Reagan trump is a similar statement. Trumpanonomics: Will Donald Trump Become the New Reagan? Bureaucratic "shackles" on the legs of the economy

“Your problems will be our problems. When you need a friend, we'll be there," - so began the speech of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher during her first visit to Washington. The words were addressed to newly inaugurated Republican Ronald Reagan. It was February 1981. The Iron Lady has been at the helm of the UK for the second year now, without demonstrating any significant success in her post so far. The woman hoped to restore the trust of voters again by enlisting a new loyal and powerful ally, and the United States - given the traditionally friendly nature of relations between the two countries (the so-called "special relationship") - was ideally suited for this role. Everything, as old Churchill taught (read: Margaret Thatcher: From Grocer's Daughter to Iron Lady).

Thatcher was the first Western leader to come to meet Reagan. They were like heaven and earth. He is an aged ex-actor from California, a narcissist, a populist, and by no means a strategist. She is meticulous to the details, with a perfect memory and a sharp mind. Historians joke that if Reagan had been subordinate to Thatcher, he would not have been able to spend even weeks with her. But still, it was then, in February 1981, that a strong friendship was again born between the United States and Great Britain, and between their leaders there was mutual understanding and mutual respect for life. It is no coincidence that he will call her "the best man in England", and she will call him "the second most important man in life."

History will ironically repeat itself 36 years later, when in January 2017, another British conservative lady, this time Marble, Theresa May, arrives at the White House to greet the new American populist president (not a Californian, but with a corresponding lifestyle). She, too, will be the first leader to visit a renewed America. And he will also comment on his meeting with his overseas colleague pompously and presumptuously: “The nature of our relationship is such that we can be frank and open with each other.” But time passes, and there is still no special relationship between the US and the UK.

What's the matter?

“I do everything my own way”, or how to talk with Americans

From the moment she was elected in early July 2016, Theresa May, of course, could not avoid comparisons with Thatcher. Both of the conservatives, both started with not quite prestigious ministerial posts and, most importantly, both are women at the helm of the government (a phenomenon, although common, but still amazing for the planet). Teresa, however, was more relaxed about the comparisons with the Baroness than one might imagine. She did not declare herself her successor, saying that "there is only one Thatcher" and that she, Teresa, "does everything in her own way."

It is likely that she also decided to approach the dialogue with the United States "in her own way."

The "special relationship" between Great Britain and the United States is not a new term; it was coined by Winston Churchill. The historical connection and the unity of the mentality in many ways helped the countries to act in a sisterly harmonious way, but in this union, alas, the younger and expanded America has long been no longer considered with the older England, which has lost all its colonies. Thatcher understood this - and knew how to speak with the Americans under these conditions.

In dialogue with Reagan, Margaret howled herself in accordance with her own mantra that the family and government are essentially the same thing. In their pair with Ronald Thatcher acted as a wife, and Reagan as the owner of their union, where he makes all the decisions, but the woman still corrects them. It was a femininely elegant and win-win strategy - in its most striking episodes, the Iron Lady managed, for example, to force Reagan to oppose allied Argentina and support Britain in the war with Buenos Aires in the Falklands, or, at the height of the Cold War, to start a dialogue with Gorbachev USSR.

She had something to work towards. Like all her predecessors, she was frankly annoyed by the unilateral actions of the United States in unleashing military conflicts (for example, in Libya or in Spanish Granada, for which, by the way, she later forced Reagan to apologize). But in most cases, Thatcher continued to publicly support the ally (commenting that all disagreements between London and Washington are “family matters”), even against the wishes of her people, because she was driven by another, in her opinion, more global goal: the modernization of the Kingdom’s nuclear forces. . Not to mention the fact that Reagan was purely humanly sympathetic to her.

Thatcher was also pleasant to Ronald, so Margaret was able to knock out American assistance from the president in the creation of new types of nuclear weapons in Britain in a relatively short time. The desire to modernize the strategic potential of her country was so strong in her that, having learned that Ronald and Gorbachev were going to agree in Reykjavik on the elimination of nuclear weapons altogether, she immediately gathered all her determination to dissuade her ally from such a step. She clearly understood: in the conditions of the Cold War, there could be no question of abandoning the nuclear potential, because in this matter no one can be completely sure of each other's honesty. After all, too little time has passed since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Reduction - yes. Liquidation? In no case. Reagan obeyed.

The agreement between Reagan and Gorbachev never took place. The modernization of the British nuclear forces was more than successful. Subsequently, the United States and Russia (under Soviet rule as well) will sign at least four treaties limiting the nuclear potential of the two countries. One of them, the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range Missiles, will be signed directly by Gorbachev and Reagan in four years. Of course, after consulting with Margaret.

Donald on Ronald

Trump, unlike Reagan, did not immediately begin to delve into the nuclear affairs of his country: the episode received a great response when, in a conversation with Vladimir Putin about the proposal of the Russian president to extend the START-3 treaty (an agreement between the Russian Federation and the United States on the mutual reduction of nuclear warheads), Trump asked assistants, what is it all about. And then he criticized the document because it was signed under Obama.

The “nuclear” for Trump is an important tool of manipulation and speculation (Reagan was also known for this), as can be seen from his speeches on the problems of North Korea, and also, most recently, on the Iran deal, from which Trump set out to withdraw at the beginning of the month. It is known, by the way, that Theresa May tried in a personal conversation to convince the Republican not to do this. But in vain.

Trump does not listen to her and does not obey.

Their first meeting in Washington was almost a verbatim repetition of warm negotiations between Thatcher and Reagan. They did not get tired of giving each other compliments, emphasizing the "speciality" of their relationship. May would even call Trump a "gentleman" afterwards. And this despite the fact that during the election campaign of the future president, May openly considered Trump an upstart. Very unlike Thatcher, who at one time waited for Reagan's election with bated breath.

Margaret became a historical figure in the Cold War, primarily because she contributed to the beginning of a dialogue between East and West. May, with enviable constancy, continues to oppose Russia and calls for "defending Europe from the Russians." Even though her original goal was to get the UK out of the EU, she personally has always been a supporter of her country continuing to be part of Europe. Trump, as you know, is against any integration (the last example is the US withdrawal from UNESCO) and for the development of bilateral relations. In this, he is also similar to Reagan, under which, by the way, the States also, among other things, withdrew from UNESCO. But Reagan had an ally, Thatcher. Trump doesn't have one.

Anglo-American relations not only did not work out, they deteriorated when May and Trump entered into a specific verbal battle after the terrorist attack in London (then the president accused Scotland Yard of following the terrorists and could well have prevented the tragedy). The prime minister publicly condemned Trump's words. In a word, it didn’t look like a “family” quarrel.

Perhaps, if Teresa had even been a little like Margaret, Donald Trump would have been much more restrained in his speeches, and, most importantly, would not have been a black sheep on the world stage in a bad sense, having an adequate ally in the Eastern Hemisphere. But May is not Thatcher (although she could easily make Donald Ronald out of Donald Ronald if she wanted to). So it looks like Trump will have to advance his views on his own, without the support of his traditional friend, England.

2016 presidential election — is not far off. Now about your intentions almost 130 people declared to compete for the White House. However, if we discard the "independents" and those who declared their presidential ambitions simply out of boredom or self-promotion, then the most likely candidates will remain twenty-one people: 6 from the Democratic and 15 from the Republican Party.

Still a lot. Which one has more chances? Probably the one who best understands the challenges that his country is facing and who has the most competence, willpower and determination to respond to these challenges with dignity. Oh, and one more thing - he must convince voters that he (or she) has these qualities.

They say history tends to repeat itself. And if this is so in relation to the next US presidential election, then there is every reason to take a closer look at Republican Donald Trump.

The current situation in the United States and the world is reminiscent of the one that was in the late 1970s and early 1980s, under the presidency of Jimmy Carter. Then there was a serious aggravation of Soviet-American relations, which was called the "new round of the Cold War." In the eyes of the inhabitants of the United States and the Western public, in general, America was losing ground before the “red” onslaught: at the end of 1979, the USSR sent troops into Afghanistan, and, starting from 1980, the pro-Soviet regime in Poland restrained the opposition, who fought for democratization and liberalization of life in the country.

At the same time, active military construction was going on in the Soviet Union. According to Wikipedia, “By the 1980s, the Soviet Armed Forces had more tanks than all other countries combined. A large ocean-going navy was created. The most important direction in the development of the country's economy has become the build-up of military potential, the arms race. Conservative circles in the United States and Western countries criticized Carter for his excessive "compliance" towards the USSR, which, in their opinion, pushed the Soviet Union to a more active struggle against the West.

Doesn't this remind you of anything? Crimea, eastern Ukraine, Syria… And as for Russian military “muscles,” Moscow itself, according to The Washington Post, said that the current military power of the Russian Federation has reached its peak over the past 25 years.

However, regardless of how, according to the Kremlin, its policy in the mentioned regions is legitimate, and the remilitarization of Russia is justified, these actions are perceived in the West as a manifestation of Russian expansionism, which requires a tough rebuff. At the same time, US conservative circles, as in the late 1970s, blame the US government for what is happening.

An example of this is the recent speech of the Republican candidate, Senator Mark Rubio. “We are sliding into a new cold war, and America's undisputed leadership is the only force capable of bringing peace and security back again,” he said in one of his campaign speeches. “The more our current president fails Putin's leadership exam, the more important it is for our next president to pass it… My administration will not beg Putin for a meeting. He will be treated like a gangster and bandit, which he, in fact, is.

Rubio called for a significant expansion of anti-Russian sanctions and the list of those Russian citizens who are banned from entering the United States, as well as for the provision of military assistance to Ukraine.

Bureaucratic "shackles" on the legs of the economy

The internal situation under President Carter also resembled the current one. Forbes magazine put it best: “In four short years, from 1977 to 1981, this man’s policies almost destroyed the American economy and our position in the world ... And now it seems more and more that we are seeing the return of the Carter era.”

“Carter, who, like President Obama, came from seemingly nowhere,” Forbes continues, “dedicated himself to creating a “big government” by creating two departments that did more harm than good: the Department of Education and the Department of Energy. For his part, Obama created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, planted a certain number of “czars” [on the neck of the taxpayers], and also dramatically increased government control over the financial sector, health care and energy.”

To this we can add the stimulation of the trade union movement by the Obama administration, including through politics: “Your opinion does not coincide with the union? Get in trouble." An example of this is the attempt by the National Labor Relations Board to prevent Boeing from building an assembly plant in South Carolina (which was eventually built there). According to The Wall Street Journal, the opposition was based on the grounds that Boeing allegedly made such a decision to punish uncompromising unions in Washington state, where the Boeing factories are located.

Trump is Reagan today?

Let's try for a moment to feel like American voters of the late 1970s and early 1980s, exhausted by excessive administrative regulation. Not surprisingly, Reagan's words, "Government cannot solve our problem, because government itself is the problem," resonated with them.

Now compare this with Trump's position, expressed in his words: "The biggest threat to the American Dream is the idea that dreamers should be subject to close control and verification by the government." Moreover, no one will doubt the sincerity of the phrase, which belongs to a person who personifies the freedom of entrepreneurship.

Taxes are one of the most sensitive topics in the election campaign of every contender for the White House. And here, according to the American conservative observer Rush Limbaugh, there is a lot in common between Trump and Reagan. Trump, like Reagan in his time, intends to reduce the tax burden on the middle class and raise taxes on those who receive very high incomes (including himself).

And finally, spiritual values. Trump, like Reagan, considers the US "the greatest source of freedom the world has ever known." He specifically emphasizes that this is different from Obama, for whom America is "a country like all the rest."

Trumpian foreign policy

Critics often say that Trump's weakest point is foreign policy. Like, the businessman has never dealt with it and has a very vague idea about it. Is that why, unlike, for example, Rubio, he did not express his intention to start a new “crusade” against the Kremlin, as Reagan did against the USSR in the 1980s?

Trump, the Washington Post noted, "avoids questions about foreign policy, saying he doesn't want to make his plans public because it's like playing cards to President Vladimir Putin and other world leaders. Voters see what is behind this ploy. If Ronald Reagan was able to openly talk about his plans, then why can't Donald Trump do it? The next reason for Trump's silence about his plans is becoming more and more obvious: he simply does not have them.

"Nothing like this! Trump supporters object, in particular Roger Stone, a longtime Republican Party official and until recently an adviser to Trump. “Trump,” Stone said in an interview with the American Internet resource Politico.com, “has had more meetings with heads of state than any other candidate.”

Another Trump adviser estimated that the businessman makes 15-20 international trips a year, which gives him the opportunity to understand the financial and political situation in the states he visits. Trump himself assures that he does business with countries on all five continents, which allows him to penetrate deeply into the mechanism of world politics and establish relationships with people who can really influence the situation.

“For Trump,” emphasizes Politico.com, “foreign policy is simply the use of the art of negotiation in the international arena. He treats foreign policy as an endless negotiation with both friends and enemies. For him, this is a game in which you will either cheat or you will be cheated.

So, no Reagan "crusade" against Russia? Not yet. Trump supported Russia's actions in Syria and even spoke in favor of Assad in the sense that "we already know this devil, but those who come to replace him may turn out to be even bigger devils than him."

But at the same time, as Politico.com noted, “for Trump, the main tool of foreign policy is the economy.” This means that Russia under Trump could receive a powerful new “volley” of economic sanctions that can undermine the weakening Russian economy no less effectively than a new round of the arms race in the 1980s (remember Star Wars?) undermined the economy of the USSR.

Choose by heart

This applies to all voters in the world, including Americans. They are, as already mentioned, tired of professional bureaucrats. Although Reagan, as the governor of California, was one of them, the people of the United States in many ways perceived him primarily as a Hollywood movie hero, capable of dealing with the “bad guys” with the help of the Colt (largely for this reason, Californians elected their governor twenty years later " Terminator" Schwarzenegger). The same is true for Trump - a businessman, the owner of the Miss Universe contest, but not an "apparatchik".

Both Reagan and Trump regularly came from TV screens to the home of every American. The first led the G.E. program for 8 years. Theater, and the second for 14 - the program The Apprentice. “For this reason,” notes the American Internet resource Vice.com, “both of these men gained a great advantage over their competitors, imprinted in the minds of voters exactly the way they wanted: Reagan as an endearing curator of stories that have always had a happy ending, and Trump as a super-competent "fighter" of the meeting rooms, before which weaker mortals could only prostrate."

Between Trump and Reagan, one of the most popular presidents in US history, there are other similarities that can subconsciously win over the hearts of voters in favor of the businessman. They became candidates at the same age - 69 years. Both are ardent supporters of the right of Americans to self-defense with weapons.

Both of them have beautiful wives, who are, moreover, “style icons”: Reagan has the actress Nancy, and Trump has the former fashion model Melania. And by the way, Reagan (the only one of all US presidents) and Trump were divorced before the presidency: the first, however, once, and the second twice. In addition, Trump and Reagan are similar in their slightly blunt, "cowboy" style of communication, which involves sometimes sensitive jabs at their opponents.

Of course, the similarity between Reagan and Trump is by no means a guarantee of the latter's victory in the 2016 elections. One of the Washington Post columnists publicly vowed to eat a newspaper page with his article, in which he predicts that Trump will lose the official contender for the White House from the Republican Party, if he is nevertheless elected in this capacity.

However, as Vice.com recalls, “as now Trump, Reagan, the 800-pound “gorilla” of Republican politics (Reagan starred in the 1951 comedy Bedtime for Bonzo, where his partner was a chimpanzee), was once watched like a walking joke. And we all know how this story ended.

Since the Second World War, there have been only two individuals who pretty much frightened the American establishment with their election victory - Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. And they have a lot in common.

Both came from pop culture: Reagan from Hollywood, Trump from a successful reality show.

Both possessed the gift of a showman - an extremely valuable quality for a politician in the era of television, which allows you to quite brutally outflank their less charismatic rivals.

Reagan became the leader of the post-war conservatism that took over the Republican Party with the appointment of Barry Goldwater in 1964. His victory in 1980 came during the heyday of conservatism. The populism that allowed Trump to beat 16 Republican rivals to win in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan also emerged a decade and a half earlier, in the 1990s.

The decisive advantage of Reagan and Trump is that their victories came at a time when the political establishment no longer served the interests of their country.

Reagan won after Russia invaded Afghanistan. The Americans were taken hostage in Tehran. Interest rates in the US were 21%, inflation - 13%, unemployment - 7%, growth was practically at zero.

When Trump won, Americans were going through years of wage stagnation. There was also a stagnation in production. And the US was no longer able to win or end the half-dozen Middle East wars it was trapped in. So what do Trump and Reagan wins have in common?

Both candidates turned to the idea of ​​American nationalism.

In the late 1970s Reagan took the lead in campaigning to save the Panama Canal: "We bought it. We paid for it. It's ours. And we'll keep it."

And although he lost the canal battle when the Republican Party in the US Senate went after Jimmy Carter, he won the war by leading his country, which he put in first place.

Trump inexcusably seized on the nationalist slogan so hated by the globalists from the elite circles: "America first!"

He wants to build a wall, strengthen the borders, stop the influx of migrants. He wants to cancel the "rotten" trade deals made by transnational elites who sell the country's sovereignty and send US jobs to China. It requires allies in Europe, the Far East and the Persian Gulf to pay a fair share of the cost of defense.

There is a simplicity and directness in the rhetoric of Reagan and Trump that allows appeals to ordinary people - men and women in the United States.

At his first press conference in January 1981, Reagan, speaking of the Kremlin, said: "They reserve the right to commit any crime, the right to lie, to deceive. We work by different standards."

He called the USSR an "evil empire" and "the center of evil in the modern world."

The State Department was also afraid of any remark or action by Reagan then, as they are afraid of Trump's tweets today.

And while there are similarities between these underdogs who pulled out their victory and challenged the establishment, the situations in which they found themselves are not similar.

Reagan took office during the Cold War. And although there were sharp disagreements about how tough the US should be and what needs to be done for national defense, there was no real understanding of who was the enemy in this war.

This situation has persisted since the days of Harry Truman, the world struggle between communism and freedom, the USSR and the West, the Warsaw Pact and NATO.

There was no clear understanding of what currently does not exist.

Today the Soviet empire has sunk into oblivion, there is no Warsaw Pact, the communist movement is dying.

NATO spans three former Soviet republics, the US confronts Moscow in areas like Crimea and the Donbass that no Reagan-era American would consider US national interest.

Americans no longer agree on who is the main enemy or what poses the greatest threats.

Vladimir Putin's Russia? Iran? China, in respect of which the future US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson issued a statement to stop the construction of naval bases on the islands in the South China Sea, which Beijing claims as its national territory?

North Korea, which is now testing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles?

In addition to issues of war and peace, there are also internal problems of the United States: crime, police, abortion, LGBT rights, immigration (legal and illegal) and many others that split a multicultural, multiethnic country in a variety of ways.

The existential question about the Trump era can be expressed something like this: how much longer can a fractured democracy endure one country and one person?

Since World War II, two people have scared this city the most by winning the presidential election -- Ronald ReaganRonald Reagan And Donald Trump).

And they have a lot in common.

Both came from popular culture, Reagan from Hollywood, Trump from a successful reality show. Both were gifted as showmen, a valuable political asset in a television era that is cruel to those lacking in charisma.

Both became leaders of mutinies aimed at overthrowing the establishment of the party they were trying to get nominated for.

Reagan became a champion of post-war conservatism that occupied the Republican Party after the nomination Barry Goldwater in 1964. His victory in 1980 came at the height of conservative power.

The populism that allowed Trump to crush 16 Republican rivals and win in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan also emerged a decade and a half earlier, in the 1990s.

The decisive advantage that Reagan and Trump took advantage of was that in their decisive years, the establishments of both parties were seen as the cause of the country's failures.

Reagan won after Russia invaded Afghanistan; Americans were taken hostage in Tehran; and in the US, interest rates rose to 21%, inflation was at 13%, unemployment was at 7%, and economic growth was zero.

When Trump won, Americans experienced years of stagnant wage growth. Our manufacturing base was collapsing. And we seemed unable to win or end the half dozen Middle East wars we were stuck in.

What do Reagan's powerful blow of 1980 and Trump's victory have in common?

Both candidates turned to American nationalism.

In the late 1970s, Reagan took a leading role in the campaign to save the Panama Canal. “We bought it. We paid for it. He is ours. And we won't give it to anyone," thundered Gipper (Gipper).

Although he lost the canal battle when the Republican Party establishment in the Senate took sides Jimmy Carter (Jimmycarter) , she cemented Reagan's reputation as a leader who put his country first.

Trump uncompromisingly seized on the nationalist slogan most hated by our globalist elites: "America First"!

He will build a wall, fortify the borders, stop the invasion. He will trash the rotten trade deals made by the transnational elites who sold our sovereignty and sent our jobs to China.

He is demanding that freeloader allies in Europe, the Far East and the Persian Gulf pay their fair share of the costs of their defense.

There is a simplicity and directness in the rhetoric of Reagan and Trump that is familiar and appealing to the men and women of Central America to whom they have addressed their campaigns.

In his first press conference in January 1981, Reagan said of the Kremlin, “They reserve the right to commit any crime, to lie, to deceive. ... We are working with a different set of standards.”

He called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" and "the center of evil in the modern world."

The State Department was then afraid of what Reagan might say or do, just as they are now afraid of what Trump might tweet.

But despite the obvious similarities between these outsiders who captured their nominations and won the presidential election, challenging and then defeating the establishments of both political parties, the situations they faced are starkly different.

Reagan took office in an era of Cold War clarity.

Despite sharp disagreements about how tough the United States should be and what is needed for national defense, there was no real doubt about who we were up against.

As it has been since Harry Truman (HarryTruman) , the world battle was between communism and freedom, the USSR and the West, the Warsaw Pact and NATO.

The moral clarity of those years is no more.

Today, the Soviet empire has collapsed, the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union have disappeared, and the communist movement is dying.

Three former republics of the USSR are members of NATO, and we are facing Moscow in places like Crimea and the Donbass that no Reagan-era American would see as a national interest of the United States.

We no longer have agreement on who our main enemies and greatest threats are.

Is this the Russia of Vladimir Putin? Iran? Or China, which, according to the appointed secretary of state Rex Tillerson (rexTillerson) should be forced to clear its air, missile and naval bases built on the rocks and reefs of the South China Sea and considered by Beijing to be its national territory?

Or is it North Korea, which is now testing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles?

In addition to the issues of war and peace, there are problems at home - racial antagonism, crime, policing, abortion, LGBT rights, immigration (legal and illegal) and many others, according to which this multicultural, multiracial and multinational nation is divided into two, three, many parts. .

The existential question for the Trump era can be formulated as follows: How long will this divided democracy last as one nation and one people?

Buchanan, Patrick D.

Buchanan, Patrick J.

Adviser to three U.S. presidents, twice ran for president, Republican presidential nominee in 1992 and 1996, and Reform Party presidential nominee in 2000.

Patrick Buchanan

Since World War II, two people have scared this city the most by winning the presidential election -- Ronald ReaganRonald Reagan And Donald Trump).

And they have a lot in common.

Both came from popular culture, Reagan from Hollywood, Trump from a successful reality show. Both were gifted as showmen, a valuable political asset in a television era that is cruel to those lacking in charisma.

Both became leaders of mutinies aimed at overthrowing the establishment of the party they were trying to get nominated for.

Reagan became a champion of post-war conservatism that occupied the Republican Party after the nomination Barry Goldwater (BarryGoldwater) in 1964. His victory in 1980 came at the height of conservative power.

The populism that allowed Trump to crush 16 Republican rivals and win in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan also emerged a decade and a half earlier, in the 1990s.

The decisive advantage that Reagan and Trump took advantage of was that in their decisive years, the establishments of both parties were seen as the cause of the country's failures.

Reagan won after Russia invaded Afghanistan; Americans were taken hostage in Tehran; and in the US, interest rates rose to 21%, inflation was at 13%, unemployment was at 7%, and economic growth was at zero.

When Trump won, Americans experienced years of stagnant wage growth. Our manufacturing base was collapsing. And we seemed unable to win or finish the half dozen Middle East wars we were stuck in.

What do Reagan's powerful blow of 1980 and Trump's victory have in common?

Both candidates turned to American nationalism.

In the late 1970s, Reagan took a leading role in the campaign to save the Panama Canal. “We bought it. We paid for it. He is ours. And we won't give it to anyone," thundered Gipper (Gipper).

Although he lost the canal battle when the Republican Party establishment in the Senate took sides Jimmy Carter (Jimmycarter) , she cemented Reagan's reputation as a leader who put his country first.

Trump uncompromisingly seized on the nationalist slogan most hated by our globalist elites: "America First"!

He will build a wall, fortify the borders, stop the invasion. He will trash the rotten trade deals made by the transnational elites who sold our sovereignty and sent our jobs to China.

He is demanding that freeloader allies in Europe, the Far East and the Persian Gulf pay their fair share of the costs of their defense.

There is a simplicity and directness in the rhetoric of Reagan and Trump that is familiar and appealing to the men and women of Central America to whom they have addressed their campaigns.

In his first press conference in January 1981, Reagan said of the Kremlin, “They reserve the right to commit any crime, to lie, to deceive. ... We are working with a different set of standards.”

He called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" and "the center of evil in the modern world."

The State Department was then afraid of what Reagan might say or do, just as they are now afraid of what Trump might tweet.

But despite the obvious similarities between these outsiders who captured their nominations and won the presidential election, challenging and then defeating the establishments of both political parties, the situations they faced are starkly different.

Reagan took office in an era of Cold War clarity.

Despite sharp disagreements about how tough the United States should be and what is needed for national defense, there was no real doubt about who we were up against.

As it has been since Harry Truman (HarryTruman) , the world battle was between communism and freedom, the USSR and the West, the Warsaw Pact and NATO.

The moral clarity of those years is no more.

Today, the Soviet empire has collapsed, the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union have disappeared, and the communist movement is dying.

Three former republics of the USSR are members of NATO, and we are facing Moscow in places like Crimea and the Donbass that no Reagan-era American would see as a national interest of the United States.

We no longer have agreement on who our main enemies and greatest threats are.

Is this the Russia of Vladimir Putin? Iran? Or China, which, according to the appointed secretary of state Rex Tillerson (rexTillerson) should be forced to clear its air, missile and naval bases built on the rocks and reefs of the South China Sea and considered by Beijing to be its national territory?

Or is it North Korea, which is now testing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles?

In addition to issues of war and peace, there are problems at home - racial antagonism, crime, policing, abortion, LGBT rights, immigration (legal and illegal) and many others, according to which this multicultural, multiracial and multinational nation is divided into two, three, many parts. .

The existential question for the Trump era can be formulated as follows: How long will this divided democracy last as one nation and one people?