Let’s objectively see if they work For this discussion, let us set Donald Trump aside. Let us ignore him. It’s not easy, because he seems to be everywhere. Let us look at the latest U.S. policies. He will get credit for all. But the policies are really created by many people. They have been itching for […]
Get Instant Access to This Article
Become a Central New York Business Journal subscriber and get immediate access to all of our subscriber-only content and much more.
- Critical Central New York business news and analysis updated daily.
- Immediate access to all subscriber-only content on our website.
- Get a year's worth of the Print Edition of The Central New York Business Journal.
- Special Feature Publications such as the Book of Lists and Revitalize Greater Binghamton, Mohawk Valley, and Syracuse Magazines
Click here to purchase a paywall bypass link for this article.
Let’s objectively see if they work
For this discussion, let us set Donald Trump aside. Let us ignore him. It’s not easy, because he seems to be everywhere.
Let us look at the latest U.S. policies. He will get credit for all. But the policies are really created by many people. They have been itching for years to shape such. At last they are in positions to do so. Their leader looks kindly on their proposals.
Imagine a dry-as-dust professor, lecturing on Strategies 101 — utterly objectively with no political bias. I suspect the prof would explore some of our current strategies. Because they differ a lot from our previous strategies. For that reason alone, they are interesting.
For instance, we have gone on the attack on trade. We have taken the fight to our trading partners — with all guns (or tariff threats) blazing. We are forcing these partners to react to our demands. We are not going into negotiations saying, “Let us discuss our issues.” We are, instead, opening with: “You are screwing us! This must stop! Here is a list of our demands.”
Of course, this is a negotiating strategy. It flings the other side onto defense from the start. It is also a strategy to try to change the assumptions on both sides. That is a particularly important ingredient. European leaders, for instance, have long assumed that they deserved to run trade imbalances with us. Ditto for many American leaders. We are attempting to change that thinking, those assumptions.
The Chinese — and American leaders as well — have long assumed that the Chinese could impose their self-serving rules upon us. And that we would complain, but do nothing about them. The Chinese assumed we are so desperate for their cheap goods we would continue to cave.
The North Koreans assumed we would not get serious about their nuclear threat. They assumed our strategy would remain as it was. We would pretend to bring pressure and they would pretend to respond, while building nuclear firepower.
America obviously is trying a new policy. We have lined up support from countries in the region. We have told China and Russia they will suffer repercussions if they don’t also bring pressure. We have told Kim to shut his yap. And to do his talking at a negotiating table.
We are trying new policies with NATO as well. For years, our policy was to suggest to NATO countries that they pony up money for their defense — to meet their treaty obligations. But that policy had no urgency to it. We never pushed hard. Today we do. Today we embarrass them publicly. “You are screwing us with your puny defense spending! Here’s what we want from you.”
We are challenging old assumptions at the UN, as well as in the Middle East.
We are trying new policies with our borders and with illegal immigration. We are also looking at changing our policies on legal immigrants.
Our economic policy certainly differs from what it was. It is not really new. It copies much of Reagan’s policy and JFK’s. Thus far, it is getting similar results.
If the dry old prof was smart, he (or she) would keep Trump’s name out of the discussion. He would know that it instantly colors people’s thinking. It prejudices their thoughts one way or the other.
If he was wise he would urge students to look objectively at these policies — to monitor and assess their effect. To measure if they succeed or fail. Or don’t move the needle at all.
He might suggest to students they live in a time when major policies of this country are changing. And that “change” may change the thinking of millions in this world. Perhaps for the better. Perhaps for the worse.
Anthropologist Margaret Mead told us to: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
These truly are extraordinary times.
From Tom…as in Morgan.