Earlier this week, the Clarion Project’s Elliot Friedland offered a poignant commentary addressing how President Donald Trump’s policies are significantly helping to provide an atmosphere wherein the threat of Islamism to the West can be more readily discussed amongst those threatened.
The Clarion Project is a nonpartisan forum whose stated mission is “to educate the public about the dangers of radical Islam and promote people and policies which are effective in working against it.”
In order to contextualize Trump’s policies, Friedland cites the “Overton Window,” a philosophy developed in the 1990s by Joe Overton of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
This paradigm “maintains that there is an ‘acceptable’ range of politically viable ideas on any given issue,” says Friedland, “framed by the range of ideas held by the public.”
Historically, American presidents operate outside this “window” at their peril, because they risk the often capricious judgment of the American people and the rest of the world.
In the main, Friedland’s piece is what I typically refer to as “dead-on,” although the unconventional aspects of our current president’s policies, I believe, tend to transcend any sort of political paradigm at all, traditional or otherwise.
Ronald Reagan was a transformational president and, of course, a conservative.
But while he was far more the patriot than a political animal, he operated very much within the existing political framework.
While this did not hinder him too much with regard to the things he set out to accomplish, unfortunately, it facilitated the rapid dismantling of much of what he did accomplish by the chief executives who came after him.
As I’ve stated many times, the “Reagan Revolution” died the day he left office and uber-globalist George H.W. Bush took over.
While President Trump’s contentious travel ban on individuals from hostile Muslim nations (for example) is anathema to dedicated liberals and global elites, it is an eminently wise policy from a standpoint of national security.
A cessation of all Muslim immigration, on the other hand, or a deportation of all Muslim foreign nationals would likely be quite unwise on Trump’s part, from an “Overton Window” standpoint.
This does not invalidate the arguable prudence of such action; it merely means that it would fall well outside the range of acceptable action held by the public.
Although much of the following has been characteristically downplayed by the establishment press and Beltway politicos, over the last year we have seen significant indicators that President Trump’s accomplishments are likely to rival or even surpass those of Ronald Reagan, particularly in the areas of economics, national security and America’s overall stature in the international community. Quite a few of his newly enacted and proposed policies are at the farther edges of political convention, but they fall within the parameters of the bold and aggressive action for which the American electorate clamored.
Another move that may fall within the range of public acceptability would be the withdrawal of the United States of America from the United Nations with all due speed.
Many are celebrating the recently announced $285-million cut in U.S. funding for the U.N., but this measure is simply not enough considering what the U.N. has come to represent.
Inasmuch as America’s political class has become a gaggle of socialist elites with a marked disdain for individual liberty, the democratic process and notions of morality, the U.N. has become an international cabal of these socialist elites and their Third World acolytes whose primary agenda appears to be the dismantling of their greatest benefactor – America.
I need not enumerate the dozens of policies and programs enacted and proposed by the U.N. in recent years that have either compromised our sovereignty or were calculated to do so, its proclivity for lionizing tyrannical and genocidal regimes in the area of human rights, and the plain, good-old wasting of billions of dollars to ostensibly justify its existence.
When I see video footage of U.N. General Assembly meetings, I am reminded of the mafiosi who so frequently came under fire by law enforcement and the press when I was growing up in New York.
These culturally bankrupt, avaricious, amoral parasites took on airs of respectability simply because they had managed to amass great wealth.
Many of the power players in the U.N. and member nations themselves amassed what power they have by similar means.
Thievery on a grand scale, slavery, genocide and the moral ambivalence of those who might have stood in their way led to the utter corruption of this once-relevant organization, and its transformation into a festering sociopolitical boil right on our shores (if not technically within our territory).
It is for all of the above reasons that I believe it is an ideal time for the Trump administration to test the waters as regards America’s withdrawal from the United Nations.
If not for the genuine environmental calamity to which it would give rise, I would dearly love to see the iconic United Nations headquarters imploded and bulldozed into New York’s East River (which is within eyeshot of the complex).
Strategically, the only reason for America remaining a U.N. member state lies in the adage having to do with keeping one’s friends close and their enemies closer.
Barring the bulldozer solution, I’m certain that one of the U.N.’s wealthier members could pick up the tab for the financial shortfall attendant to America’s withdrawal, and bankroll the headquarters’ relocation to some Third-World cultural Mecca – like London or Abu Dhabi.
Article posted with permission from Erik Rush