Who Is America In Trump's America First

One has to wonder whether populism made any impact in the last election. Yes, populism seemed to have shown its ugly head. But while the Democratic Party made sure that their populist candidate was limited to playing a sheepdog role, the Republicans ran an establishment candidate in populist's clothing.

Trump won both his party's nomination and the general election under the guise that he was the anti-establishment candidate. And since the establishment refused to admit any guilt and failure for how it has betrayed the American people, people looking for real hope and change chose Trump because he promised to put America first.

But here is at least one of the problems: Trump is an establishment candidate. Proof of this can be seen in his appointments. No scientists have been picked but plenty of people who represent wealth have been. He was suppose to drain the swamp, but his cabinet picks contradict that expectation. Corporations and Wall Street are well represented in Trump's appointments. And political hacks who have been appointed, such as Rick Perry and Scott Pruitt, have shown nothing else but a desire to advance the interests of corporations.

So who in America is benefiting in Trump's America First agenda? We should note with the changes made at the EPA and Trump's attacks on regulations, that the America in Trump's America First does not include the land. Coal debris is now allowed to be dumped into streams. Fracking waste water can now be freely dumped into the Gulf of Mexico right off part of America's shoreline. The delusion of clean coal is now being resurrected. And the regulations designed to protect our water and air are being attacked.

So who benefits the most from Trump undoing environmental regulations? Is it the average American who benefits first? Is it those who live in the cities and who will breathe city air and drink tap water which are now both freed from the burden of environmental regulations? Or is the first beneficiary those with wealth whose corporations can now transfer funds designated to protect the environment over to profits for shareholders?

Or when Trump undoes regulations that prohibited labor-law violators from being eligible for federal contracts, which group of Americans benefited the most? Or which group of Americans would benefit the most from the health care plan that Trump supported? That plan was projected to cost an additional 24 million people their health insurance because of the projected insurance prices while insurance CEOs would receive tax breaks? If Trump is putting America First, which people are the real Americans by virtue of being put first?

Or when Trump undid Dodd-Frank, a law that contained rules that would prevent the over-leveraging by financial institutions which caused a world-wide economic collapse in 2008, who benefited the most? Or when Trump's State Department decided that human rights records will not disqualify nations from receiving foreign aid, who benefited the most? Or who is feeling the budget pinch so that Trump's Wall can be paid for? Isn't Trump cutting millions of dollars from medical research, infrastructure, and community grants to pay for his wall (click here for reference)? But more importantly, who is the primary beneficiary of building his wall in the first place?

Trump's America First pronouncements are simply a charade unless we redefine America to be that of its wealthiest citizens and corporations. That is because if Trump is putting America First, then it is because he is putting the interests of corporations and our largest financial institutions first, they are the ones who are receiving preferential treatment. Thus, they must be the real Americans Trump is putting first. But such leaves the general population out in the rain of despair and on the wrong side of disparity. For it seems that in Trump's America, our government well represents wealth and corporations so that they, out of the goodness of their hearts, can take care of the rest of us. And how is that working out?

Is Trump's 'America First' Just Another 'Am I My Brother's Keeper'?

Genesis 4:1-16 (click here for the text) tells the story of Cain killing Abel. After Cain had murdered his brother, God confronts Cain by asking where his brother is. Cain responds with a rhetorical question of his own. 'Am I my brother's keeper?' he asks  (Genesis 4:9). Of course, Cain's question was hoping that the answer would be 'no.' But it didn't work out that way.

One of President Trump's campaign promises was that he was going to enter into trade agreements with an 'America First' agenda. Such assumes that our trading partners would be responsible for putting themselves first in any negotiations. Thus, American negotiators would be responsible only for how any agreement would affect any Americans while negotiators from other nations would be the only ones responsible for how any agreement would affect their own nation. Thus, America would not be responsible for how any agreement would affect the people of other nations even if they were being exploited because each participating nation in any agreement would be responsible for itself only.

This notion that one party is responsible only for itself is the basis for today's Neoliberal Capitalism. Its idealistic believers are convinced that under a perfectly crafted Capitalist system, each participant could work for its own interests only without worrying about exploiting others because the system itself would prevent exploitation. But in short, what such idealists are really saying is that they don't want to be their brother's keeper; they only wish to be concerned for themselves. Of course, there are non idealists who also promote Neoliberal Capitalism and who say the same thing only they do so without any delusions of righteousness dancing in their heads.

We should note that nation first pursuits, like today's maximize profits ethic, is a reductionary one. All other guidelines, principles, and morals become sacrificed to gain the best one can for oneself. Even if doing so violates the law and hurts others, all must be sacrificed for the sake of what one wants. And because these approaches are reductionary, psychologically speaking, an all-or-nothing form of thinking starts to hold sway in evaluating one's actions or the agreements one makes with others.

But even more important is the denial that modern life makes us more and more interdependent. The more interdependent we are, the greater the moral responsibility we have for each other. That is because our interdependencies result in increasing the effects our actions have on others. And thus any attempt to deny the interdependencies that exist in our world must be motivated by other reasons than facing reality. Historically speaking, denying the interdependencies that exist in our world is motivated by ambition or greed.