I strongly disagree with Laura Ingraham’s conclusion in her piece at LifeZette but I think her argument is obviously correct. Rather than forcing you to read it, I’ll summarize it. A long list of measures that have been part of the “Washington consensus”, a list of things on which Democrats and Republicans have largely agreed, have not worked as expected. These include:
- Managed trade agreements have not made most American workers better off or reduced problems caused by illegal immigration.
- The WTO has not protected the United States against unfair practices on the part of our trading partners. Quite to the contrary it has provided a forum in which our trading partners could sue us.
- A wealthier, more prosperous China has not tended towards liberal democracy and has become more aggressive.
- Weakening Russia has not made it less aggressive.
- The EU has not brought greater prosperity to most of its members. However, it has made Germany more prosperous.
- Mass immigration has not produced greater prosperity or social comity.
and I would add that expanding NATO has not made us more secure but the opposite.
What conclusions should be drawn from all of this? I don’t think it’s that we should return to a “Fortress America”. I think it’s that we should recognize that the other countries of the world have interests, too, and should be expected to pursue them. And that there are no grand solutions. Slow, gradual, tedious work is necessary for just about everything, whether it’s negotiating good international agreements or producing peace and prosperity.
To that list one could add the use of divisive politics to rule domestically, an insular ruling class knows what’s best in all circumstances just by being the ruling class, and that unchecked arrogance is the way to win the love of the subjects.