I’m Australian but I would vote for him and if you’re interested — or not! — I’ll tell you why: Trade, Immigration and an America First foreign policy.
On trade, it may well be too late to put the globalist genie back in the bottle and regain our productive industries. Our future, as the Economist is constantly telling us, may be destined to be a service and information driven one and the culture of graft and hard-work that my ancestors valued may be over but it wouldn’t be proper to attempt to regain that lost dignity because, on the whole, I think it better for our society. Also, it seems to me that the only people that benefit from the globalist policies our elites have pursued for some time now are those same elites. Certainly nearly all rich socieies have somewhat been born on the backs of masses of cheap labour and I don’t condemn the developing world for ‘taking our jobs’ but nor do I think a trade policy should be crafted around benevolence. Nations have no real friends, they merely have interests.
On Immigration, I think that mass-immigration of the kind championed and lobbied for by most of the elite class is, on balance, harmful for both the nation of arrival and the nation of departure. Puttnam, among others, have shown the devastating effects non-homogeneity — I mean mostly cultural — has on most metrics of social health. The current numbers of immigration, furthermore, simply do not allow for any kind of cheerful or harmonious integration. Immigration in these numbers — by these I mostly mean Britain and the UK but France and Sweden, possibly Australia, could also be included — leads to isolated enclaves that, practically speaking, are large enough to be interdependent and this means that assimilating into the broader culture in which the newcomers arrives is redundant. Mass immigration CHANGES culture. I like my culture. I love my homeland and my people. I don’t want it changed.
The labour movements of the West have long histories of opposing mass immigration — big business ALWAYS wanted it for obvious reasons — and I can’t help but be reminded that at the beginning of his campaign, in an interview with Vox — Bernie Sanders spoke out against mass immigration in the same vein as I’ve already mentioned — namely that it was about reducing wages. To quote that hero of Labour relations Cesar Chavez “ when the farm workers strike and their strike is successful, the employers go to Mexico and have unlimited, unrestricted use of illegal alien strikebreakers to break the strike. And, for over 30 years, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has looked the other way and assisted in the strikebreaking.”
Finally, newly arrived people in this day and age vote overwhelmingly for the left. It would be silly for any person of the right to support that — selfishly speaking of course!
On Foreign Policy, I became a non-interventionist in response to what I thought were the horrendous mistakes and utopian zeal represented, especially, by the neoconservative movement who, at their peak, most powerfully lobbied for that disastrous war in Mesopotamia. They’re still busy lobbying for more disastrous wars and it has given me great pleasure to watch them faint and splutter — splutter then faint??? — as Trump has denounced their ghastly hawkishness and previous adventures. Trump was the ONLY candidate who seemed not insanely gripped by some revivified Russophobia during his campaign. This is important because this bizarre fixation with Putin, an amusing throwback to the sort of paranoia the left used to deride, seems to be leading our civilization into a terrible confrontation with a nuclear power.
Those are the things I like about Trump. There are many things I don’t like, but I think the left — sorry, I’m assuming you’re on the left but forgive me if you’re not — would be better off actually understanding WHY he’s liked rather than simply making jokes.