The achievements of President Donald J. Trump
are so boldly true to the real dangers facing the United States, and so unlike the usual tripe out of Washington since the days of Bill Clinton, George Bush Jr., and Barack Obama, that many people confuse his successes with failure.
Shutting down illegal immigration wasn’t a denial of people’s rights but a valid action to enforce existing laws. Quitting the Paris Agreement on climate change was not an abandonment of American leadership in the world but a bold assertion of it—and of reality over delusion. The president’s rebuke of U.S. allies for failing to shoulder their share of the costs of military defence didn’t divide and damage NATO, it helped to restore its integrity by correcting long-term scofflaws. And far from being xenophobic and racist, closing the border to Chinese air traffic early in the pandemic was a proper and responsible act that helped to save American lives.
Why this isn’t more generally accepted is baffling—and troubling, for it betrays a decided lack of clear thinking and the ability to discriminate and weigh the worth of ideas. Instead, his critics use emotional and fallacious ad hominem attacks to denounce him and his policies.
In four short years, the achievements of President Trump so magnificently dwarf those of his predecessors—whose actions or inactions created or sustained many of the problems he addressed—that it is difficult to comprehend why more than the record 74 million Americans didn’t support him in November.
As others have noted, the dereliction of duty by American media who abandoned objectivity in their quest to dispose of the hated incumbent—who hurt their collective feelings with his disdain—plays a large part in the story. An honest and properly functioning media would have informed the people about Joe Biden’s compromised position with China (due to his and his son’s activities) and looked into his apparent mental frailty. It would have reported fairly on the Democrat lie of Trump’s inaction on the Chinese virus, since his determined efforts to keep businesses open saved jobs, while his executive skills made vaccines possible in record time.
An honest press would have reported widely on his winning efforts to end decades of hostility between Israel and the Arab countries with pacts of co-operation, which should have earned him a Nobel Peace Prize. All this would have boosted Mr. Trump’s electoral totals, providing a winning edge to counter the corruption abetted by the stupidity (conspiracy?) of those who insisted on changing the rules and using mail-in ballots.
Yes, Trump can lack tact, refinement, and modesty, but we’re talking about a U.S. president here, a man with all the heavy duties of state, not the principal of a boys’ school. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were tough-minded men whose profanity surely peeled the paint off White House walls, yet they were embraced, despite their follies and crudeness, in ways Trump has never been. Why? Because they were insiders who worked their way up over many years in Washington to the nation’s highest post. They were known entities who played the game with colleagues and reporters in a way Trump never did, because he was and is an outsider. As Rhett Butler tells Scarlett O’Hara in the novel “Gone With the Wind,” and I paraphrase here: People don’t like those who are different, Scarlett. They give them a rough ride. You’re very different, my dear, so hang on!
Trump is hanging on. He has every right to, a duty to, given the vote and vote count abnormalities on or around Nov. 3, witnessed and sworn to by many in affidavits. Electoral integrity is at stake.
As a Canadian I applaud him for his honesty and action on many fronts: Iran’s nuclear intentions; China’s responsibility for the virus, its unfair trade practices, and other threats to the United States and the free world; returning manufacturing to the United States; and confronting the Democrats’ vacuity and threat to democracy.
In the 1930s, Winston Churchill was much-abused and belittled for voicing his unpopular convictions, as is Trump. Can Canada produce a leader as stout-hearted and courageous? I doubt it, because most of us are too polite, apologetic, and tainted by wokeness and political correctness to see and fight for the truth.
By dismissing the frivolous or delusional issues of gender politics, climate change, and the construction of a “green” economy, Trump has saved his country billions of dollars in foolish remedial efforts which would only have bled its industrial lifeblood, harmed millions of lives, and weakened the country further in the face of the rising communist threat. China’s GDP is almost 80 percent of America’s and closing; in Cold War times, the Soviet Union achieved only about 30 percent. China has about 1.4 billion people compared to 330 million in the United States.
This period, right now, is one of the most dangerous for the world since the collapse of the USSR. This is partly because of perceptions and partly because of reality: a key perception is that the United States is so weakened and distracted by the COVID contagion and a disputed election that it may not respond militarily to Chinese provocation, such as aggression on Taiwan. I believe this to be false, so long as Trump is in office. The reality is, Joe Biden has never demonstrated the backbone or principled conviction to stand up to China’s autocrats, and may not if push comes to shove.
It seems a great coincidence that the virus from China crippled the American economy and hijacked the election at the very moment most damaging to Mr. Trump’s bid for a second term. The Chinese, it seems, got their men—Trump, knifed in the back; Biden, lifted to the presidency. And people thought the Russians were good at electoral interference!
Brad Bird is an award-winning reporter and editorial writer based in British Columbia. He has produced five books and reported from various conflict zones, including Western Sahara in 1987 (the first Canadian to do so), Kosovo in 1999, and eastern Ukraine in 2014-15.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.