- Joined
- Apr 22, 2019
- Messages
- 58,736
- Reaction score
- 29,925
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
The very name is propaganda. It says America First, but what it means is America Only. It's an excuse for not doing anything to help anyone in the world. And before anyone points out it hasn't completely ended all foreign spending, it ALLOWS ending any of it, and can be applied selectively.
There is a moral value of 'the rich helping the poor'. Even a name for the moral imperative, "Noblesse Oblige". It can already be bad enough when nations do things to seize large shares of wealth, but this idea is that they should provide some charity, at least.
Imagine Bill Gates, who spends a lot to help the world on charity. Now imagine him saying his new policy is "Gates First", and ending all such charity. Is there any moral issue with that? That's the equivalent, as the US is the wealthiest nation in world history.
I'm not done, though. Essentially the phrase if not dehumanizes, devalues humanity outside the US (they do that enough in the US, but that's another issue). It encourages saying 'ignore any needy people in the world and do nothing for them'. I find that despicable, under the propaganda of pretending it's simply avoiding huge excessive giving away of wealth. It's a slogan of the worst rapacious, selfish, denial of all charity (by the wealthy).
I could get into the 'practical issues' of 'soft power', of 'global reputation', of how being a charitable superpower makes the nation more "great", but I don't care about those as much as the moral issue.
There is a moral value of 'the rich helping the poor'. Even a name for the moral imperative, "Noblesse Oblige". It can already be bad enough when nations do things to seize large shares of wealth, but this idea is that they should provide some charity, at least.
Imagine Bill Gates, who spends a lot to help the world on charity. Now imagine him saying his new policy is "Gates First", and ending all such charity. Is there any moral issue with that? That's the equivalent, as the US is the wealthiest nation in world history.
I'm not done, though. Essentially the phrase if not dehumanizes, devalues humanity outside the US (they do that enough in the US, but that's another issue). It encourages saying 'ignore any needy people in the world and do nothing for them'. I find that despicable, under the propaganda of pretending it's simply avoiding huge excessive giving away of wealth. It's a slogan of the worst rapacious, selfish, denial of all charity (by the wealthy).
I could get into the 'practical issues' of 'soft power', of 'global reputation', of how being a charitable superpower makes the nation more "great", but I don't care about those as much as the moral issue.
