Let's get into foreign policy, and why I think the smart and conservative answer to radical Islam starts with bringing our troops home.
If there's one thing that troubles me the most about today's conservative movement, it would be blind-faith in the politicians ability to make decisions as serious as waging war and limiting our freedoms. And I find the mantra that Bush "saved us," as dangerously messianic as today's Obama worship.
Yeah, maybe I'm old school. But as a conservative, I say "let no more be heard of confidence in man."
While many modern writers consider the birth of the conservative movement as taking place in the 1950's, it really stretches back to the early 1900's, when the progressive movement was gaining steam. One of the new progressive-era changes in government was the adoption of Woodrow Wilson's messianic vision of "our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment."
In other words, progressives were the one's who advocated policing the world and nation-building.
Conservatives from the beginning of the century up to Goldwater, championed America First Foreign Policy. Progressives (liberals) on the other hand, wanted to spread democracy across the planet via war and nation-building. Conservatives opposed WWI, WWII, the draft, the UN, you name it ... conservatives didn't want the government getting involved! Anti-war is our conservative heritage.
America First Foreign Policy
America First Foreign Policy begins in the belief that the United States is a civil society that operates under the rule of law, not that of collective determination expressed through government power. In other words, America consists of 300+ million individuals, not one giant hive.
Foremost among the principles that guided Taft’s foreign policy was a strong faith in the exceptionalism of America and its people. Although he was educated at Yale and Harvard, Taft’s belief in basic American values was one that he shared with most Midwesterners of his time, particularly those of his native Cincinnati. Like them, he was convinced that the United States was based on certain noble ideas that placed the nation far above the rest of the world. Of these ideas, individual liberty was for him the most important; indeed, he proclaimed early and often that the "principal purpose of the foreign policy of the United States is to maintain the liberty of our people." He held that there were three fundamental requirements for the maintenance of such liberty-an economic system based on free enterprise, a political system based on democracy, and national independence and sovereignty. All three, he feared, might be destroyed in a war, or even by extensive preparations for war. - Principles Without Program: Senator Robert A. Taft and American Foreign Policy
Under an America First Foreign Policy, we would trade freely with all nations provided the commerce was mutually beneficial, but would not force anything. The government wouldn't protect private interests in foreign lands, nor would it place sanctions on the peoples of another country. Sanctions hurt people, not governments, and free trade has done more to free individuals across the planet than nation-building ever will.
We aren't nosy neighbors. In other words, we avoid entanglements in the political affairs of other countries, as well as their wars with other nations. For example, we would have never built military bases in Saudi Arabia in the first place. Why? Because we don't get into bed with tyranny. We trade, shake hands, and leave.
We would continue to have the most powerful military in the world. While it's true we'd keep our troops out of other nations, we wouldn't hesitate to strike with absolute force if necessary. For example, Rep. Ron Paul (R) advocates an America First Foreign Policy, and he was in favor of our initial invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11.
There would be no United Nations. Instead, nations would agree to specific law which would govern only the relations between themselves. No country would have veto power. All countries would be treated equally. And disputes would be determined by an independent tribunal based solely on law. In other words, the antithesis of the United Nations.
The United States would no longer need to seek the approval of other countries. We could always act in our best interests, and because of increased trade, we'd have a stronger, more prosperous economy. The financial burden "owed" by the American taxpayer to the State would be greatly reduced too, thus improving the economy even more.
Isolationist!
As you can see, America First Foreign Policy hardly "isolates" us from anyone. On the contrary, it increases trade! The label "isolationist" came from FDR and his supporters, not from the realm of reality. Just think about it. Would you consider yourself an isolationist for not telling your neighbor how to raise his kids?
War concentrates power. Always has, always will. Power corrupts. Yes, even in the United States, the government has committed horrible atrocities against our fellow Americans. Famous psychologist Carl Jung calls it the shadow. Everyone and every institution has a dark side, and pretending otherwise doesn't absolve anything.
The true patriot (in my view) is loyal to the American Creed, not any government, including our own!
[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
There's no loyalty to government. The government is but a golden calf. Who's loyal to a golden calf?
What does war accomplish? WWI and WWII gave birth to all sorts of dictators and tyrants, Viet Nam ended in the slaughter of millions, and the American taxpayer has forked over his earnings to rebuild half the globe! And what do we have to show for it?
A Maoist in the White House, a tyrannical United Nations, and an increasingly fascist (and broke) United States (and broker American taxpayer).
Liberty is the antithesis of force, therefore force cannot produce liberty. Just as the American taxpayer shouldn't be forced to pay for his neighbors medical expenses, he shouldn't be forced to pay for the defense of far-away lands!
I'm sorry, but if European countries don't have the resources to pay for their own national defense, all I can say is they better give capitalism a try. If they don't like freedom, then let them live under a dictator. "Spreading democracy" is a progressive idea. It's not born of liberty. America isn't even a democracy!
Both the war in Iraq and the war Afghanistan are based on this progressive idea to spread democracy. The reality is that it's just another method of transferring wealth to the "less fortunate" countries (which is all of them). European may have so-called "free" health care, but they can't afford to defend themselves. So the American taxpayer gets stuck with the bill, and the American soldier is forced to give them their life.
That's not freedom.
Think about it ... After 8 long years of war and thousands of additional American lives lost, all we have to show for it is 2 al Queda attacks on our home soil within the past month. If you think that's "protecting" America, you're sadly mistaken. Read the American Creed again please, because THAT's America!
Obviously, the PATRIOT Act does nothing to defend America either.
This post just scratches the surface of America First Foreign Policy, but I think it's a good start. We'll get into it deeper as Mike from The Western Experience and I explore both sides of our current foreign policy.
Response: Anti-War Right: Conservative or Libertarian?
[...] of the Classical Liberal blog staked his position rather eloquently. The Conservative Liberal-While many modern writers consider the birth of the [...]
Great one CL. You caused me to think at things from a different angle, which is always a good thing.
Great post!
All that with no mention of Ron Paul.
What concerns me is the notion that, irrespective of our desire to disengage, we might be sucked, as a result of globalization, into all manner of entanglements.
Thanks! Yes, globalization. I’ll be writing about that soon in my exchange with Mike.