The establishment's weak argument against Trump demanding that NATO allies pay what they promised

Kurt Schlichter:

...
Look at NATO. The entire foreign policy establishment is scandalized that Trump says he expects the Europeans to cover their fair share of the NATO nut. Now a normal American is going to think “Yeah, I think they ought to pay their share of their own defense. Sounds reasonable.” But the establishment collectively wets itself – “HE’S DESTROYING THIS ESSENTIAL ALLIANCE BY ASKING THE PEOPLE BENEFITING FROM IT MOST TO ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE IN IT!”

And the Normals (many of whom, like me, actually served in NATO) wonder, “Well, if it’s so essential, why aren’t the allies eager to pay for it?” And the establishment responds, “SHUT UP, RUSSIAN STOOGE! ASKING THE ALLIES TO MAKE NATO MORE EFFECTIVE BY PAYING WHAT THEY PROMISED, WHICH IS STILL A FRACTION OF WHAT THE U.S. PAYS, IS PLAYING RIGHT INTO PUTIN’S HANDS. ALSO, THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE SOMEHOW.”

Okay, as an expert on arguments, I must observe that this is a losing argument. Now, I’m not relying on my expertise gained from a quarter century of convincing juries to go my way to say that. I don’t need to. I’m relying on the fact I have actually met normal Americans. This is such a facially idiotic argument that only someone in the establishment could talk himself into believing it.

Here’s a test. Leave DC or New York, drive a few hours out to America, find a random guy on the street and ask, “Hey, don’t you think it’s awful that Trump wants our allies to increase their contributions to their own defense to just about half of what the U.S. pays?” You can safely assume he’ll respond, “Wait, why only half?”
...

It is interesting how the foreign policy elites think a blunt statement of the truth is so scary.  It seems more likely that NATO will be stronger if Trump can get the Europeans to live up to their commitments.