Japan and other nations have been taking advantage of the United States.\u201d Flirting with a presidential run himself \u2014 he was 41 \u2014 and seeking the publicity that would become addictive, he called for the United States to pull out of the Middle East, which he called \u201cof only marginal significance to the United States for its oil supplies,\u201d and asked, \u201cWhy are these nations not paying the United States for the human lives and billions of dollars we are losing protect their interests?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

It is a line he often repeated in his unlikely candidacy. America\u2019s Asian allies, South Korea included, are about to learn whether that is an opening negotiating position, or the condition for America\u2019s continued military presence in the Pacific. Japan\u2019s best hope arises from the fact that he is now focusing his attentions on the United States\u2019 five-times-as-large trade deficit with China, which he described in May as engaged in \u201cthe greatest theft in the history of the world.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

At home, his instincts often mix elements of what he has heard or read from the left and the right. His economic policy might best be described as \u201cBig Government Conservatism,\u201d a mix of major tax cuts, mostly for businesses, and a massive infrastructure program to rebuild the dank airports and collapsing bridges that he used in the campaign as a symbol of America\u2019s declining status. It is a subject he comes to easily as a developer who wanted to get customers to his properties.<\/span><\/p>\n

So far, those proposals do not add up to a coherent strategy. The tax cuts come right out of the Republican playbook; the spending right out of the Democrats\u2019 agenda of spurring the economy with government-led job creation. His commitment to preserve social programs is far more Obama than Reagan. His vow to rip apart the Affordable Care Act, the symbolic domestic achievement of the Obama presidency, adopts the favorite cause of the Republican leadership with whom he has often clashed.<\/span><\/p>\n

Experts who have looked at his proposals \u2014 many so vague they cannot be \u201cpriced\u201d \u2014 have concluded that federal deficits will soar. And that gets to Mr. Trump\u2019s willingness to entertain two completely contradictory thoughts at once, because rarely did he finish an interview or a debate without reminding listeners that a federal debt heading toward $20 trillion was a \u201cdisaster\u201d that only he could fix. In his first year, he will have to square those two promises \u2014 or not.<\/span><\/p>\n

Indeed, his campaign talk has often contradicted his past proposals. In the early 1990s, for example, Mr. Trump lobbied Congress to raise income taxes on the wealthy to encourage investment in real estate, while advocating the restoration of tax breaks for real estate investments.<\/span><\/p>\n

In 1999, Mr. Trump proposed a \u201cnet worth tax\u201d on the wealthy to pay off the national debt. \u201cPersonally this plan would cost me hundreds of millions of dollars, but in all honesty, it\u2019s worth it,\u201d Mr. Trump said at the time. His motivation: He was considering a bid for the presidential nomination of Ross Perot\u2019s Reform Party, which had made federal debt reduction one of its signature issues.<\/span><\/p>\n

But it is in national security that he faces some of the biggest quandaries.<\/span><\/p>\n

His zero-sum instincts kick in when the subject turns to immigration, which is essentially the importation of people. He has long argued that immigrants take jobs from Americans, diminishing prosperity by dividing the American pie into a larger number of smaller pieces. The idea that they can bolster the economy, too \u2014 as some of the founders of Intel, Google and other Silicon Valley powerhouses did \u2014 never creeps into his speeches.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mr. Trump\u2019s views of the economy are also deeply rooted in his identity as a real estate developer. He regularly emphasizes the economic importance of making things, while rarely mentioning the service work that employs most Americans. He has repeatedly promised to revive the steel production, a line of work that now employs about as many people as a large medical center.<\/span><\/p>\n

In fact, it is the era when America was making steel that Mr. Trump harks back to when he talks about the era when America was at the peak of its power. He noted in a March interview that in the late 1940s and early 1950s, \u201cwe were not pushed around, we were respected by everybody, we had just won a war.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

It is a view of American power that spills over into his approach to national security. He sees little long-term benefit from funding efforts to eliminate the root causes of terrorism. His mind goes to military solutions first. Few statements were more often repeated, or more heartfelt, than his vow to bomb the Islamic State, and \u201ctake the oil.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Those lines always brought his crowds to their feet. Now comes the far more complex part: He is about to inherit the problem of how to hold and redevelop Mosul once the Islamic State forces are ousted \u2014 under a military plan that he has dismissed as ineffective \u2014 and how to \u201ctake the oil\u201d of a sovereign state, Iraq. And he must do so without returning to an era of constant American combat presence that had made embers of his own war-weary party, and Hillary Clinton, blanch.<\/span><\/p>\n

And no relationship will be under more scrutiny than how Mr. Trump handles President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, whom he has repeatedly praised in terms that shocked his own party, and his running mate.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Cold War was the ultimate geopolitical zero-sum game. For most Repubicans, it still is: Twenty-five years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is a growing bipartisan consensus in the foreign policy and intelligence leadership that Russia must be both constrained and contained, its harassment of the new members of NATO halted, its cyberattacks deterred.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mr. Trump is an outlier to that view, and never once backed the idea of \u201ccontainment.\u201d He repeatedly made the case that he, and he alone, could negotiate with authoritarians like Mr. Putin.<\/span><\/p>\n

Would he lift the sanctions over Russia\u2019s annexation of Crimea \u2014 a move that Mr. Trump has seemed to suggest was justified \u2014 and its harassment of Ukraine? Would he back off from the Obama administration\u2019s decision to bolster the American military presence off Russia\u2019s borders?<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cMy administration,\u201d he said recently, \u201cwill work with any country that is willing to partner with us to defeat ISIS, and halt radical Islamic terrorism. And that includes Russia.\u201d On Wednesday, Mr. Putin seemed to return that sentiment, sensing his opportunity and saying he looked forward to restoring \u201cfully fledged\u201d relations with the United States.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cIf they want to join us by knocking out ISIS, that is just fine as far as I\u2019m concerned,\u201d Mr. Trump said recently, in a statement that oozed Kissingerian realpolitik. \u201cIt is a very imperfect world, and you can\u2019t always choose your friends. But you can never fail to recognize your enemies.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Such issues will stretch Mr. Trump in new directions. His experience in the business world did little to hone his thinking how to prioritize American national interests: When asked about it in March, he said that \u201cprotection of our country\u201d was No. 1, but he struggled to explain others, including when he thought American troops should be put at risk in defense of a humanitarian cause. With nearly 500,000 people dead in Syria, that issue will be on his desk on the afternoon of Jan. 20, along with many others.<\/span><\/p>\n

Source:-\u00a0http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2016\/11\/10\/us\/politics\/world-is-about-to-find-out-what-donald-trump-really-believes.html<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t