The Jacksonian President Trump Implements His Trump Doctrine

Right after my last column on President Trump’s Jacksonian leanings on foreign policy, which cited a Politico article, that left-leaning MSM organ reported on Vice President JD Vance’s outlining of the Trump Doctrine at an Ohio event. (I think Politico should pay me for all the free publicity I provide to them.) Vance said:

Number one, you articulate a clear American interest and that’s, in this case, that Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon. Number two, you try to aggressively diplomatically solve that problem. And number three, when you can’t solve it diplomatically, you use overwhelming military power to solve it and then you get the hell out of there before it ever becomes a protracted conflict.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this formulation, which in many ways is similar to Theodore Roosevelt’s noted foreign policy saying, “Speak softly and carry a big stick — you will go far." (And indeed, TR, not to be called “Teddy,” won a Nobel Peace Prize for his diplomacy.) Military kinetic action should always be the last resort. There is nothing wrong with diplomacy if it is understood to be the means to an end, and not as an end itself (which the Democrats incorrectly think of it as being). And there are times when diplomacy can’t solve the situation, as occurred recently with the Messianic Islamist regime of Iran.

This Trump Doctrine is a good fit for a Jacksonian president. Contrary to conventional wisdom, President Jackson did not resort to military action without first attempting diplomacy, and he certainly would have found it strange to engage in protracted conflicts as occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 00’s.

This doctrine is also flexible enough to allow for the U.S. to follow additional steps, such as using economic sanctions or other non-military actions, after the military action. For example, the U.S. should continue to press the Iranian regime with sanctions – called “Maximum Pressure” – and provide foreign aid to Iranian dissidents – called “Maximum Support” until the Islamist regime of Iran is overthrown or reforms (which is very unlikely to happen).

As President Trump has said, there is nothing wrong with Iranian regime change under the right circumstances. (I really should be paid, Politico.)

Nation-building should never be a requirement for U.S. policy. As I have said before, when another nation acts violently towards the U.S. – as the Iranian regime has since 1979 – and we are forced to act to solve the problem of their violence, the U.S. should not become morally responsible for recreating their society into a productive, democratic, and capitalist society. Such a requirement is a clear disincentive to acting when there is necessary military action. Further, it is not always feasible for the U.S. to recreate that society in a better way.

Admittedly, the U.S. has done nation-building successfully before, in Germany and Japan after the Second World War. However, it is important to understand that we were not required to do so. We chose to do so because of the particular importance of recreating free and productive nations in Germany and Japan to better combat the forces of communism and bolster the free and capitalistic world.

With control over the "bully pulpit" of the presidency, Donald Trump and JD Vance have the greatest platform in the world to promote the Trump Doctrine, and a Jacksonian foreign policy, to the Republican Party and the rest of America.

Let’s look at the polling, shall we?

A colleague at Red State reported on results from Trafalgar/Insider Advantage (both good public polling companies), which showed that, of likely general election voters, 58 percent approve (47.5 percent strongly) versus 39 percent disapprove of Trump’s decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.

Granted, this is a poll after the event, and it is well-known that Americans tend to "rally around the flag" immediately after military action is taken by a president.

However, prior to the Iran attack, another Red State colleague reported on a GrayHouse poll (a Republican private pollster), which showed that 83 percent of Trump voters support the strikes on Iran's nuclear program, with 72 percent supporting the U.S. taking "direct military action" to prevent Tehran from developing its nuclear capabilities. And Rasmussen (another good public polling company) found that among likely general election voters, 48 percent approved of a potential U.S. airstrike on Iran, while 40 percent disapproved, with a naval strike being supported by 49 percent to 42 percent against. Only a U.S. ground invasion was unpopular – 33 percent support versus 58 percent against.

Altogether, this polling shows that of the four factions of the GOP — 1) The Jacksonians; 2) The Wilsonians; 3) The Restrainers; and 4) The True Realists — there is little support for the positions of the Wilsonians or the Restrainers. The latter have been discredited by the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars, and the former are just discredited by America’s basic nature, which is to act when it is required. Which just leaves the other two.

I suspect President Trump will be successful in molding the current GOP in his own Jacksonian image and solidifying his Trump Doctrine. But "We'll (Just Have to) See What Happens."

Editor's Note: President Trump is leading America into the "Golden Age" as Democrats try desperately to stop it.

Help us continue reporting on President Trump's success. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.