By Douglas V. GibbsAuthor, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Moderation, is the key. For example, food can be a good thing, but if you go to any extreme, be it eating too much, or eating too little, you run the risk of being overweight, or starving yourself to death. Moderation is an important concept in pretty much everything.
In politics, the term "moderation" has come to mean something that is not necessarily true. The extreme leftward lean of the Democrats is so extreme that to them moderation leans leftward, just not as far left as they. Anything not within their extreme reach is accused of being extremely to the right. The Republican Party, especially the Tea Party and Trump supporters of the GOP, are far right, in the opinion of the far left Democrats. Alt-right is another term they use for it. Except, the term, and the idea of far right extremism, is being greatly exaggerated.
On the Political Spectrum, far left is totalitarianism and oligarchy. In the vicinity of far left extremism could be listed communism, socialism, dictatorships, monarchy, theocracy, and pretty much any other governmental system or ideal that preaches extreme control by governmental forces, be they secular, religious, or any combination of the two. While the Democrats have not quite crossed the threshold that would place them in those categories that we consider totalitarianism, their antics of late have placed them dangerously close to such an extreme.
On the Political Spectrum, far right is anarchy, or "no government". In the range between dead center, and anarchy, are different levels of limited government, including pure democracy, and various styles of utopian systems that are dreamed up of, but can never exist because human nature would never allow it. Reality is, government is a necessary evil.
This is why leftists use "protectionism" and "nationalism" to describe Mr. Trump and his agenda, when in truth, both terms are not truly applicable.
The liberal left believes that global collectivism is the only concept that can work for our modern society. After the nationalism and protectionism that brought about the fascist and totalitarian regimes during our journey through the bloody paths of the two World Wars, anything that isn't full global cooperation is seen as a dangerous step in a direction that could return us to bloody consequences.
While what Trump and his team offers is a return to sovereignty, and a move away from the collectivism being offered by the progressive left socialists, it is not an extreme jaunt towards what the leftists consider to be "far right" and a perceived inevitability back towards a global bloody conflict.
Nationalism and protectionism is isolationism - an extreme opposite of collectivism. In a world of nationalism and protectionism there would be no relationships among the nations, nor cooperation of any kind, and the walls would be more than protections at the borders. Walls would go up between communications and negotiations, with no compromise and no willingness to work together as a global unit being offered. That is not what Mr. Trump is offering...but the leftists of the world have gone so far to the left, that is what his policies seems to be to them.
Yes, we live in a global economy and a world in which the availability of information and communication has increased greatly because of technology. However, that does not mean it is wise to throw off all vestiges of doing what is best for one's own country. While we are a global community, the interests of each country and its people must still be an important factor in the mind of any politician. A certain level of ensuring what is best for Americans, for example, must be in the negotiations by American leaders. We do not request a withdrawal from the world stage, or an "I'm gonna take my ball and go home" attitude, but at the same time we don't want to practice a purely collective attitude, either, and forget about what it best for the homeland. Make deals, but make smart deals that are not designed to essentially screw the American People.
That, my friends, is what President Donald J. Trump is all about; whether or not he fully understands constitutionalism from an originalist standpoint, I am not sure, but he is sure practicing a constitutional worldview when it comes to constitutional moderation on the world stage.
Which brings us to the G-20.
Here's what Zero Hedge had to say on the topic:
After delays and hours of discussions amid tensions over 'trade' comments between the United States and the rest of The G-20, it appears President Trump has 'won'. While China was "adamantly against" protectionism, the finance ministers end talks without renewing their long-standing commitment to free trade and rejection of protectionism after US opposition.
The world's financial leaders are unlikely to endorse free trade and reject protectionism in their communique on Saturday because they have been unable to find a wording that would suit a more protectionist United States, G20 officials said.
This would break with a decade-old tradition among the finance ministers and central bankers of the world's 20 top economies (G20), who over the years have repeatedly rejected protectionism and endorsed free trade.
But the new administration in the United States is considering trade measures to curb imports with a border tax and would not agree to repeat the formulations used by previous G20 communiques, clashing with China and Europe, the officials said.
"Unless there is a last minute miracle, there is no agreement on trade," one official, who declined to be named, told Reuters. "This is not a good outcome of the meeting," a G20 delegate quoted Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann as saying.
In a partial face-saving move, as The FT details, G20 finance ministers meeting in the German resort town of Baden-Baden noted the importance of trade to the global economy, but dropped tougher language from last year that vowed to “resist all forms of protectionism”.
The new communique said: “We are working to strengthen the contribution of trade to our economies. We will strive to reduce excessive global imbalances, promote greater inclusiveness and fairness and reduce inequality in our pursuit of economic growth.”
The watered-down commitments on free trade reflected the anti-globalisation mood that Donald Trump has brought to Washington and came in the first G20 meetings between Steven Mnuchin, the new US Treasury Secretary, and his foreign counterparts.
Reuters also points out another potential win for Trump as the communique will also drop a reference, used by the G20 last year, on the readiness to finance climate change as agreed in Paris in 2015 because of opposition from the United States and Saudi Arabia.
Trump has called global warming a "hoax" concocted by China to hurt U.S. industry and vowed to scrap the Paris climate accord aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
Trump's administration on Thursday proposed a 31 percent cut to the Environmental Protection Agency's budget as the White House seeks to eliminate climate change programs and trim initiatives to protect air and water quality.
Asked about climate change funding, Mick Mulvaney, Trump's budget director, said on Thursday, "We consider that to be a waste of money."
The G20 do agree, however, to show continuity in their foreign exchange policies, using phrases from the past on foreign exchange markets.
As we noted earlier, needless to say, such an acrimonous end to the weekend's summit would likely result in a surge in FX volatility when markets open for trading late on Sunday, reflecting the new state of global trade flux, in which the future of the US Dollar is completely unknown, and reflecting the emerging chaos over the future parameters of trade.A few thoughts about Zero-Hedge's article:
"Free Trade" is not the opposite of "protectionism", and what Trump offers is not "protectionism" no more than what the global collectivists offer is "Free Trade." What Trump offers is smart free trade, in which the rules of the trade deals do not tilt away from a country's best interests. While the collectivist jargon being thrown around by the various global players would make any Marxist proud, the reality is that in between the lines what you see here is that the world leaders understand that Trump is not a collectivist like them, and they can't push him around, so they will at least hear what he has to say, and possibly moderate slightly from their hard-left positions...which makes it a big "win" for Trump.
Many of the leaders wish to resist Trump's refusal to play the globalism game at all costs, however, so while Trump at least has gotten them to consider his proposals, the likelihood of any kind of agreement happening with all of these hard left globalist world leaders any time soon is very small.
Trump's recognition that man-made climate change is a political maneuver is mentioned by Zero-Hedge, but I disagree with the idea that the hoax was "concocted by China" to hurt U.S. industry. Hurting U.S. industry has been the result of climate change protocols, but I don't believe it was China's idea. The leftist Marxists of Europe and the United States came up with global warming, hoping to use it as the Marxists tried decades earlier with their "a new ice age is coming" scare. I agree with the Trump administration that the climate change expenditures this country is paying out is a waste of money on a concept that has no foundation in reality. Global temperatures rise and fall. However, historical and scientific data has shown time and time again that the phenomenon is a natural one, and the influence by human activities is minimal. I believe in natural climate change, not the hysteria that claims we are doomed because of human industrial activity.
The leftists are predicting chaos after the latest G-20 meeting. I disagree. I believe we may be on the cusp of a new global prosperity led by the United States in a fashion that more resembles a free market, than that of a collective cooperative like we've seen the statists trying to put into place for a few generations.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary