While awaiting an available attendent at the Optometrist, I contemplated John's latest post. As is my tendency when considering issues of politics, I don't concentrate on the issue presented, but on the more general beliefs behind it. So I was drawn to consider the various aspects of foreign policy in general and "world-policing" in particular. I don't have a well-written essay presenting my ideas on this issue, all I have are questions.
My inclination is to be an isolationist and not be involved with any other countries. Total isolationism would inhibit freedom, however, in the area of trade. So, perhaps we can allow for free trade. What of helping other countries in need or defending helpless people against cruel dictators? When are we to interfere? Who are we to help? What if two groups are fighting and both want our help and helping either results in oppression? I know that John will have good reasons for foreign policy and I'm looking forward to hearing them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Good question, and important! I'm sure this could be the basis of a larger paper, but it's late, and I'm tired. You caught me with the question at an interesting time, since I just picked up Winston Churchill's first installment of his history of World War II, The Gathering Storm, after I bought the second installment, Their Finest Hour, at our local used book sale.
First, in a world growing ever smaller due to improvements in communication and transportation technology, complete isolation is simply impossible. Too many other nations have the ability and enough thought of profit to interfere in our affairs; that was the way of nations even when Around The World In Eighty Days was hundreds of years from reaching the presses.
In the second place, isolationism is an unworthy ideal for two reasons. The first is that it makes us unable or unwilling to deal with threats to our sovereignty and our security before they become dangerous. This is precisely what happened to America, Britain, and France before World War II. We have paid dearly too often in the past for thinking no one would want to hurt a people only interested in their own affairs. As an example, an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and a cessation of support to Israel would not bring us peace from the threats of Islamist aggressors; Middle Eastern culture is such that a withdrawal is seen as weakness, and that weakness will be exploited. One can expect no quarter from an enemy who labels you The Great Satan. There are always irrationally belligerent nations, and such must be dealt with.
The second reason isolationism is a poor ideal is the absence of good that a powerful, good nation such as ours can work in the world. Thanks to the efforts of the U.S. Government, millions around the world receive aid every day. Thirty-eight thousand of our troops protect South Korea from North Korean aggression and subjugation. Our missiles and troops in Europe helped keep the Soviet shadow off of millions of Europeans. Our retaliatory conquests of Japan and Germany transformed those great nations from militaristic, despotic societies into modern liberal democracies. With power comes resonsibility--cliche, but true. The ability to do good brings the responsibility to do good.
Hope this was an adequate answer! I think I wrote a bit more than I intended; if the time says I posted it at 10 PM, bear in mind that that is Pacific Daylight Time, not Eastern.
Oh Johnny (meant as a term of endearment, not belittlement),
Why are you on Pacific time??
And a second thought, which requires a great deal more time and elaboration on my part, though I welcome thoughts in the mean time:
To the best that I understand your use of the term "good" as in "a powerful, good nation such as ours", I disagree with it. I think my disagreement comes with the difference between political good and absolute good (or maybe I should say the biblical concept of good). Has the United States helped a lot of nations in political ways? Yes, without doubt. Have we also caused a great deal of harm to other nations? Yes, without a doubt.
Ask your questions, make your threats, and allow discussion to continue. I now run off to work, excited to be involved in dialog.
Thanks for the comment, Remy, a very good contribution.
It is very true that not all of America's actions throughout her history have had positive consequences. Much ill-feeling toward the U.S. exists in Latin America because of our manipulations of their governments during the administrations of Theodore Roosevelt and other presidents long ago; the unprovoked invasion of Mexico by President Polk didn't help anything, either.
On the other hand, we are very definitely the best around. No other country on the planet is quite as humanitarian in its policies, quite as honest and unselfish in its diplomatic dealings, quite as heroic in standing against oppression and slavery. Europe is not only one of the most spiritually dead places on the earth, but their foreign policies have been duplicitous, self-interested, and often downright scandalous for years. Their high tariffs help a great deal to prevent any agricultural base from forming in Africa, and close economic ties with outspokenly aggressive Muslim nations go far to arm murderous enemies.
The Muslim world, steeped in hatred of Jews, Christians, and Hindus, is riding a wave of vicious jihad whose like has not been seen for hundreds of years. They stone women merely for being raped, they intentionally, barbarously attack women and children, and they send out their missionaries to teach others to do the same.
The inhabitants of Africa are too busy killing and, sometimes, eating each other to devote any thought or resources to the accomplishment of good.
The Latin American world supports ruthless dictator after ruthless dictator, hoping to find a friend of the poor, finding always instead someone more interested in pillaging the rich, and in Venezuela, even the middle class.
Alone of nearly all countries, we send billions in aid to other nations every year to feed those poor and starving because of wars of conquest and religion, because of repressive policies. Alone of nearly all countries, we send out missionaries to minister not only to the physical but also the spiritual needs of those living in poverty and hopelessness. Alone of nearly all countries, we have shown a willingness to expend our blood and treasure for a lasting peace and freedom for others.
Even when our country makes a mistake or commits a sin, as all countries do, it is our right and duty as citizens of a democratic republic to criticize those actions and the people who take them. It is outside the bounds of propriety and decency, however, to denounce or to attack the nation itself. It is our job not to cast blame for the actions of the past, but to ensure that those mistakes are not repeated, and that is our privilege as citizens of a democracy.
We must also remember that what constitutes virtuous action for a government is not the same as that for an individual. It is characteristic of a virtuous individual to give money to help the poor, because what he gives is his own; when the government gives money, it does not give its own possessions, but the possessions of others. Government charity is never given from a motive of mercy, but by government politicians as a mass bribe for reelection. Putting such a tool in the hands of elected officials is a serious mistake. Government is also expressly given by God the power of the sword (Romans 13), which individuals are not.
Post a Comment