The role the United States plays on the world stage has helped define us as a nation for more than 200 years. It has also often divided us.

Every president starting with George Washington had to deal with various American factions whose loyalties and financial interests lay in different parts of the world.

President Donald Trump has sometimes advanced policies that limit the United States’ cooperation in international pacts and involvement in multi-nation programs. While his rhetoric is less about isolationism than about “America First” ideology, the president’s overall record exposes a lack of coherence regarding U.S. foreign policy.

“I honor the right of every nation in this room to pursue its own customs, beliefs, and traditions,” Trump said in a speech at the United Nations last September. “The United States will not tell you how to live or work or worship. We only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.”

But the president’s preaching doesn’t square with his practices when it comes to Iran, a bad actor internationally and foe of the United States for about 40 years. A consortium of nations, including the United States, worked for years to stop Iran’s development as a nuclear threat. The multi-nation approach included severe economic sanctions and other measures that eventually produced an agreement in 2015 to stop Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.

Trump withdrew the United States from that pact. As he did so, he began to threaten and punish the nations still in it – not just Iran, but also France, Great Britain and Germany.

Does that sound like a president who respects the sovereignty of other nations?

The same sort of inconsistency marks U.S. policy regarding Venezuela. Once a stalwart friend of the United States, the nation became an aggravation with the election of Hugo Chavez in 1999. His socialist policies were fueled by money from oil assets, which bought him support at home even as his boorish insults and treatment of business interests upset much of the world. He died in 2013 and was replaced by Nicolas Maduro. When oil prices collapsed in 2014, the resulting economic crisis underscored the weakness of Venezuela’s economy, creating extraordinary hardship for residents. To hold on to power, Maduro started jailing opponents, delaying elections and doing whatever else was necessary.

Trump is now hinting at war with Venezuela.

At the same time, the Trump administration rationalizes and supports leaders of Saudi Arabia and North Korea. Both offer records of oppression and misconduct rivaling Iran and Venezuela.

And while the Trump administration views Chinese technology and cyber-espionage as risks to U.S. security, it continues to misconstrue and deny similar behavior on the part of Russia. Namely, Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, which has been documented and explained by multiple federal agencies.

And it’s not just U.S. policy where inconsistencies are obvious. The behavior of individual Trump associates also highlights the issue. It’s doubtful that any president’s entourage has included so many anti-globalists lining their pockets with foreign money.

Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani, for example, worked for Colombia, Brazil and other foreign entities.

Trump’s campaign manager Paul Manafort lobbied on behalf of Ukraine and pro-Russian entities, earning more than $60 million.

Former White House adviser Steve Bannon is working to organize and promote nationalist politics and candidates in Europe.

White House adviser Jared Kushner and his family have a long record of using their political ties to leverage money from foreign entities.

And Michael Flynn, who was a national security adviser for Trump, worked on behalf of Turkey.

That’s just a sampling. In some cases, not only did these advisers and officials exploit their positions to advance the causes of foreign companies and governments, but they failed to follow the law.

Many Republicans bash Bill and Hillary Clinton for using their public positions to leverage money internationally, enriching themselves and their nonprofit organizations. But the Clintons have nothing on the Trump crowd, which shamelessly and brazenly mixes their business interests with U.S. policy interests.

You can call that kind behavior a lot of things, but anti-globalist it is not.

This year’s graduates are enjoying a healthy economy, a growing job market and rising wages.

The vestiges of the hard and deep recession that hit more than 10 years ago are finally fading into history. That means most graduates will have a smoother start to their careers than those who went before them.

Still, most of those earning diplomas this year will find that their work and their life will not go as planned. More than a few surprises – some good, some bad – await them on the road ahead. Here’s advice I picked up from colleagues, family and friends that aided me along uncertain paths.

It’s not about you

We live in the Selfie Age. Everywhere, everyone seems intent on feeling special and admired – or at least the focus of attention.

But if you’re looking to make a difference instead of a splash, the best course of action is put others first. Consider what they need, rather than what you need. Figure out what can you do for your boss, your colleagues and your customers.

I’m not suggesting that you become a doormat or a yes-man. I am suggesting that you can accomplish a lot more if you focus on what you can do for others, rather than what they can do for you.

Pick your yardstick carefully

In measuring success, most of us think about how much money we make.

Having enough to pay the bills is important, but it shouldn’t be how you define your worth or your contribution to society.

After all, a college football coach in this country can make about a hundred times more than the doctors who have done the most to slow and halt the plague of AIDS. Similar glaring disparities will often mar your view of the world.

It worthwhile to draw attention to how wacky such socioeconomic values are, but it’s counterproductive to apply them to our own lives.

Be accountable

In virtually every job I had, nothing irked me more than colleagues, bosses or subordinates who made sure they got credit for every victory, award or achievement, but who ducked responsibility for any problem.

All of us make mistakes. We misjudge, we make assumptions, we misunderstand. The ways in which we can go wrong are numerous. True, we need to continually work on ways to reduce our mistakes. But that doesn’t mean denying them.

Blaming others for problems of our own making, or for which we share responsibility, is dishonest and a shabby show of selfishness.

Rely on hard work, not luck

You might win the lottery. But it’s not smart to count on winning it to pay next month’s rent.

Through life, you will see many people get ahead through connections, family wealth and lucky breaks. Some will even have the audacity to belittle you for not being as successful as they have been.

You can’t discount the fact that some people get lucky, but you can’t count on luck to do the same for you. The key is to focus less on how unfairly riches and luck are distributed through the world, and more on the opportunities that exist for people with determination, diligence and discipline.

Hard work doesn’t always pay off, but the odds are far better than relying on luck.

Live the Golden Rule

Treat every person you encounter the way you would want to be treated: with dignity and respect.

Live the rule every day. On the job, at home and all the other places life takes you.

Never stop learning

If they ever existed, the days when you could learn a craft and then make a living with that knowledge are gone forever.

Virtually every profession and job – regardless of pay – now requires that we keep learning as we go. It’s not just technology that is continually remaking our jobs, but also our expanding universe of knowledge, whether it’s better understanding our galaxy or learning more about microbes that inhabit our body.

Most of us, understandably, resist change. And not all change is good. But only if we keep learning can we not only adapt to an ever-changing world, but perhaps do a little to shape it into a better place.

 

One of the big issues in 2020 will be socialism. At least that’s what many politicians are hoping.

Debate about social programs and the role of government in the economy could be instructive, but only if there are fact-based discussions about the benefits and disadvantages of different economic models.

So far, that isn’t the case. Rather, it’s as if we’re watching a cheesy horror movie and are expected to gasp in fear as Republicans warn that socialism will destroy our way of life.

“Are we going to turn this into a socialist country?” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell asked recently. “Don’t assume it cannot happen. It will all be in the hands, I think, of the voters of this country next year.”

In a different setting, but on the same topic, McConnell said he would play the role of the “grim reaper.” He vowed he would kill all socialist proposals that come before the U.S. Senate.

At his campaign rallies, President Donald Trump shouts the same warnings about socialism, which are echoed by his supporters from coast to coast. Even red states such as Indiana, we are warned, are living in peril.

“The socialist wave we warned was coming is here,” NRA lobbyist Chris Cox told those at an NRA convention in Indianapolis. “And it’s not just the two coasts that are underwater, the wave is hitting the heartland of America. …”

So, with that in mind, let’s consider the proposal of Medicare for All. Different Democrats and socialist candidates have varying proposals about providing universal health care. Some would allow Americans to buy into the system that manages Medicare. Others would create a single-payer system that covers everyone with a Medicare-like system.

Republicans brand these ideas as socialist.

If that’s the case, then isn’t the current Medicare system socialist? And was it socialist for the Republican Senate, Republican House and Republican president to support expansion of Medicare benefits to cover prescription drugs in 2003?

Do Republicans think some socialism is good? Or that socialism is good for some parts of society, but not others?

In an op-ed for Yes magazine, Robert Reich argues that the real purveyors and beneficiaries of socialism are the wealthy who get richer with government contracts, subsidies and laws that protect their status.

He notes that about 60 percent of American wealth is inherited. And he notes that laws – such as those for bankruptcy – allow the wealthy to shield themselves from their own bad decisions.

“To the conservative mind, the specter of socialism conjures up a society in which no one is held accountable, and no one has to work for what they receive,” Reich writes. “Yet, that’s exactly the society Trump and the Republicans are promoting for the rich.”

Reich was secretary of labor in President Bill Clinton’s administration. That was in the 1990s, when the economy performed markedly better than now. (Despite Trump’s claims.)

In the current discussions of socialism, many liberals point to Scandinavian nations as examples. But many conservatives claim those nations aren’t socialist, and they point to Venezuela instead.

Such arguments are more political than academic. Reputable economists agree that most successful economies use a mix of capitalism and socialism.

Pure free enterprise, without socialist regulations, would mean no Social Security, no food safety rules, no laws regarding what people or companies could dump in your drinking water, no public parks, and no right to an education. Religious and racial discrimination would be allowed.

Pure socialism, without any capitalism, would mean that we all act for the collective good – all the time. That means no privately owned property, no opportunity to choose your own career and no financial incentive to be good at it. It also would likely mean fewer choices regarding what we eat, where we live, what we wear and what we do for fun or cultural enrichment.

It’s useful to have discussions about what role government should play in our economy and our lives. But voters should be wary of politicians who resort to scare tactics. Candidates who use fear to manipulate the public are much scarier than any socialist.