But what is sad is that very ignorance. A frontrunning candidate for POTUS and his staff should have a much better knowledge of American history (especially from the beginning of the twentieth century forward), law, customs, and traditions than this Trump campaign has exhibited at times.
If the Trump campaign had that grasp of history as it should, "America First" would have been changed to something something different but similar in the speech, and this needless controversy would have been avoided.
Good point. Do you think someone might have done this purposely, not to hurt Trump but to bring the issue out in the open? In other words, to emphasize that being for America first does not mean anything but what it says? If so, they have done it.
I have a feeling the speechwriter has never heard of the more recent America First party of the turn of the 21st century.
Rush is a complicating factor. I have never listened to his show although I admire his talent, so I’m not the best one to analyze his comments in context. But the fact that he is not a Trump supporter is a certainly a good reason to take his words very unseriously. Yes, I get the point of others that he is debunking those who say America First is Nazi. OK, but he has given the whole issue more play by doing so.
Most important, IMO: We are in a different era now than 75 years ago. We have become finally too globalist for the American good. It’s probably time to temper our concern, to continue to help the rest of the world but not to the extreme detriment to Americans that we are experiencing now, especially since those touting “globalism” are doing it for their own interests, not America’s.
Those on this thread who remind us that Trump wants to wipe out ISIS are right on target. ISIS is the modern-day Nazis, and such a great evil that anyone who does not see them as the top concern is either in denial or on their side.
“America First” is a rather broad concept and a good slogan, so it’s only natural it’s been used before.
I think people by and large are ignorant of history. So I’m not sure if this is much of a controversy. Does Joe Voter know about the past use of the phrase? I doubt it. Would he care if he did know, or did he hear about it on the news and decide it matters to him? I wouldn’t imagine so.
It’s a good phrase to reclaim from past abuse, must it remain forever tainted?
Gimme a break.
Should Trump’s position be “American Last” like Obama? Or “American - Ready to be Ripped OFF by Every County in the World” or “American - in the Middle and Clueless??
This isn’t a history ‘gotcha’ issue... it’s a reality. AND NO, TRUMP IS NOT HITLER.
What a load of bullsh*t..
The idea that these people were isolationists was & remains the great lie of the foreign policy debate, basically traceable back to the embittered Wilsonians, who lost the debate--were thoroughly whipped in the debate--over the League of Nations.
When Hitler declared war on America in December, 1941, those on the Left used the fact that we were indeed forced into the war in Europe, to smear Conservatives for having opposed what then seemed to have been inevitable, by the line of attack that your comment implies. As always, "hind sight" is brilliant. That is a complete non-sequitur, however, for whether there can ever be an excuse for an American Government, not to put America first.
America first is the sworn duty of any Federal Office holder; the sworn duty of any new citizen; the sworn duty of each and every person who swears to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
As it turned out, getting ready for war--something Trump urges today, as the best way not to have to fight a war--is to put America first. That, frankly was also the case in the 1920s & 1930s. Consider this speech by the first Senator to openly oppose Wilson's League, ten years later: Reed On The "Voices Of The World".