W. Bush Emerges To Tell Nativeist Trump Globalism is Inevitable


Former President George W. Bush delivered a public repudiation of President Donald Trump’s political identity, suggesting many aspects of the current administration are fueling division in the United States and around the world.

The former president defended the ideas of globalism, free trade, and free markets as well as foreign interventionism around the world in a speech at the George W. Bush Institute.

“We cannot wish globalism away,” Bush said, noting that the United States must sustain “wise and sustained global engagement” for the future of the country.

Bush indirectly accused Trump of fueling dangerous ideologies that threatened the unity of the United States and global stability, spending a large portion of his speech complaining about social ills in the country.

We’ve seen nationalism distorted into nativism, and forgotten the dynamism that immigration has always brought to America,” he lamented.

Bigotry seems emboldened, our politics seems more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and outright fabrication,”

The former president looped in a condemnation of white supremacy as part of his speech, suggesting that it was a growing threat in Trump’s America.

“Bigotry or white supremacy in any form is blasphemy against the American creed,” he said.

Bush’s decision to publicly criticize Trump’s presidency is unusual after he made a point of rarely challenging President Barack Obama while he was in office.


There is a difference between excessive nationalism and looking out for your nation’s best interests. When a trade deal allows a foreign nation to import goods into the United States with little or no tariffs, and then that nation slaps a 33% tariff on our exports, there is a problem which a competent president has to address. We can’t ask our workers and our businesses to take a beating in the name of globalism.

“Globalism” is farce in any case. The radical left thinks that there should be no national borders and that the world should be run by one giant government that will oversee one vast collective. That model flies in the face cultural, religious, political and economic differences that can’t be put in a pressure cooker without an explosion. Human rights are based upon the fact that we are different, and some of those differences can only be addressed when cultural differences are respected.

A Muslim who insists that women must be covered from head to toe will never be comfortable with western culture. A radical feminist could never be happy with the restrictions Islam places upon women’s rights no matter how much they chant for the leftist, globalist model. Nations exist for many reasons, and those reasons include the preservation of human rights.

George W. Bush has provided us with an example of why his brother got nowhere when he tried to win the Republican presidential nomination. The Bush family represents the establishment Republicans who really don’t differ very much from the Democrats. They think that if they “reach across the aisle” and give in to the Democrats that the left and news media will respect them. The left and news media will never respect them until they change parties and tow the party line completely. For the left, it’s winner take all and woe the opposition.


I legitimately believe that radical feminism exists entirely due to a desperate urning for strong men. When there is a lack of strong men, women will try to rise up and fill that void. Of course they never can, so theyll use their power to try to bring in new men who can actually be masculine. And thus you have the very logical alliance of far Left women and the savages they hope to one day be ruled by. If they can’t have real domestic men, then they’ll import them.


Sure… negotiation can be useful, but if they still end up sticking to using the tariff, we shouldn’t respond in kind. We should be a level playing field. Favoritism over there, should not effect markets here, where a foreign company has no advantage, no matter what’s going on back home.

When you protect, you have now way of distinguishing if your protecting a business, or just bad practices. You just makes us weaker, just as nations makes themselves weak by doing it.

When foreign companies come here, workers do just fine. Case in point, the Chinese auto-glass company that replaced the GM plant in Ohio.

That’s the flip-side to Globalism. It means companies going ashore everywhere. Why? Because in order to sell their products (particularly those high up the value chain, like cars), it’s best to have production as close to your customers as possible.

These are not the same issue, and they shouldn’t even have the same name. The left stands against free trade; they say so all the time, it’s the one issue they compliment Trump on.

Trade is a market action, not a Government one. As a basic condition, people should be free to purchase goods from whomever they choose. Blocking this should be the exception, not the rule.


I have no problem with foreign companies investing in plants and equipment in the United States. I also oppose trade wars and protective tariffs.

My point is the same as Trump’s point. Trade is not a one way street. Both sides should should drop their tariffs and quotas to make it fair. Exports provide jobs to American workers and revenues to American companies. Level playing fields call for equal treatment for American exports and foreign imports.


We’ve found out who was behind Bush and his attacks on Trump after years of silence under Obama


Don’t agree; the modern radical feminist movement targets manhood and masculinity, and tries to sissify men. They’re shooting themselves in the foot by doing so, but they’re obsessed with their contorted worldview.


Sure, but if they don’t, answering them in kind is not good or “fair”. They hurt themselves by doing that, and we would only hurt ourselves by doing the same.

Again, a company that has a tariff in their home country, does not have an advantage when they come here.
Here, they have to play on even playing field, and we should strive to keep it that way, regardless of what other countries are doing back home.

So do importers. And we can state for a fact, that the higher your imports are, the higher the standard of living you have in your country.

When you import, you are trading money, for capital. You are not worse off.


When you import, you are trading money for crap and you ARE worse off…with very few exceptions. Worse yet, you’re paying less for it because some other country’s taxing its own people in order to give it’s manufacturers those subsidies that allow them to lower their prices…or often they are using the money they get from tariff’s on OUR goods in order to give their manufacturers those subsidies.


Maybe you meant to say: "When you import capital, you are trading money, for capital. " Of course, that would be a tautology and essentially meaningless. I don’t have the numbers but I would wager that we import more end consumer goods and “crap”, as Dave would say, than capital.


Nope, it’s an increase to capital accounts. Pretty much by definition.

I have a friend who bought a re-manufactured laser cutter from China. He uses it in his fabrication business.

He certainly would like to have an American-made device, as they last longer, but they’re 4x the price, and if he was forced to buy the latter, he simply wouldn’t have a business.

And so you want to punish him for this Dave? By raising tariffs on his equipment? I don’t see the benefit.

I meant what I said. Here’s Donald J. Boudreaux telling off the New York Times and the Obama Administration for this very line of thinking:

"You open a report today with this line: “The Obama administration on Friday urged the world’s biggest economies to set a numerical limit on their trade imbalances” (“U.S. Proposes Benchmark for Limiting Trade Imbalances,” Oct. 22).

Because the concern here obviously is with the U.S current-account deficit – and because a U.S. current-account deficit is simply another name for a U.S. capital-account surplus (that is, a net inflow of capital into the U.S.) – we can translate the opening line of your report to make it more meaningful: “The Obama administration on Friday urged the world’s biggest economies to set a numerical limit on the amounts that their citizens invest in the U.S. economy.”

I await the White House’s explanation for how limitations on investments in the American economy promote Americans’ economic well-being.

Donald J. Boudreaux "

Nope , here’s the top ten list:

  1. Electrical machinery, equipment: US$336 billion (14.9% of total imports)
  2. Machinery including computers: $315.4 billion (14%)
  3. Vehicles: $285 billion (12.7%)
  4. Mineral fuels including oil: $163.4 billion (7.3%)
  5. Pharmaceuticals: $92.5 billion (4.1%)
  6. Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $80.8 billion (3.6%)
  7. Gems, precious metals: $67.3 billion (3%)
  8. Furniture, bedding, lighting , signs, prefab buildings: $63.1 billion (2.8%)
  9. Plastics, plastic articles: $50.4 billion (2.2%)
  10. Organic chemicals: $49.8 billion (2.2%)

Restrict imports, you restrict capital improvements in our economy, and increase the cost of doing business here. Fact.

Just ask Brazil, who has stagnated their electronic industry for decades because of their God-awful protectionist policies that instead of bolstering their domestic producers, simply left them years behind in technology and tech penetration.


Looks like I lose that bet.


NO you did not lose your bet. Follow the link and look at it from a consumer view rather than a business investment. 3-7 are driven by the everyday America buying products.

“U.S. current-account deficit is simply another name for a U.S. capital-account surplus”

I had to laugh when I read that, the I looked up the “Globalist” selling liberal who said and wrote it and it told me everything I needed to know.

Now spin it to get this: Deficit spending is…“net inflow of capital into the U.S.”

And the JOKES keep on coming, LOL more going out is really more coming in. That is like saying the more uneducated illegal Mexicans that pour into our country the more we get richer since they pay so much in taxes.

Where in the hell are you getting you data points, the Improv?


Yes, but in the mind of globalists, the concept of honorable business that improves the lot of the owners, as well as their employees and customers is unimaginable.


So what? It’s still capital improvements; cars are capital, so is fuel, so are Optical, technical, medical equipment.

You have more of these things, you have a more effective economy.

Uh, Oaks?

He wasn’t talking about Deficit spending. You just gone goofed.

He was referring to the Current account of the country, which has nothing to do with Government spending.

It’s part of the Balance of payments, which is itself, the aggregate of everyone here, private citizens and businesses, buying goods abroad vs domestic.

No Oaks, you made an assumption, and it was the wrong one. “Deficit” doesn’t simply refer to Government actions or its budget.

In Texas alone, they took up $500 million in net benefit costs after tax payments, but added $18 Billion to the local economy.

So said the Texas State Comptroller’s office, for the year 2006. If they want taxes to pay for those benefits, all they have to do is change their fee structure.

You and CWolf can complain all you want about cultural issues (and Wolf already knows why even that doesn’t hold up), but it when it comes to economics, neither of you have a leg to stand on.

They add to the economy, because economies, like to have labor. This is an immutable fact.

If the labor wasn’t useful, people wouldn’t hire them. It’s that simple.


If I buy an item manufactured overseas, I am better off in every case. I do not buy an item I do not want or that I value less than the cash I’m willing to pay for it. Unfortunately, many of you want to punish me for buying imported goods – and also, oddly, many of you still buy them because you are better off. If you weren’t you wouldn’t buy them.

In the protectionist’s world, I pay $20 for a battery rather than the $10 I pay now. I have less to spend on any goods, including the $5 I no longer spend on locally grown strawberries and the $5 I no longer spend on a pair of American-made scissors I for some reason feel are superior to the $1 scissors I can buy from an overseas company. The American battery maker gets my extra $10. Talk about redistribution of wealth. Fortunately for all of us, the American battery maker gets to spend that extra cash on other equally expensive American goods, and we can call it Economic Development!


Canada has been exploiting America for decades in the name of “globalization”. We are also a prime location for foreign countries looking to exploit America by proxy, as Uranium One proved when our comrades smuggled 20% of your uranium out. This latter point is definitely not something you will read in most media outlets as they know it will scare Americans to know that too closely integrated economies is not good for your national security, or your system of individual rights above state.

Canada is now considering free trade with China! Believe it or not a recent poll suggests Canadians support this. We are the poster boy for “forget sovereignty and human rights, let’s be ruled by the world”. I believed wholeheartedly in globalization and free trade, but the abuses by state actors has absolutely destroyed the concept. I’m all for libertarian domestic policies, but Internationally, we should not be submitting to the whims of some less than admirable nation half way cross the world.

Globalization has been turned on it’s head and poisoned by socialists and neo-communist governments, it is not an apples to apples competition. This isn’t a best of the best competing with the best of the best in a free market. This is socialized governments making rules, controlling the companies your free market businesses are competing with. Everything from suppressing wages, currencies and safety in order to steal your jobs in a race to the bottom to bribing, entering your corporations covertly and influencing from within, as they do in Canada. Nothing free market about this, and it will eventually destroy capitalism.

This is a lose/lose for capitalism I assure you. You have only one equalizer, that is tariffs. The alternative is a centralized form of government which nationalizes the economy. A far cry from “patriotism” and the kind of so-called “nationalism” seen today but described in former terms. Also, the fossils who used to be presidents are using this old, broad terminology to describe an entirely new reality today. Nationalism, nativism, etc are inaccurate descriptions. This is about protecting capitalism and individual liberty from the abuses of foreign states, communists, dictators and the like.


You provided a link “Current Account”. Not sure why you did, as its clear you did not read it.

You are struggling to interpret macro economic theory and as a result it becomes a rambling garbled post that makes little sense. I won’t bother to point out the issues, just leave it at that.

Macro economics especially as it pertains to globalization is steeped in more theory than reality and every wannabe globalist wants to put his spin on it for the book he wrote and wants to write. As my economics Prof who was a very successful business man and retired to teach…he told us often, the problem with Economists is that almost none of them had ever run even a lemonade stand! My wife was a Economist in both her undergrad and grad degrees, but like most, she had never run that lemonade stand and it showed!



NOT to say I am an isolationist or a protectionist what I am is a ‘my company first’, America FIRST.

Few large companies do Globalization better than Wal Mart, but they put Wal Mart FIRST and if they did not I doubt they would be with us today.

The Bushes, Clintons, Obama, Hillary, Kerry they all are extreme globalists willing to sell out themselves and America and our economy with its middle class to achieve their dream on one world. Just look at America today, middle class devastated, 100 M people who don’t even work, more people out of the labor force than almost any time in history, highest corp tax rate, we are an economic mess, living on borrowed time and the successes of yesterday that built the greatest economy the world has ever known.

Globalization gave us the Tilapia, the fish what will feed the world, NOT fit for human consumption! Globalization = Socialism


More government theft and regulation is not the solution to government theft and regulation – the international socialism. It remains government theft and regulation.

I am not a “globalist.” I am a free trader who wishes to trade freely with others foreign or domestic.