23/11: Giving Thanks
Guest Blog
The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a...war of [significant] severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.
Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle, or the ship; the axe had enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years, with large increase of freedom.
No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.
It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and voice by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to...observe...a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.
A. Lincoln
The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a...war of [significant] severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.
Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle, or the ship; the axe had enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years, with large increase of freedom.
No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.
It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and voice by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to...observe...a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.
A. Lincoln
23/11: Happy Thanksgiving
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
Give thanks to God today, and not just in pious generalities, but in specifics.
For holiday cybertravel here is the official website of Plimoth Plantation which includes a virtual tour. And here is a copy of the Mayflower Compact. Here is Lincoln's Thanksgiving Day Proclamation. This site has presidential Thanksgiving Proclamations up to this year's by President Bush.
My earlier Thanksgiving Day post.
For holiday cybertravel here is the official website of Plimoth Plantation which includes a virtual tour. And here is a copy of the Mayflower Compact. Here is Lincoln's Thanksgiving Day Proclamation. This site has presidential Thanksgiving Proclamations up to this year's by President Bush.
My earlier Thanksgiving Day post.
22/11: Legalized Prostitution?
A few days ago, I summarized and linked to an argument by Joab on his blog in favor of legalization of marijuana and prostitution. I agreed with him on marijuana, arguing as a Christian citizen here.
Regarding prostitution. I understand the points Joab made regarding the continuing demand for prostitution, and that the social cost of prostitution being less if all states used the Nevada model. But, I have decided I cannot support legalized prostitution.
It seems to me that a bedrock belief of American culture is that each individual has a inherent dignity. (Yes, I know as well as you the history of how we have denied dignity top various groups, but, that has been/is being overcome through appeal to this core value.) The belief in intrinsic human dignity means that the human person never can be reduced simply to a commodity, without injustice being done. Even if one does this to oneself, it is still injustice to violate one's own intrinsic dignity and worth.
That means that I believe in limits to capitalism. The worth of workers must be respected. (I am pro-union as an ideal, and both pro and con in real life.) I also think it is to treat a human being merely as a commodity to allow the poor to sell one of their duplicate organs (say, a kidney) to the wealthy, or to allow a suicidal person to sell all organs.
Exchanging sex for money differs from exchanging your time and talents for money by doing accounting or picking up trash. There is an intimacy, a link to the deepest self, in sex. Selling sex is more like selling yourself than hiring out your time. It is to reduce yourself to a commodity.
I think legalized prostitution goes against a core value of our society. And, if you assert that this core value has religious roots and so should be banished from the public square, I will argue that you are making an illegitimate claim. Religion, considered as a system of beliefs, is indistinguishable from philosophy considered as a way of life.
Regarding prostitution. I understand the points Joab made regarding the continuing demand for prostitution, and that the social cost of prostitution being less if all states used the Nevada model. But, I have decided I cannot support legalized prostitution.
It seems to me that a bedrock belief of American culture is that each individual has a inherent dignity. (Yes, I know as well as you the history of how we have denied dignity top various groups, but, that has been/is being overcome through appeal to this core value.) The belief in intrinsic human dignity means that the human person never can be reduced simply to a commodity, without injustice being done. Even if one does this to oneself, it is still injustice to violate one's own intrinsic dignity and worth.
That means that I believe in limits to capitalism. The worth of workers must be respected. (I am pro-union as an ideal, and both pro and con in real life.) I also think it is to treat a human being merely as a commodity to allow the poor to sell one of their duplicate organs (say, a kidney) to the wealthy, or to allow a suicidal person to sell all organs.
Exchanging sex for money differs from exchanging your time and talents for money by doing accounting or picking up trash. There is an intimacy, a link to the deepest self, in sex. Selling sex is more like selling yourself than hiring out your time. It is to reduce yourself to a commodity.
I think legalized prostitution goes against a core value of our society. And, if you assert that this core value has religious roots and so should be banished from the public square, I will argue that you are making an illegitimate claim. Religion, considered as a system of beliefs, is indistinguishable from philosophy considered as a way of life.
22/11: The Foreign Policy Question
Several days ago I posted some material on US foreign policy from Tocqueville and A Waco Farmer here. Then I asked this question: "Question for discussion: In 2006/2007, should the United States follow the policy of George Washington as expressed by John Quincy Adams?"
Washington had called for the US not to get involved in the political/national struggles in Europe. JQA, writing in the context of the breaking-up of the Spanish Empire in Latin America wrote:
America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion only of her own. She will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assumed the colors and usurped the standards of freedom.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.
Since I posed the question: I suppose I should offer a few thoughts. (below)
Washington had called for the US not to get involved in the political/national struggles in Europe. JQA, writing in the context of the breaking-up of the Spanish Empire in Latin America wrote:
America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion only of her own. She will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assumed the colors and usurped the standards of freedom.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.
Since I posed the question: I suppose I should offer a few thoughts. (below)
21/11: Thanksgiving Day
Anybody out there who in elementary school put your hand on a piece of paper, traced around it, then colored in the Thanksgiving turkey? I thought so. Remember the construction paper Pilgrim hats, bonnets, and Indian headdresses we made and wore? Then we'd hear the story of the FIRST THANKSGIVING again: how the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, nearly starved to death, lost half their number, and were saved when local Indians brought them food and helped show them how to raise corn, etc. Then, in 1623 the feast of Thanksgiving, with red and white enjoying the bounty.
Like a lot of simple stories, this one is both false and true. The false part is that it was not the first Thanksgiving. The original landing party on the James River in what became Virginia had a Day of Thanksgiving in 1619, beating the Pilgrims to become the first Thanksgiving. But, the true part is that it was the tradition of the Pilgrims that spread throughout New England and eventually across the northern states observed on various days. In 1863 Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a national Day of Thanksgiving on the last Thursday in November. (FDR moved it forward a week to give a longer Christmas shopping season.)
(more below)
Like a lot of simple stories, this one is both false and true. The false part is that it was not the first Thanksgiving. The original landing party on the James River in what became Virginia had a Day of Thanksgiving in 1619, beating the Pilgrims to become the first Thanksgiving. But, the true part is that it was the tradition of the Pilgrims that spread throughout New England and eventually across the northern states observed on various days. In 1863 Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a national Day of Thanksgiving on the last Thursday in November. (FDR moved it forward a week to give a longer Christmas shopping season.)
(more below)
Recent reports and polls indicate that an increasing number of Americans and Europeans have a negative view of Islam. Part of the reason can be found below from this article. Found on Breitbart.com.
Six Muslims were removed from a plane after a passenger reported suspicious behavior. This is the Muslim reaction:
"They took us off the plane, humiliated us in a very disrespectful way," said Omar Shahin, of Phoenix.
The six Muslim scholars were returning from a conference in Minneapolis of the North American Imams Federation, said Shahin, president of the group. Five of them were from the Phoenix-Tempe area, while one was from Bakersfield, Calif., he said.
Three of them stood and said their normal evening prayers together on the plane, as 1.7 billion Muslims around the world do every day, Shahin said. He attributed any concerns by passengers or crew to ignorance about Islam.
"I never felt bad in my life like that," he said. "I never. Six imams. Six leaders in this country. Six scholars in handcuffs. It's terrible."
Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, expressed anger at the detentions.
"CAIR will be filing a complaint with relevant authorities in the morning over the treatment of the imams to determine whether the incident was caused by anti-Muslim hysteria by the passengers and/or the airline crew," Hooper said. "Because, unfortunately, this is a growing problem of singling out Muslims or people perceived to be Muslims at airports, and it's one that we've been addressing for some time."
Not a word about the legitimate fears Americans have about a group of Muslims on an airplane. Not a word reported of condemnation for the terrorists that kill in the name of Islam. Not a word, apparently, to their fellow passengers ahead of time that it was time for them to pray, but please do not worry. I would also suspect that there was no shaking of hands, introductions, and greeting of fellow passengers on boarding.
And CAIR. What a CROCK. If the IRA or the Aryan Nation begins bombings in the US, I will expect to be searched at airports (I am of Scots-Irish ancestory with fair skin, a rudy face, reddish-brown hair turning gray, and blue eyes). I will turn my anger toward my fellow white folks who are causing the problem. If CAIR expended as much energy at rooting out terrist sympathizers in U.S. mosques, we would have a more positive attitude toward Muslims.
Six Muslims were removed from a plane after a passenger reported suspicious behavior. This is the Muslim reaction:
"They took us off the plane, humiliated us in a very disrespectful way," said Omar Shahin, of Phoenix.
The six Muslim scholars were returning from a conference in Minneapolis of the North American Imams Federation, said Shahin, president of the group. Five of them were from the Phoenix-Tempe area, while one was from Bakersfield, Calif., he said.
Three of them stood and said their normal evening prayers together on the plane, as 1.7 billion Muslims around the world do every day, Shahin said. He attributed any concerns by passengers or crew to ignorance about Islam.
"I never felt bad in my life like that," he said. "I never. Six imams. Six leaders in this country. Six scholars in handcuffs. It's terrible."
Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, expressed anger at the detentions.
"CAIR will be filing a complaint with relevant authorities in the morning over the treatment of the imams to determine whether the incident was caused by anti-Muslim hysteria by the passengers and/or the airline crew," Hooper said. "Because, unfortunately, this is a growing problem of singling out Muslims or people perceived to be Muslims at airports, and it's one that we've been addressing for some time."
Not a word about the legitimate fears Americans have about a group of Muslims on an airplane. Not a word reported of condemnation for the terrorists that kill in the name of Islam. Not a word, apparently, to their fellow passengers ahead of time that it was time for them to pray, but please do not worry. I would also suspect that there was no shaking of hands, introductions, and greeting of fellow passengers on boarding.
And CAIR. What a CROCK. If the IRA or the Aryan Nation begins bombings in the US, I will expect to be searched at airports (I am of Scots-Irish ancestory with fair skin, a rudy face, reddish-brown hair turning gray, and blue eyes). I will turn my anger toward my fellow white folks who are causing the problem. If CAIR expended as much energy at rooting out terrist sympathizers in U.S. mosques, we would have a more positive attitude toward Muslims.
21/11: Going Big
From yesterday (Monday):
Tom Ricks in the Washington Post:
"Pentagon May Suggest Short-Term Buildup Leading to Iraq Exit:
"The Pentagon's closely guarded review of how to improve the situation in Iraq has outlined three basic options: Send in more troops, shrink the force but stay longer, or pull out, according to senior defense officials.
"Insiders have dubbed the options "Go Big," "Go Long" and "Go Home." The group conducting the review is likely to recommend a combination of a small, short-term increase in U.S. troops and a long-term commitment to stepped-up training and advising of Iraqi forces, the officials said."
Read the full story here.
Here is a review of my prediction from a few months ago. I am not sure if I stand by it today (and some of it is already flat wrong), but it may be a jumping off point for discussion:
Quoting myself from June 29:
"Recently, the word "timetable" has claimed center stage in any discussion of Iraq. Does the President have a timetable? YES. Although the WH denies a timetable, any serious reading of the situation in Iraq and Washington leads to only one conclusion:
"Iraq must be wrapped-up by January 20, 2009. The Bush brain trust is big on presidential history (especially that of Bush-41). They have taken great pains to avoid the missteps of the father, and they understand that unfinished business is risky business (for example: see Saddam and Somalia).
"Prediction: President Bush will not leave Iraq in the lurch. The coming congressional campaign season will see quiet progress on the civil side of things, which will allow for moderate draw-downs of US troops.
"Then, in the weeks and months after the election, President Bush and the USA will "get bloody." In a similar move to the assault on Fallujah in November of 2004 after the presidential election, I expect the President to make one final push for military supremacy in Iraq.
"The President is never going to face another American election. This is an advantage for him. His legacy depends on victory in Iraq. All he needs to do is win. On the other hand, President Bush's moment is drawing to a close. After the Congressional election, the remainder of his term will be measured in months.
"He must defeat the insurgency before they (the insurgents) come to view him as a lame duck. The USA may have won the war in Iraq with the re-election of President Bush in 2004. An insurgency is hard-pressed to wait-out an American president for four years. But if the USA does not deliver the knock-out punch early on in 2007, the insurgency will see a light at the end of the tunnel.
"What goes without saying, of course, is that no future president, Republican or Democrat, will be invested in this war like George Bush. No successor to Bush will feel the press of history in the same way that the President copes with that oppressive sense of urgency and necessity every day of his administration."
The post in full here.
Today's addendum: One thing that seems to have changed since then is the basic threat. Many observers see the insurgency as mostly under control but view the civil unrest and sectarian violence as the current insoluble problem. We'll see.
Tom Ricks in the Washington Post:
"Pentagon May Suggest Short-Term Buildup Leading to Iraq Exit:
"The Pentagon's closely guarded review of how to improve the situation in Iraq has outlined three basic options: Send in more troops, shrink the force but stay longer, or pull out, according to senior defense officials.
"Insiders have dubbed the options "Go Big," "Go Long" and "Go Home." The group conducting the review is likely to recommend a combination of a small, short-term increase in U.S. troops and a long-term commitment to stepped-up training and advising of Iraqi forces, the officials said."
Read the full story here.
Here is a review of my prediction from a few months ago. I am not sure if I stand by it today (and some of it is already flat wrong), but it may be a jumping off point for discussion:
Quoting myself from June 29:
"Recently, the word "timetable" has claimed center stage in any discussion of Iraq. Does the President have a timetable? YES. Although the WH denies a timetable, any serious reading of the situation in Iraq and Washington leads to only one conclusion:
"Iraq must be wrapped-up by January 20, 2009. The Bush brain trust is big on presidential history (especially that of Bush-41). They have taken great pains to avoid the missteps of the father, and they understand that unfinished business is risky business (for example: see Saddam and Somalia).
"Prediction: President Bush will not leave Iraq in the lurch. The coming congressional campaign season will see quiet progress on the civil side of things, which will allow for moderate draw-downs of US troops.
"Then, in the weeks and months after the election, President Bush and the USA will "get bloody." In a similar move to the assault on Fallujah in November of 2004 after the presidential election, I expect the President to make one final push for military supremacy in Iraq.
"The President is never going to face another American election. This is an advantage for him. His legacy depends on victory in Iraq. All he needs to do is win. On the other hand, President Bush's moment is drawing to a close. After the Congressional election, the remainder of his term will be measured in months.
"He must defeat the insurgency before they (the insurgents) come to view him as a lame duck. The USA may have won the war in Iraq with the re-election of President Bush in 2004. An insurgency is hard-pressed to wait-out an American president for four years. But if the USA does not deliver the knock-out punch early on in 2007, the insurgency will see a light at the end of the tunnel.
"What goes without saying, of course, is that no future president, Republican or Democrat, will be invested in this war like George Bush. No successor to Bush will feel the press of history in the same way that the President copes with that oppressive sense of urgency and necessity every day of his administration."
The post in full here.
Today's addendum: One thing that seems to have changed since then is the basic threat. Many observers see the insurgency as mostly under control but view the civil unrest and sectarian violence as the current insoluble problem. We'll see.
Over at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler is this post on the power of firearms training to curb violence. Very thoughtful. Recommended reading.
Category: American Culture
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
For Whom the Bell Tolls
by John Donne
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
As many of you know, a few years ago, Baylor University committed to moving up into the "elite" circle of American institutions of higher education. Many of us who loved and valued Baylor as it was, assumed that the transformation would entail a facelift and an increased commitment to research. We believed that an "improved" Baylor would continue to be what it had always been: a vital institution shaping the lives of Texans in a positive way; we believed that Baylor would continue to offer high standards in all facets of student life and a call to rigor and sacrifice in the name of human improvement and Christian obligation.
However, in its quest to woo the best scholars in the nation (as measured by GPAs and the LSAT), the law school may have succeeded in recruiting too many students who know it all already. The anonymous manifesto below comes from a group of unhappy law students, who posted this message on various blogs connected with the institution. What does John Donne have to do with this? My suspicion is that these sentiments are not unique. As a party invested in the future of American education, I read this particular declaration of independence, equality and hostility, and I worry that the bell tolls for all of us.
The Coyote Ugly Manifesto:
"I am really getting tired of the god-syndrome running around the Baylor Law school faculty. Teachers, you get paid to teach and that is all. You are not our parents, so please stop trying to give us life lessons. Frankly, most of us have been successful in our undergrad institutions and that is why we got to this "fine institution" where the "best belong." The faculty need to realize that we are the heart of this school not them. This school was created for the students not as a tool for the faculty to pick up outside consulting gigs...
by John Donne
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
As many of you know, a few years ago, Baylor University committed to moving up into the "elite" circle of American institutions of higher education. Many of us who loved and valued Baylor as it was, assumed that the transformation would entail a facelift and an increased commitment to research. We believed that an "improved" Baylor would continue to be what it had always been: a vital institution shaping the lives of Texans in a positive way; we believed that Baylor would continue to offer high standards in all facets of student life and a call to rigor and sacrifice in the name of human improvement and Christian obligation.
However, in its quest to woo the best scholars in the nation (as measured by GPAs and the LSAT), the law school may have succeeded in recruiting too many students who know it all already. The anonymous manifesto below comes from a group of unhappy law students, who posted this message on various blogs connected with the institution. What does John Donne have to do with this? My suspicion is that these sentiments are not unique. As a party invested in the future of American education, I read this particular declaration of independence, equality and hostility, and I worry that the bell tolls for all of us.
The Coyote Ugly Manifesto:
"I am really getting tired of the god-syndrome running around the Baylor Law school faculty. Teachers, you get paid to teach and that is all. You are not our parents, so please stop trying to give us life lessons. Frankly, most of us have been successful in our undergrad institutions and that is why we got to this "fine institution" where the "best belong." The faculty need to realize that we are the heart of this school not them. This school was created for the students not as a tool for the faculty to pick up outside consulting gigs...
Guest Blog
We are rising to a discussion regarding fundamental principles regarding American policy regarding international relations. This comment from "Tocqueville" appeared in the comments section of a previous post. It deserves featured consideration:
Tocqueville:
The Republican Party now presents itself as the party of Hard Wilsonianism, which is no more plausible than the original Soft Wilsonianism, which balkanized Central Europe with dire consequences. No one has ever thought Wilsonianism to be conservative, ignoring as it does the intractability of culture and people's high valuation of a modus vivendi. Wilsonianism derives from Locke and Rousseau in their belief in the fundamental goodness of mankind and hence in a convergence of interests.
George W. Bush has firmly situated himself in this tradition, as in his 2003 pronouncement, "The human heart desires the same good things everywhere on earth." Welcome to Iraq. Whereas realism counsels great prudence in complex cultural situations, Wilsonianism rushes optimistically ahead. Not every country is Denmark. The fighting in Iraq has gone on for nearly four years, and the ultimate result of "democratization" in that fractured nation remains very much in doubt, as does the long-range influence of the Iraq invasion on conditions in the Middle East as a whole. In general, Wilsonianism is a snare and a delusion as a guide to policy, and far from conservative.
Practically everywhere we look around the world, U.S. foreign policy is in a shambles. Long-sought objectives – stability in Iraq, peace between Israelis and Palestinians, the demise of terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, the spread of democracy in the Middle East and the former Soviet Union, the end of the North Korean nuclear weapons program, the end of the Iranian nuclear program – seem less attainable today than they have in many years.
Surveying the wreckage, the American public is frustrated, and fearful. This is not isolationism; the belief that the United States can wall itself off from the rest of the world is roundly, and rightly, scorned by people across the ideological spectrum. Rather, these “mind our own business” sentiments reveal a keen appreciation that even the most powerful nation in the world needs to be more discerning about where, when and how it chooses to deal with challenges to U.S. security and threats to U.S. interests. And yet, even as dissatisfaction with the current course of U.S. foreign policy mounts, Americans are confused as to the available alternatives that would allow the United States to remain engaged in the world. They seem prepared to spend money, and put American troops in harm’s way, when vital U.S. interests are at stake, but they balk at paying those costs, and incurring those risks, when they are not.
The godfathers of realism, men like Hans Morgenthau, Reinhold Niebuhr and George Kennan, would have been hard pressed to explain the logic behind the Bush Doctrine. Those realists still alive have likewise tried, and failed. It should be possible to assemble an alternative to the Bush Doctrine, one that draws adherents from both the political left and the political right, and all points in between, and that cannot therefore be dismissed by one side or the other as a political ploy.
This piece by Andrew Basevich is a useful start to help frame the discussion.
From the Cato Institute, this essay with more on the "Isolationism Canard."
--Tocqueville
We are rising to a discussion regarding fundamental principles regarding American policy regarding international relations. This comment from "Tocqueville" appeared in the comments section of a previous post. It deserves featured consideration:
Tocqueville:
The Republican Party now presents itself as the party of Hard Wilsonianism, which is no more plausible than the original Soft Wilsonianism, which balkanized Central Europe with dire consequences. No one has ever thought Wilsonianism to be conservative, ignoring as it does the intractability of culture and people's high valuation of a modus vivendi. Wilsonianism derives from Locke and Rousseau in their belief in the fundamental goodness of mankind and hence in a convergence of interests.
George W. Bush has firmly situated himself in this tradition, as in his 2003 pronouncement, "The human heart desires the same good things everywhere on earth." Welcome to Iraq. Whereas realism counsels great prudence in complex cultural situations, Wilsonianism rushes optimistically ahead. Not every country is Denmark. The fighting in Iraq has gone on for nearly four years, and the ultimate result of "democratization" in that fractured nation remains very much in doubt, as does the long-range influence of the Iraq invasion on conditions in the Middle East as a whole. In general, Wilsonianism is a snare and a delusion as a guide to policy, and far from conservative.
Practically everywhere we look around the world, U.S. foreign policy is in a shambles. Long-sought objectives – stability in Iraq, peace between Israelis and Palestinians, the demise of terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, the spread of democracy in the Middle East and the former Soviet Union, the end of the North Korean nuclear weapons program, the end of the Iranian nuclear program – seem less attainable today than they have in many years.
Surveying the wreckage, the American public is frustrated, and fearful. This is not isolationism; the belief that the United States can wall itself off from the rest of the world is roundly, and rightly, scorned by people across the ideological spectrum. Rather, these “mind our own business” sentiments reveal a keen appreciation that even the most powerful nation in the world needs to be more discerning about where, when and how it chooses to deal with challenges to U.S. security and threats to U.S. interests. And yet, even as dissatisfaction with the current course of U.S. foreign policy mounts, Americans are confused as to the available alternatives that would allow the United States to remain engaged in the world. They seem prepared to spend money, and put American troops in harm’s way, when vital U.S. interests are at stake, but they balk at paying those costs, and incurring those risks, when they are not.
The godfathers of realism, men like Hans Morgenthau, Reinhold Niebuhr and George Kennan, would have been hard pressed to explain the logic behind the Bush Doctrine. Those realists still alive have likewise tried, and failed. It should be possible to assemble an alternative to the Bush Doctrine, one that draws adherents from both the political left and the political right, and all points in between, and that cannot therefore be dismissed by one side or the other as a political ploy.
This piece by Andrew Basevich is a useful start to help frame the discussion.
From the Cato Institute, this essay with more on the "Isolationism Canard."
--Tocqueville
