> I honestly believe this is just a return to normal for both sides. Conservatism, before being injected with neoliberalism by Thatcher and Reagan, has been about leaving other countries alone while focusing on protecting American interests. Speak softly and carry a big stick. Conservatives have never wanted US hegemony traditionally. Preservation of Bretton Woods has had to be a focus post-WWII in order to combat the spread of anti-American communism. Now that the Cold War has ended, conservatives have tried to find a way back to focusing on American interests. It’s a delicate balance that has to be struck though. I think this is also the reason for the split in the Democratic Party. “Establishment” members are focused on preserving the neoliberal Bretton Woods status quo. The progressives are focused on doing away with the oligarchy that system has created and moving towards a more socialistic global society.

I would agree, to some extent, if Trump wasn't the Conservative candidate. Trump has flouted the law to the extent that very, very few American Presidents have. Where I was afraid that Obama was passing too many Executive Orders, Trump outright tried to rule by Executive Order fiat. Conservative parties pre-Bretton Woods were certainly isolationist and domestic-first, but also had a deep affection for the rule of law. I would oppose a traditionally conservative party politically, but would not be nearly as negative about it as I am about a President that seems to want to actively subvert rule of law.