Early this November The country was shaken with the results of the presidential election. Now three  fortnights from the fact much is being done to transition into the next presidency.    

For a social issue that has become very important after Trump’s election, is the issue of foreign policy. This is mostly about what Trump has done and said and his choices for the Cabinet positions that will advise him on foreign policy and have power in deciding foreign policy.

Donald Trump ran on a platform that had two different major planks. He opposed the War in Iraq and Middle Eastern conflicts. However, he also promised to be a strong leader, and not let other countries browbeat the United States. Concerns came about the possibility of war or conflict or of Trump breaking his campaign promises after his election. There are two major sides worrying about the major issues that a Trump presidency and Trump’s actions may bring or have brought. However, the split here between the two sides is not all a conservative and liberal split. It’s also not just Trump supporters against Hillary supporters. Many conservatives who are more libertarian worry about the actions. It is more a question about hawk and dove ideals for the balance of war and peace than it is conservative or liberal. It could also be seen as a conflict between ideas about foreign policy.

These splitting issues are mostly seen at the higher levels. Among the people it is similar, though. One good example of this is John Bolton. John Bolton was tapped by Donald Trump as a front-runner for Secretary of State. This made a major controversy, and both sides argued differently. An example of how this social issue has made a split is Republican Rand Paul who supported Trump. He disagreed with Bolton and that policy. Politico reported that he said ““He should get nowhere close to the State Department if anybody with a sane worldview is in charge,” (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/rand-paul-john-bolton-232477). On the other side there is a different opinion. The National Review editorial board endorsed John Bolton.  They took a very different opinion on him. Quoted as saying: “In short, John Bolton is an ideal pick, and his appointment would be a sign that the Trump administration intends to get off to a strong start.”(http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442150/john-bolton-secretary-state) Newsweek also reported differently, but on the negative. An article was published on the reasons why John Bolton would not be a good secretary of state. They reported “. Bolton was a primary cheerleader of the Iraq War and stands for everything Americans rejected about the Bush administration’s foreign policy.”(http://www.newsweek.com/five-reasons-john-bolton-unfit-be-secretary-state-526356)

This major split is more about just one appointment. People on a broad level are either worried or excited about what will happen with the new Trump administration in office. Like Newsweek said many worry about something like the Iraq War happening again. Others like the idea of a stronger foreign policy or a more aggressive one. They believe that this strength is needed to “Make America Great Again.”

With the President having major power over negotiations by both themself and the Secretary of State and being Commander-in-Chief, the issue is not a small one that will just go away. The election made a situation in which the leader of the free world is going to be a different person. There are two major sides, one is worried about possible aggression and intervention, and the other sees strength as important and sees opportunity. The election has brought both of them out and they will probably continue to be major parts once the new Presidency is started.Mia Bonds