It's not. What you quote doesn't claim that it is, either.
The federal government has (at least in theory) limitations imposed by the Constitution. Within those limitations, though, it can operate on any theory of foreign policy that it wants, including that of "core interests".
If the country’s “core interests” can be defined and redefined based on the whimsy and preference of the current administration, then for the Trump administration to suggest that a certain thing will “always” be in the core interests of the country is ridiculous. The next administration will have their own core interests. Also, what a waste of resources that is.
> The next administration will have their own core interests.
This is sort of the whole point of elections. The government's core interests are not static. When the article says "always", it's from the frame of reference of the current administration, and it's pretty standard for whoever is the current administration to speak as if their stance has always been correct and will always be correct.
The framing here is that "America" always holds these things to be true, and any past discrepancy from that was due to bad leadership. This writing style isn't unique to today's administration, you can find examples from basically any government across history.
> America will always have core interests in ensuring that... and that Israel remain secure.
I don't remember that being part of the Constitution.
Expand on your point, lest you simply appear to be lazily coasting on mildly popular sentiment, without effect.
He's quoting TFA... If that's "coasting on mildly popular sentiment" then the least you can do is accuse the proper party.
It's not. What you quote doesn't claim that it is, either.
The federal government has (at least in theory) limitations imposed by the Constitution. Within those limitations, though, it can operate on any theory of foreign policy that it wants, including that of "core interests".
If the country’s “core interests” can be defined and redefined based on the whimsy and preference of the current administration, then for the Trump administration to suggest that a certain thing will “always” be in the core interests of the country is ridiculous. The next administration will have their own core interests. Also, what a waste of resources that is.
> The next administration will have their own core interests.
This is sort of the whole point of elections. The government's core interests are not static. When the article says "always", it's from the frame of reference of the current administration, and it's pretty standard for whoever is the current administration to speak as if their stance has always been correct and will always be correct.
The framing here is that "America" always holds these things to be true, and any past discrepancy from that was due to bad leadership. This writing style isn't unique to today's administration, you can find examples from basically any government across history.
I’m gonna do something really corny now but you led me right into it.
We were “always” at war with Eastasia
I don't think it's corny so much as correctly noting the commentary in a work of political fiction.