Description

Gilbert Doctorow makes the case that President Trump’s seemingly clumsy diplomacy has actually had a positive effect on the international order, sometimes by accident, but largely through Trump’s own efforts to disguise his machinations as ham-handedness. Doctorow explains that had President Trump openly moved for a disruption of our alliances and a greater focus on his “America first” policies, he would have been met with greater opposition and perhaps even “removal”. As it stands, however, what appear to be souring relationships in Europe may actually be exactly what Trump wanted in the first place.
Discussed on the show:
“Reordering Power in Europe: The Putin-Merkel Meeting” (Antiwar.com)
Gilbert Doctorow is an independent political analyst and was the European Coordinator of The American Committee for East-West Accord. He writes regularly for Consortium News. His latest book is “Does the United States Have a Future?”
This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Kesslyn Runs, by Charles Featherstone; NoDev NoOps NoIT, by Hussein Badakhchani; The War State, by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com; Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc.; Zen Cash; Tom Woods’ Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott; and TheBumperSticker.com.

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

discussions

  • Not exactly sure what category to put this in. I’ve been pondering US foreign policy for a while and it seems to me that it has been irrational for quite a long time. In thinking about how foreign policy is “formulated,” I got to thinking that it may be a case of Hayekian knowledge theory. Just as a rational economic policy is impossible for any government because the bureaucrats cannot know enough, fast enough, does this also apply to foreign policy? Does this mean that a rational foreign policy is impossible? I’m not sure where this leads or what the implications are, but the idea sort of scares me. We have these guys in Washington deciding the fate of people all over the globe, but they don’t have the first clue about what they are doing.

    Jump to Discussion Post 5 replies
  • Hi everyone, We could all use a good laugh these days, so just thought I’d pass along one of our new animated videos. For Liberty, The Wry Guys

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • When J. K. Rowling mentioned a petition to ban Donald Trump from the UK, the audience at the PEN Literary Gala applauded. But unlike much of the left, she knows that taking away freedom of speech threatens everyone, including her, and she rebuked the people who clapped. “Just a moment: Now, I find almost everything that Mr. Trump says objectionable. I consider him offensive and bigoted. But he has my full support to come to my country and be offensive and bigoted there. His freedom to speak protects my freedom to call him a bigot.” The people who applauded were doubtless the same ones who objected to PEN’s free speech award to Charlie Hebdo. While they’re not likely to be convinced by any argument, she may have gotten others to think about the danger in today’s spreading hostility to free speech. That’s what counts.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • It took me a while to understand that Trumpism isn’t really about the issues. Not even the issues of anti-immigration and protectionism. It’s about the Chosen One, the Great Leader, the Messiah. When people think things have gone badly wrong, they often turn to someone who will set them right by taking command. The outrageous things he does have only increased his popularity. He boasts, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” When this mentality takes hold, there is no right or wrong for the Leader. When he does outrageous things, that merely proves nothing will stand in the way of his will. Caesar, Napoleon, Lenin, Hitler, Castro, Khomeini: They’ve all known the trick of harnessing the tribalist mindset. The specifics they offered didn’t matter so much as the promise that nothing would stand in their way. They can’t do anything horrible enough to turn people against them, except for failing. Telling Trumpists that he’ll do horrible things or that his policies will hurt everyone is beside the point. They expect him to “make America great again” by sheer force of authority.

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • Over the past five months or so, I admit I’ve been intrigued—indeed, perhaps obsessed—with the American elections. More specifically, I’ve been fascinated by the Trump phenomenon and by the stunning hordes of people that either support him and hate him. The time I’ve spent learning about American Democracy has made me realize that my previous opposition to statism as a whole, as well as my rejection of voting on principle, was founded on abstract and philosophical discussion alone. I had an utter lack of experience and interest in politics. Throughout my whole life, the political process has seemed hopelessly corrupt and out of reach. It was easy for me to conclude that voting was hopelessly pointless and probably immoral. Today my views have changed, not much, but enough that I feel compelled to talk about my thoughts and not just keep them to myself. This is an exploration of a self-defense case for voting that is consistent with Voluntaryist principles, as well as a discussion on the potential merits of voting for Donald Trump to advance the cause of liberty. Before I make that case however, let me lay down two essential facts that have propelled me to this point. The Voluntaryst Self Defense Case for Voting Trump

    Jump to Discussion Post 3 replies