"The Original Foreign Policy" by Ron Paul

[lew]

It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world.

~ George Washington

Last week I wrote about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive.

But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests, while not threatening our freedoms at home?

I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.

Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.” Washington similarly urged that we must, “Act for ourselves and not for others,” by forming an “American character wholly free of foreign attachments.”

Yet how many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many claim to admire Jefferson and Washington, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, “times have changed,” and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today’s government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?

It’s hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today’s more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.

It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image.




This man should run for President.

[Ardentfrost]

he did run for prez in 1988 under the libertarian ticket

[lew]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

he did run for prez in 1988 under the libertarian ticket

He ran a few times.



He should run under the Republican ticket for '08.

[motivez]

I agree with him in part and disagree in part. I don't think an entirely hands off approach is really practical in today's world.

I think interventionism is wrong on many levels, but certain situations call for it. If we want to be a global leader (and maybe he doesn't think we should be), we have to be willing to actually lead the rest of the world in causes that are just.. stopping genocide, trying to broker peace deals, etc..

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by motivez

I agree with him in part and disagree in part. I don't think an entirely hands off approach is really practical in today's world.

I think interventionism is wrong on many levels, but certain situations call for it. If we want to be a global leader (and maybe he doesn't think we should be), we have to be willing to actually lead the rest of the world in causes that are just.. stopping genocide, trying to broker peace deals, etc..

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

It’s hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today.

pwnt, haha

[motivez]

I hardly think stopping genocide, attempting to broker peace deals, etc, is a 'convenient rationale', but rather prime examples of the good we can do as a global leader.

That doesn't mean we have to get involved in every situation, but it doesn't mean we should sit on our hands and watch millions of people die needlessly, or not help to fight disease, etc..

I also think his argument is a bit of a straw man, as in, if you disagree with one thing Franklin or Washington said, it means you don't respect or admire them, or it means you disagree with everything they've ever said..

I'm perfectly fine with agreeing in part and disagreeing in part. There's no rule that adopting aspects of a philosophy means you have to adopt it all.

[lew]

Originally Posted by motivez

I hardly think stopping genocide, attempting to broker peace deals, etc, is a 'convenient rationale', but rather prime examples of the good we can do as a global leader.

That doesn't mean we have to get involved in every situation, but it doesn't mean we should sit on our hands and watch millions of people die needlessly, or not help to fight disease, etc..

The problem is, who defines what "good" needs to be done? Bush would define that it is our moral duty to democratize Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and a hundred other countries.

[Ardentfrost]

I don't think he said we should NOT help stop genocide... but in what way SHOULD we get involved? As for peace deals, those have been a major downfall in the past 50 years (eg., Vietnam).

And what does the term "Global Leader" mean anyway? Despite what you may think about the UN, there is no global government. How can you lead countries without a government? The only way I can think of is through your own personal diplomacy. For example, if we had a good relationship (like, trade and shit) with the Sudanese government, perhaps we could actually be helping the Darfur problems. But instead, by putting ourselves on some "we rule the world" type of pedestal, a lot of the world just thinks we're jerks who force ourselves into their business.

[motivez]

lew, that is a problem, but ultimately it's up to the people to make their wishes known. Unfortunately it's not a perfect society where everyone follows the news and knows everything about everything, so it's just about best judgement.

I think Iraq is a different situation though, as it was presented to us as an impending threat to the nation and we had to stop them before it was too late. We didn't enter into Iraq to stop genocide or mass killings or anything humanitarian related until after the threat was proven to be false, and then the reasoning is changed.

Ardent, I don't know what way is best tbh, but I don't think sitting on our hands is the way to go about it. Using diplomacy and our relationship with nations to broker peace deals is different than getting militarily involved. Vietnam wasn't brokering a peace deal, it was the domino theory.

Global Leader means that as a nation we take the lead in many things, whether it's research or helping to end poverty, fight diseases, stopping genocide, yadda yadda.. The UN doesn't have to be a "world government" for nations to come together and agree on certain courses of action.

I think the bottom line is that the founders had a lot of great ideas about a lot of things. I'm pretty sure at least one or two of them advocated ripping up the constitution and starting anew every once in awhile, so how does Ron Paul feel about that?

The bottom line is that the world has changed in ways they couldn't possibly conceive of, the world is a much smaller place than it was when they were around. The world they were viewing simply doesn't exist anymore, so clinging to their world view on certain issues is, IMO, foolish, somewhat naive, and not practical.

That doesn't mean all of their ideas are outdated, or that I can't agree with much of what they say (as Ron Paul suggested) on other issues.

[Diesel66]

How long can we be a safe nation with a vibrant economy if the entire world is under the control of fascist nations or our merchandise is being attacked by pirates ?

[lew]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

How long can we be a safe nation with a vibrant economy if the entire world is under the control of fascist nations or our merchandise is being attacked by pirates ?

That's a horrible straw man.


And if our merchandise is being attacked by pirates.....then we kill, imprison, prosecute, etc them.

[Ardentfrost]

Yah, protecting us from pirates is one of the things congress is supposed to be in charge of

[lew]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Yah, protecting us from pirates is one of the things congress is supposed to be in charge of

It's one of only about a dozen or so things the Federal Government is ACTUALLY authorized to do!

[Ardentfrost]

motivez, I don't buy that the world has changed in as many respects as people like to say. Nuclear weapons, I'll give you that one. But there was plenty of famine and shit in the world 200 years ago, so our gov't directly helping that out is something we're doing that they didn't want to happen (of course, we, as citizens, can help all we want).

As for genocide, I'm not sure what kind of help you're wanting to give. Our gov't does jack in a lot of cases of genocide... we helped in WW2, but it wasn't specifically to help the Jews (well, unless you buy into the FDR conspiracy).

As for starving nations, our charities do far more worldwide than our gov't.

I'm not sure EXACTLY what you think is needed.

[motivez]

The world being smaller, instant communication, the internet, nuclear weapons, how fast travel is, there's a ton of stuff that has honestly erased the world they knew.

People and their ideas are in large part formed by the environment they exist in, and if things were as they are today I would be willing to bet they would feel different on many issues.

I don't know what exactly is needed, I just don't think isolationism is a good thing in today's world.. and despite what he says, he is advocating an isolationist policy. I'm against interventionism in a lot of cases, but I don't think that means it should never be done.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by lew

That's a horrible straw man.


And if our merchandise is being attacked by pirates.....then we kill, imprison, prosecute, etc them.

Foreign ship comes from China or the Middle East with freight that we depend on. If we defend that ship, we are no longer an isolationist nation.

[Ardentfrost]

Look, dude, you're going to have to give REASONS (reasonable reasons) why today's communicative abilities change things. Why does the internet mean we should try to kill rulers of other countries we do not like? Why does it mean we should try to overthrow countries?

That's the shit he's talking about! Isolationism includes cutting off free trade, and if you know ANYTHING about Ron Paul you know that he is for completely free trade. So either you don't understand some key terms, or the ideas presented.

Whichever it is, the things you mention do not change the fact that we can be diplomatic without getting involved. 100% of our interventionist tactics since WW2 has had backlash that has hurt us in some way (some more than others)

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Foreign ship comes from China or the Middle East with freight that we depend on. If we defend that ship, we are no longer an isolationist nation.

omfg... look:

isolationism bad

interventionism bad

diplomacy good

trade good

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

I agree with him in part and disagree in part. I don't think an entirely hands off approach is really practical in today's world.

I think interventionism is wrong on many levels, but certain situations call for it. If we want to be a global leader (and maybe he doesn't think we should be), we have to be willing to actually lead the rest of the world in causes that are just.. stopping genocide, trying to broker peace deals, etc..

Hands off is hands off. Are we going to play "pick and choose" with the lives of American soldiers? If we cannot have "intervention" in our National Interest (selfish Imperialism) then why should we have it to sacrafice our men and women just to solve other peoples problems? If our soldiers don't work for the interests of elected government they sure don't work for political activist either.

[Diesel66]