This opposition between a right wing conservative nationalism and left wing internationalism is nothing new. Conservatives traditionally have adopted a defensive or protectionist attitude towards their property, family, faith, ethnic group, and nation. On the left, socialism has always focused on uniting social classes around the world. Class was elevated and Nation was devalued.  American Liberalism has always encouraged international policies and stronger participation in international organizations.  From a traditional landlord's point of view, is there as a difference between 19th century international Marxism that focused de-privatization and current liberalism that privileges international organizations or supranational states instead one own state?  No. Any ideology that taxes one's personal property 

Bringing this back to today, racism against Jewish people and Israel are taboo for American foreign policy, so replace all anti-semitism with Anti-Islam. Cooincidentally, Arabic as a language is also semetic so the lable anti-semite still applies, but has been commonly to be understood as strictly Jewish.  Since 1948 state of Israel has existed, so it's a strong nation-state with military and westernized industry.  This elevates the traditionally landless (and therefore cultureless) Jewish population into a strong nation state and easily discernable culture.  America as a state can easily form alliances with another state because compatible national interests.  However, foreigners, undocumented immigrants, and refugees are landless and to some are irreconcilable with the values of the landed Americans.  So for the conservative America to be "anti-refugee" or "anti-undocumented worker" today is the same as being "anti-Jewish prior to World War II.  Which means it was seen as a conservative but acceptable foreign policy.  Arguably, one of the current president's reasons to be extremely pro-Israel is because Israel is extremely anti-Iran and anti-Islam, understandably so. 

What makes president Trump's "frenemy (friend-enemy)" relationship with Russia interesting is that Russia is pro-Syrian state and pro-Iran. If our enemy's enemy is our friend as is the case with Israel, then our friend's friend should also be our friend. That means, being anti-NATO really means being pro-Russia and as is clear that our current president denies NATO and embraces Russia. It should accept Russia's friends of the Syrian state and Islamic Iran.  At this point, I personally think it's bad form to act Pro-Russia in policies such as anti-NATO but then reprimand Russia for being pro-Iran.  I don't think Russia would appreciate being publically reprimanded and privately embraced.  


In Chapter 5, he talks about Education.  He proposes making schools competitive like businesses.  If a school doesn't successfully compete for the children's attendance, then they would shut down.  He also sees the Department of Education as a serious burden and believes education should happen on the local and state levels.  His model favors charter schools although he acknowledges public schools would also exist.  He doesn't say how the students would get to these schools.  If parents chose which school they wanted their children do attend, how would the child get there?  Bus?  Parent's driving them?  Private school bus?

He says he thinks teachers are underpaid and unappreciated in society, but he also blames teacher's unions as being too powerful.  This is the first time in "Great Again" he's admitted he's anti-union.  Note, fascism is also anti-union because together they form a sizable threat to the will of the government.  Within fascism, there are unions, however, but they are fascist unions.  Historically, non-fascist unions were made illegal. 
