US Democracy started dying (except in the Reagan period?) after Eisenhower and Kennedy - not with Trump.

Trump as bad, rude and obnoxious as he might seem to be, is actually a watershed presidency to begin to break a nasty neo-liberalism, neo-authoritarianism. One that combined with the war/security complex that brought about the horrible Vietnam War and Hillary pillory on Libya and Jr Bush's madness in Iraq.

When President Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex, as he departed office, it was only a few short years later that President Kennedy was assasinated and the Vietnam War started. Call it coincidence or what you want. But God knows what would have happened to Eisenhower, if the constitution had permitted him to stay on and he had got re-elected. He was truly one of America’s great heroes and a man rightfully tired of war, World War II, including the Holocaust. He had absolute little interest in seeing more massive deaths. This made him a soft Republican to the hawks, even as a hugely victorious five star general. And an enemy of the war lobby even if he was a Republican like Trump. Republicans are certainly not all with a gusto for going to war.

However, at some point the overall US defense industries recognized they had lost their big war, the only one which really counted to them, the big (enough) war market to spur on hyper profits in weapon making. They likely especially began realizing this probably after the end of the Korean War while Eisenhower started feeling the emerging prowar lobby. We should remember that big steel, electronics and other sectors liked war or were too comfortable with war and still are. And the financial industry, back then was largely indifferent to the death of overseas civilians who largely meant nothing to them, especially given how much racism there was at the time against Asians.

The establishment special interests especially did not like countries that did not have a big welcoming smile to mass consumerism and western multinational control and pursuit of expanding their markets. I certainly do not say all companies or industries or US leaders had this mad Strangelove desire for constant war or aggressively overthrowing foreign governments. Or blindly promoting US economic interests and maintaining the supremacy of the US dollar by the end of a gun, including through coup d’etats. But such an approach gained over ascendency and to America's long term strategic and fiscal detriment.

But essentially with Eisenhower out of the way and Kennedy dead at the time and President Johnson’s rise in power, these nefarious war promoting special interests were then able to take much greater control of the American superpower agenda (until Reagan blew a big hole in it with peace with Russia). And, finally some years later achieved super dominance with the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

The big problem was that this morally corrupt philosophy of excessive US dominance by the gun remained for much of the time, even after the end of the Cold War. And with its war machine modern extension of inflating Russia into a danger again, this has put Washington in continued collaboration with corrupt excess government borrowing and kiss up to the war party members and stakeholders. This includes not just making bombs that can explode but essentially supporting exploding credit and Wall Street driven financialization, all that is increasingly reaching the end of the road.

But the question should be asked is whether too many of the US elites and (possibly a few of those I went to school with) are too stupid and blind to realize such to care about it enough so as to resist it. But then should they? Like Capone’s bandit economy in Chicago in the 1930s, today’s elements of the elites behind war, financial gangsterism and narrow special interests are so well backed and have lasted so long that they could not imagine seeing the end of it? Plus some swallow(ed) such an approach as it was so convenient to their careers and those intimate to them. Even so wholesale that they got religion around the policies and behaviour of aggression against those promoting peace or even just a small opposition to America. This was likely aided and abetted with the false triumphalism with the end of Cold War I with Russia?

Yet significant numbers of people and leaders within the West through populism and a revived Russia in terms of national sentiment and militarily and significantly more confident China have largely had enough of this neoliberal master plan for everyone and are willing to stand up against it at great personal, geopolitical and economic cost. After all, by now Syria, Iran and Libya were supposed to be invaded, defeated and in the US fold according to the core radical neo-liberals in the Pentagon? Nation building has its limits, unless one enjoys a Strangelove commitment to insanity and blowing the Federal Reserve bank balance sheet and well beyond. We are dealing with a number of well placed, thick headed neo-liberal ideologues who know no fiscal or humanitarian shame?

Even most US soldiers are disgusted with the way so many politicians have misused them with one US marine general describing the military, at times as being over interventionist by being pushed by ‘banker bandit’ run lobbies and politicians to help make it easier to collect lousy Wall Street, overseas debt and to protect their bad investments that should have never been made based on good banking principles -my banker father followed in earlier days.

Then there are those who have wanted to promote a greater peace and more populist sustainable politics focused on fixing things at home, even by having more peace with Russia. Some of them have been grossly and unfairly accused as being Kremlin puppets and bizarrely even fascists, Hitlerites and well beyond. Yes, some populists may be so but I believe the vast majority are not and the evidence is clearly there to show so. In fact, the geopolitical push back against these neo-liberals for global domination has been so pervasive that Putin has threatened mutual nuclear suicide with his new hyper-sonic weapons if Washington and NATO press further onto Russia or key strategic areas of its interest. His reaction of the seizure of Crimea and more shows he means it if he is significantly and unnecessarily provoked further. Of course, his reactions in Ukraine are often well described by Kissinger as not proportionate to the threat posed by the West.

On top of all this happening, the war strategy by the US war complex has largely been so futile in the past that essentially no/few American led wars and commensurate peace have been won since World War II with a few recent exceptions. Even just about zero decent benefits have accrued to to the average western taxpayer because of the war party. That is unless you think billions of subsides that could have gone to tax credits for the struggling and improved social services were better to go to certain defense industries.That is if you think badly led wars are winning formulas. And how the hell could a Cold War I ‘defeated’ Russia be so provoked into military revival and re-emerge as a potentially dangerous rival with parts of Europe lost, well after the Berlin Wall came down? All while related US debt staggers to trillions, western poverty increases and wages have stagnated in too much of the West.

Because, baby, too much the military complex gets off on ensuring having rivals and using geopolitical provocation to build up bogeymen. An approach leading to excess debt to ensure its morally corrupt greed for geopolitical power and resultant support by fiscal madness underwritten by Asia, which should stop doing so in its attempts to tame the loco tiger.

Neo-liberals are happy at using the overall Washington establishment as a key part of their tool box and being joined at the hip with neo-liberal Democrats like Hillary. The question is not whether America should fight wars at times, or even repair its rusty military on the short to medium term in certain areas to ensure soldiers are better protected and supported. However, there is a need to put a bit of a muzzle on this psychotic part of Washington called the war party that is also bankrupting the government. Truly not fundamentally good conservatism but instead is a crony capitalism at times of the most destructive and inhuman disorder that provides inspiration to those against the West and our institutions. The constant hyper-war party, including its chicken hawks, is the antithesis to solid sustainable conservatism and the traditional military at least at the grass roots level.

Trump partly understands this and a growing number of populist leaders do too. It is rather those who do not and are carryovers of the ideas that started slowing down or countering positive democratic trends. I, of course, mean by the strong emergence of the western war and greed machine wolf wrapped up in Red Ridinghood clothes of western Democratic, neoliberalism ‘exceptionalism’ and state bankrupting and diminishing handouts from and of neo-liberalism. All to keep the masses forgetful of such immorality of violence and greed led by too many at the top to subjugate the many.

On the practical, it is certainly time for America to be at least more surgical in the wars it gets involved in and to extract itself as much as possible when the battles that are fought that must be fought are done. Much more is needed but this pull out of Syria and drawing down somewhat in Afghanistan would be good starts. And not for Washington to loiter around pushing its ideological cookies down people’s mouths at western taxpayer excessive expense and fiscal waste. Rather, instead facilitating our humanitarian values in more fiscally prudent ways minimizing lost limbs and takeovers of countries by stealth or directly.

The West, first with European colonialism then with neo-colonialism has screwed up the world enough but certainly far from all by itself. It, therefore, needs to be more modest and careful with its interventions, both by information campaigns and by more direct involvement. “Modesty, modesty, modesty” should replace cowboy “audacity, audacity, audacity” until we get our act together.

There is also certainly a need for America to step back, after some necessary upgrading, and eventually to reduce its military budget and let the allies do more burden sharing where it makes sense. Yes, that inevitably means an increase in geopolitical influence of countries like Australia, Canada, Nordic countries and Germania (northern Europe) UK, South Korea and Japan. So be it as a massively indebted America cannot do it all. Get over it you ‘hegemonic’ Washington neo-lib estsblishmentarians. A more multipolar NATO, better coordinated needs to be part of the new world order while on the long run, hopefully NATO will no longer be required in a saner, more peaceful world.

That does not mean we in the West are all bad and neither China nor Russia are saying so. Putin is even modest, rather than arrogant as his western detractors accuse him of, in comparing Russia's overall lesser material accomplishments with those of the West. All the time standing up for his people, however clearly over the top he goes sometimes that we must strongly react to including through cyber warfare, if necessary.

These great nations, though, both still very much want our investments and trade. But we certainly should not be so arrogant and especially so blindly selfish. Instead we need rather to listen and learn more from what others are saying in the non-western world. And they in turn to be certain about our well-thought out own red lines and not indefensible, hegemonic and unrealistic based or so hypocritical to provide us no moral edge.

It is still too much one way, however, with the Washington establishment centered. But there is some hope. For at least Trump, even in bombast and insult, is making more sense than the neo-liberal, inside the belt-way thought that is so often tiring, including their awful sad previous attempts to revive Hillary’s presidential, candidacy. How sick can some of these neo-liberals get we may see within the next years as they truly get desperate to stop the onslaught of the democratic surges of populism. One that is finished with much of the neo-authoritarianism and patronizing elitism of big bank and defense lobbies sponsored western leaders .

It is specifically, rather too much of the western foreign policy establishment cartels, closed off to those who disagree with them that remain dominant. That are also in this sense, with few exceptions intellectually authoritarian, narrow - and old style ones whose demon seeds especially go back at least threes generations to the end of Eisenhower and Kennedy and beginning of the Johnson presidency.

No wonder to so many older Americans, “Make America Great Again” resonates. But Mr. President, it will have to be a view with a modern multicolored face, too, environmentally pragmatic and fair in terms of diversity and changing demographics. We need to take the good from America’s past and marry it with new realities including the social progress that has been achieved since the 1960s, yet beyond of course the excesses of political correctness. That would truly make for greatness as you facilitate shaping a better world order that also makes more economic sense for the many alienated within and with America that wish to love it (again).

.