The Indispensable Man Criteria

Image via express.co.uk

The gradual erosion of Americans’ willingness to take a stand on controversial issues would have continued under any other president, regardless of the presence of an “R,” “D,” or even an “L.”

Call President Trump what you like, but his indispensability to the success of our future makes him person of our young century.

In an article published on New Year’s Eve 1999, Dr. Charles Krauthammer dissented from Time Magazine’s choice of Albert Einstein as “Person of the Century” and instead suggested the only reasonable choice with Winston Churchill:

Why? Because only Churchill carries that absolutely required criterion: indispensability. Without Churchill the world today would be unrecognizable — dark, impoverished, tortured….If Einstein hadn’t lived, the ideas he produced might have been delayed. But they would certainly have arisen without him.”

Krauthammer continues: “Take away Churchill in 1940, on the other hand, and Britain would have settled with Hitler — or worse. Nazism would have prevailed. Hitler would have achieved what no other tyrant, not even Napoleon, had ever achieved: mastery of Europe. Civilization would have descended into a darkness the likes of which it had never known.”

While our century is still young, I will venture so far as to call our man President Donald J. Trump. Krauthammer is a smart man, and he acknowledged the great scientific minds that populated the 20th century, but he understood that the entire time period was based on politics, and a seemingly endless battle against totalitarianism. Churchill was indispensable in that battle. Similarly, I strongly believe that President Trump will be indispensable in the battle to save the West from the religion of multiculturalism, radical Islam and the far-Left’s agenda of cultural Marxism.

As a conservative libertarian, I have some clear issues with some of President Trump’s policies, and I have no issue calling him out when his history of Centrism takes precedence over the conservative agenda generally promised by the GOP. That being said, his commitment to ending illegal immigration and preventing the mass migration of refugees from unstable countries should not simply be applauded—but also recognized for being the saving grace for American freedoms and values. As Ben Shapiro so eloquently put it: “Security dies where multiculturalism thrives.” People who embrace certain cultures are more likely to pose a threat to American security and without careful vetting, we could end up with a Sweden-esque situation with mass migrant crime and the introduction of radical Islamic messages into the mainstream. Swedish officials believe that over three hundred Swedish citizens have gone abroad to Syria or Iraq for jihadi training. Is this what we want happening in America, the last stand for freedom in the world?

“We don’t have the freedom of speech to talk about the weather. We have the first amendment so we can say some very controversial things.” Congressman Paul was onto something here. There were 17 candidates vying for the GOP nomination, yet Trump stuck out like a sore thumb. Why? His blatant disregard for political correctness and conforming to the Left’s standards of what we can and cannot say. Even if this boundary was pushed at some points towards rudeness, his boldness is a huge win for free expression in America. It emboldens Americans who were too afraid to talk about serious issues like immigration and abortion for fear of being labelled a racist or whatever other word the radical Left has picked out that day. The gradual erosion of Americans’ willingness to take a stand on controversial issues would have continued under any other president, regardless of the presence of an “R,” “D,” or even an “L.”

Regularly criticized as being an isolationist by hawks on both the political Right and Left, President Trump has promised to rollback American military involvement across the globe. While we are yet to see any sign of such action, if he is to keep his promise, it would be a significant victory for the liberty movement. Terrorists do not just hate us because “we are free”. They hate us because we regularly drop bombs on their countries. We have entangled ourselves in a real mess in the Middle East, and more often than not, the money we spend there ends up in the hands of anti-American terrorists. Pulling the United States out of needless war would not only save money and the lives of American servicemen but would work towards ending the resentment towards our values and country. While Rothbard and Mises may have had many misgivings about Donald Trump had they been alive, they both understood the importance of a foreign policy of less war and peaceful cooperation with powerful nations (such as Russia) to advance the cause of liberty, and Mr. Trump’s stance is a first step. Secretary Clinton’s dedication to stirring hostilities with Russia could have had terrifying consequences.

Trump’s presidency is a tremendous victory for individualism and a more secure West. The silent majority spoke on November 8th, and, hopefully, this will provide momentum to similar movements in Europe and throughout the world. Without a Donald Trump in the White House, our values would have continued to decay until the point where we would have been indistinguishable from the semi-socialist Western European nations. These are nations that constantly support policies that act against the interests of their own people. Call President Trump what you like, but his indispensability to the success of our future makes him person of our young  century. 

Nikhil Sridhar is a student at Duke University. 

Nikhil Sridhar seeks out writers who bring important new perspectives to Merion West. He studies biology and political science at Duke University and is interested in American politics.

Leave a Reply