With that speech Ronald Reagan addressed a nation on the dangers and disparagement of isolationism, quoting Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury under George Washington and United States’ Founding Father, who also abhorred isolationism who once said, “A nation, which can prefer disgrace to danger, is prepared for a master.”
United States mired in a quicksand of spiraling debt and unemployment
These recent years of economic upheaval have rendered the United States mired in a quicksand of spiraling debt and unemployment, the likes of which many of the citizenry have never witnessed. By the winter of 2008, America witnessed the implosion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two of the largest Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). These collapses were due in part to the ruinous actions and cover-ups by members of the 110th Congress, a Democrat-controlled Congress wherein prominent legislators such as Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Frank and Dodd exacerbated years of corruption at the notorious GSEs through further cover-ups of their own (Obama having recently come under investigation for being the recipient of huge campaign donations from the GSEs as then-Senator Obama).
Years of corruption, mismanagement, and pure thievery not only precipitated the collapse of Freddie and Fannie, but the domino effect launched by the GSEs’ demise triggered the implosion of Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, AIG, as well as Washington Mutual, followed by consumer “runs” on money market funds, and the eventual, inevitable catastrophic worst week ever for the stock market. In short, the unadulterated corruption leveled upon the public by the progressive Liberals (only just today beginning to be realized as the Obama administration continues its cover up attempts while processing measures to eliminate Freddie and Fannie in the wake of the current investigation) very nearly buried the United States financially for generations to come.
It should therefore come as no surprise to anyone that the nation’s coffers are desperately depleted. Combining Democrat-induced bail-outs of every major industry from housing, to lending, to banking, to the automotive sector with trillions of dollars in socialism-inspired “stimulus” spending as well as money printing and borrowing from red China until the nation now faces a fourteen trillion dollar deficit ~ not to mention OBAMACARE ~ has resulted in a United States of America that now more closely resembles a Carter wet dream than a Ronald Reagan city on a hill. And through it all, no thanks to the Obama isolationism/“we’re only as exceptional as Greece” tour (launched with the return of the Churchill bust, which not only insulted America’s longest-standing ally, but also jabbed a finger in the eye of Israel), the United States has, somehow, managed to not be attacked here on domestic soil.
“Neo-isolationists”. Preaching the sermon of “we’re far too broke to continue spending militarily
And now: enter the “Neo-isolationists”. Preaching the sermon of “we’re far too broke to continue spending militarily”, they line up at the podium in tandem. As if the Barbary Pirates, as well as every enemy of morality ~ morality being the fundamental foundation upon which America was established ~ somehow exist only in fairy tales. Never mind the fact that it was the progressive Liberals who lied to the citizenry; swearing before Congress and the national television audience that the nation’s largest housing entities were “doing just fine”. Never mind that the man now sitting in the Oval Office ~ not just isolating America from our allies, but likewise inviting fundamentalist terrorists (as well as all the other once “forgotten” enemies to our way of life) to attack us via appeasement ~ drove the United States (and continues to do so daily) to the brink of bankruptcy. And NOT via military spending!
No, the United States is not going broke or inviting attacks on domestic soil because of military spending. Obama (the once Senator who accepted millions in donations from Freddie and Fannie while those GSEs were driving towards the death of the American economy) has called for “discretionary program terminations and reductions” for 2011. Of the cuts, which Obama justified by saying, “We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits do not matter and waste is not our problem”, EIGHTY PERCENT will be absorbed by the Department of Defense. As Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia succinctly stated, the defense cuts send “a very clear signal that this administration is not going to be as forceful on national security issues as the previous administration. I think that’s pretty clear.”
Recent articles, such as one recently published in the Boston Globe and again in the Dallas Morning News point to “Neo-isolationists” such as MIT Political Science professor Barry R. Posen who posit that America’s defense budget (the article uses the descriptor “colossal”) has led to American ruin and decline. Where would such isolationists have the nation return to? The “colossal” failures of the Carter administration? Should America return to the first apology tour? Carter, in keeping with Ford’s tradition, pardoned military deserters, which continued a trend that deeply divided the nation and offended veterans of a war that had already scarred a citizenry and military.
Carter additionally crippled the morale as well as the strength of the United States military through scrapping plans to modernize an aging fleet of bombers, slashing the navy’s budget for shipbuilding programs, and flip-flopping on efforts to gain ground on the Soviets so he could see “how the Soviets would behave”. Carter’s inactions, ineptitude, as well as lack of commitment to military spending and support directly led to the buildup of Soviet forces and military might as well as the disastrous Islamic Revolution in Iran. Isolationism as Carter practiced it, born from a Vietnam-induced hangover that politicians and layman alike would have done well to find a cure for, did far more to lead to American ruin and decline than any post-Carter military buildup has yet to result in.
Thomas Jefferson, Barbary Pirates
And what of the calls from these same “Neo-isolationists” for a large slice of “foreign-policy-humble-pie”? Boston University historian Andrew Bacevich claims that American politics reflect an addiction to military intervention. Perhaps Bacevich could do with a history lesson. This country’s 3rd president, Thomas Jefferson, having been part of a Revolution to free a nation from the bonds of tyranny that had held the colonists captive under a King’s rule, faced a daunting challenge immediately upon the United States’ gaining of independence in the Treaty of 1783.
Prior to that declaration, Americans had been protected from the perils of the Barbary Pirates in the Mediterranean Sea. British, followed by French military vessels at sea, protected American ships in the region off of the coast of Morocco prior to American independence via not only might, but also tributes paid to the pirates in exchange for smooth sailing in the district. As long as these tributes (better known as ransoms) were routinely paid, American merchant ships were free to come and go.
Once independence was gained, however, the Muslim pirates of North Africa turned to attacking the Americans at sea. Thomas Jefferson, in keeping with the concepts of humility and long-established peace through tributes in the region, worked with the American Congress to appropriate $80,000 for the pirates and set sail to begin negotiations with the Muslims. Considering the Congressional payments as a sign of weakness, the Algerian pirates, however, increased their attacks upon the Americans, demanded more in tributes, and began murdering ship captains and taking colonists as prisoners.
These payments of tributes, Thomas Jefferson would demand of Congress, would never satisfy the pirates, and the continued wasting of appropriations would further aggravate the citizenry far worse than spending the monies more wisely on the building of military vessels with which to properly deal with the enemy in his own territory. The Barbary Wars would be one of this nation’s first foreign battles fought with an enemy that lured the United States into battle even after Congress had attempted valiantly to appease the enemy. There can be no greater example of “humble-pie-foreign-affairs” gone astray than the historical facts of the Islamic Barbary Pirates.
America, as the example of freedom for the world to see, has attracted enemies since the dawn of its time. She does not sail into the foreign waters seeking trouble with those who seek her demise. No proof of that sentiment is greater than the fact of World War II. If America had been so driven to conquer the world, if America was such the imperialistic nation that the isolationists paint her to be, she would have taken over the planet at the conclusion of the Second World War. The globe was devastated, and only one nation was left intact; standing taller than all others: The United States.
Did we seek world dominance? No. The United States, in all her humility, raised the rest of the world up. We even rebuilt the cities of our enemies; rather than subjecting them to imperialistic dominance, the American people helped the world heal. Indeed, the humble pie has been quite well served at the table of America, in contrast to what the “Neo-isolationists” would have the current generation believe.
Neo-isolationist, Israel
Furthermore, just what precisely IS a “Neo-isolationist”? Digging deeper into their rationale, one finds many motivating factors driving the modern isolationist: some of those having been already discussed. Then there are those, ever increasing in their ranks, who look to Israel as their raison d’être; claiming that the American government spends a disproportionate amount of its foreign aid on this all important ally. And while this cynical, bigoted position is understandably offensive to Jews and the Judeo-Christian citizenry of this nation alike, it should be likewise disturbing to Constitutional Conservatives who hold the values of the Founding Fathers sacred.
John Adams, America’s 2nd president thought of the Hebrew race, “The Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations.”
Likewise, George Washington, a man who decried isolationism, evidenced by his statement when he told those gathered to listen to his Farewell Speech, “…for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements…” considered the Jewish race of utmost importance to America, “May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”
The Founders set a course for this nation. A course that marries the Unites States and Israel as no two other nations not of native tongue could possibly be. “Neo-Isolationists” declaring their motivation as being the support of Israel by the United States smacks of a deep rooted cynicism requiring far more introspection by those positing the position than by anyone on the opposing side.
So, if military investment, “foreign-policy-humble-pie”, and relations with Israel are all smoke screens for the true agenda driving the “Neo-isolationists”, what then could be the real cause? What is it that has drawn individuals like Posen to the ranks of the “Neos”, who admittedly in the 1990s considered isolationists at complete odds with his own philosophies? Why is Bacevich REALLY such a “Neo-isolationist”?
The truth may be more personal ~ and therefore less related to politics and policy ~ than meets the eye. You see, some of the “Neos” have lost loved ones ~ and far worse yet: children ~ in these wars, which America has been embroiled with, over the past decade.
“Neo-Isolationists” are humans, too. They’ve lost their loved ones. This may be the noblest driving motivator behind their mission. But this motivation ~ as evidenced by the fact that 15 years ago many of the “Neo-Isolationists” were on the opposite side of the aisle ~ is grief driven. No less important, no less valiant due to its being such, the fact remains: lives are lost in the pursuit of freedom. Foregoing the safety and sanctity of ones entire country, as well as the freedoms of millions of people, upon the death of a child who fought in the name of those very people’s lives and freedom is an act of selfishness that does no honor to the child or family member lost who bravely stood in harm’s way.
Isolationism is not why our brave men and women, indeed our own children and loved ones enlist in a free military.
Our military calls to the brave and the free; it is a call to duty that only those who would fight for the freedom of others can hear.
And we as Americans hear and answer that call more than any other people on the planet.
It is our duty, indeed our calling, as the world’s keeper of truth and freedom, to respect the dreams, hopes, ambitions and desires of not only those who have gone before us, but likewise those who are awaiting our rejoining with them.
Isolationism is not the answer; it is the plight of ruined souls.
