‘Trump wants to lay down the policeman’s billy club’

As the presidential primaries and caucuses in the US reach fever pitch, the candidate who has been grabbing headlines, Donald Trump, is not being spared by the media for his skewed political ideologies, particularly on US foreign policy and nuclear issues, and what this implies for America should he achieve the improbable.

The Independant takes a dim view of Trump being able to occupy the White House. Says its editorial: “Trump’s chances of taking the White House, assuming he wins the Republican nomination, remain almost non-existent. Not one poll puts him within a mile of the probable Democrat nominee, Hillary Clinton. His ratings among minorities, women and the under-30 are dire. Moreover, with another Clinton at the helm, it will be business as usual for western leaders.

“Of course, the unthinkable could happen in November. Over the campaign, Trump could miraculously mend fences with all the domestic constituencies that he has alienated and the Democrats could implode. However, even if Trump wins — and it is a huge if — he will not be the political reincarnation of Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, the two Republican presidents most closely twinned with the idea of American isolationism.

“For America to be isolated in the 1920s meant little more than not joining the League Nations. Almost a century on, pulling up the drawbridge will not be so simple,” it says referring to Trump’s isolationist policies.

The Los Angeles Times believes that Trump’s foreign policy needs to occupy the exalted status that America deserves and not be subservient to his personal beliefs. The editorial says, “Trump wants to lay down the policeman’s billy club — by curtailing US support for Nato and withdrawing US forces from Japan and South Korea if those nations don’t pay more for their own defence. Trump has also suggested that the US should “let Syria and [Daesh, the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] fight. In national security policy, as in other areas, one looks in vain for consistency (or caution) with Trump.”

The paper outlines some of the criteria US presidents should seek to meet before going to war (other than in cases of invasion or to defend an ally). “The provocation must be severe enough to justify putting American lives at risk; alternatives to combat should be exhausted first; allies should be carefully vetted; the US should seek multilateral support and cooperation, and goals should be narrowly tailored, definable and achievable,” it concludes.

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial is dismissive of Trump’s nuclear philosophy. “Trump’s alternative is a nuclear free-for-all in which atomic weapons will inevitably fall into ever more dubious hands.... For all of his criticism of Obama, Trump largely shares the President’s disdain for the Pax Americana that succeeded in winning the Cold War and preventing nuclear war. The next President should understand the lessons of that peace rather than consign the world to a darker nuclear age,” advises the paper.

On a related note, the New York Times comments on how little clarity the presidential candidates, including Trump, are bringing to the national debates on America’s foreign policy.

“Not only Trump but other candidates need to be more specific about the circumstances under which they would use — or refuse to use — military force. Saying that the US can’t be the world’s policeman is only the beginning of the discussion.

“With more than half of the 2016 presidential primary races in the history books, Republicans desperate to deny Donald Trump their party’s nomination now say Wisconsin, where Ted Cruz is leading, will show that their effort has turned the tide. They shouldn’t start bragging yet.

“At a televised Republican town hall [last] Tuesday, it was painful to watch farmers, students and a man whose son died of a drug overdose pose earnest questions to Trump and Cruz, who were more interested in attacking each other.”

The NYT believes that the Republicans need to understand what they are facing from within — “a dangerously reactionary senator” and “a dangerously ignorant businessman”.