You may say, “but this isn’t our foreign policy is it?” Let President Bush answer that question: "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” This may seem harmless, but is it? To understand this policy you have to be familiar with an idea called “the democratic peace theory.” This has gained popularity in recent years, but has no historical support. What it claims, in a nutshell, is that democracy is inherently peaceful, and that democracies do not fight other democracies. Therefore, the theory states, if you make all nations in the world a democracy, there will be world peace. The basis for invading Iraq was built on this theory. The belief was that if we could establish a democracy in Iraq that Iraq would become an instant friend to all Western Democracies, and moreover, that democracy would spread throughout the rest of the Middle East. Not have we seen so much utopian fervor in an ideology since Marxist socialism’s claim that socialism would lead to world peace. Unfortunately, as with all utopian ideas, they always work better on paper than they do once placed up against the natural forces of history, culture, religion, and human nature. And unfortunately, like other utopian ideals of its kind, it takes far more violence to bring about the utopia than is experienced in the absence of the utopia itself.
Some have falsely branded the Bush foreign policy as “conservative”. However, the policy, in truth, is the antithesis of conservatism. As a conservative, the very comparison makes my skin crawl.
I don’t believe that that President Obama will continue the Bush Administration’s neo-conservative experiment. After all, he did vote against the invasion of Iraq. However, I don’t believe he did so on a healthy skepticism of state-building. President Obama falls in line more with the Clinton police state model for America—that our role as a nation is basically to be the muscle behind the UN. This is equally as foolhardy as the Bush team policy. I truly hope that President Obama doesn’t fall into this category, but with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, herself quite hawkish, it seems very likely.
What should our foreign policy look like then? Former Conservative Senator Robert Taft, who almost beat Eisenhower for the 1952 Republican Nomination, gave a very great prescription in his 1951 book “A Foreign Policy for Americans”.
“War should never be undertaken or seriously risked except to protect American liberty. Our traditional policy of neutrality and non-interference with other nations was based on the principle that this policy was the best way to avoid disputes with other nations and to maintain the liberty of this country without war...Nor do I believe we can justify war by our natural desire to bring freedom to others throughout the world, although it is perfectly proper to encourage and promote freedom."
Yes, it is proper to encourage and promote freedom abroad, but as Taft is saying here, we can and should do that without getting involved in foreign conflicts. In fact, that is part of what it means to be John Winthrop’s “Shining City on the Hill.” We should always be the first to promote freedom, but we should not do so with the sword.
Don't be mistaken. I'm not advocating of policy where we never go to war. What I am advocating is that we use all available means so as to make war our last option. The world is a chessboard, and America must always endeavor to be the Queen. We do this by having the best military in the world, by having a shrewd President and foreign policy team, exercising skilled diplomacy, and by using our economy strategically. The key is to projecting a temperament that says to the world “Don’t tread on me.” This is the thought that I will close on.
Among some of our early revolutionary flags was one that had a snake in the center on a yellow background and which read, “Don’t Tread on Me.” This flag was an adaption from Benjamin Franklin’s wood carving of a snake cut into eight pieces representing eight early colonies. Benjamin Franklin later described in an essay what he believed to be the representative significance of the snake.
“I recollected that her eye excelled in brightness, that of any other animal, and that she has no eye-lids—She may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance.—She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage.—As if anxious to prevent all pretentions of quarrelling with her, the weapons with which nature has furnished her, she conceals in the roof of her mouth, so that, to those who are unacquainted with her, she appears to be a most defenceless animal; and even when those weapons are shewn and extended for her defence, they appear weak and contemptible; but their wounds however small, are decisive and fatal:—Conscious of this, she never wounds till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her.—Was I wrong, Sir, in thinking this a strong picture of the temper and conduct of America?” –Benjamin Franklin-
5 comments:
ok, I've got you're bloggings in my google reader, so now i'm watching you. Sounds like life is pretty good for you right now - except for the whole Obama thing, huh?
Just to play devil's advocate (and I'm neither pro the bush or clinton FP style), wouldn't you say that absolute neutrality unless provoked is an antiquated notion for a country with so much power? With great power comes great responsibility, so by the fact that our country has it aren't we obliged to use it for the good of the entire world? How can we reasonably maintain neutrality in the face of glaring atrocities and not act when we have the power to do so? Just because the people don't reside in our arbitrary boundaries does that make them less worthy of basic human rites that we could provide?
ohhh YEAH
Okay, I wish to respectfully respond. First, I don’t advocate “absolute neutrality.” In fact, I don’t advocate “absolute” anything. Absolutes are neither prudent nor practical. My views are in line with what President Washington’s proscribed in his farewell address where he warned of “foreign entanglements” and “permanent alliances.” This policy does not suggest that we never get involved in anything. From time to time our national interests or even our conscience may draw us into a conflict. However, under the Washingtonian ideal, such situations are to be the anomaly not the norm.
Second, the whole “with great power comes great responsibility” argument that I hear so much is baseless. Each nation is in charge of its own destiny. Each nation must account to its own people and to its own maker. America's greatest responsibility is to its own Republic. If we trace the steps of other great Republics before ours, it was when those republics sought to spread beyond its own borders that their republic was lost. Which brings me to my next point. Our borders are not "arbitrary." They are sacred; and what lies between them is more precious than all the riches of all the the other nations of the world.
Lastly, no one need preach to America about human rights. We invented them—by which I mean we were the first to popularize and promote them—to write them into a binding constitution. Moreover, no other nation has done so much for human rights. Without America, Hitler’s Germany would have ushered in the third reich and Stalin’s Russia would have ushered in the new world order. America has done more than its duty abroad; But when we are facing the possibility of loosing our own rights at home we must cease from persisting to spread them abroad. We will no longer be able to be "the shining city on a hill" if the city is crumbling at the foundation.
Obama is Woodrow Wilson:
White, Ivy League, Foreign Policy-crazed, and executive-power worshipping. I don't have much hope (especially after his pledge to have the white house control the administration of the census in 2010).
Post a Comment