Foreign Policy

[chasingsophia]

Caution: Thinking out loud ahead.

So for a long time I've had a bit of a sourness growing in my gut over United States foreign policy. I still can't put my finger on it, or say that I subscribe to one view or another, but as I was watching the news about the latest U.S. citizen beheaded in Saudi Arabia, I thought out loud, it's like, somewhere along the line, we decided to put our foot in the door, and now it's too late to change our minds. We shouldn't have put it there in the first place, but we can't just pull it out.

A piece of the puzzle for me, too, is something I heard on the radio while in Des Moines on business. There's a talk show guy who was talking about the Federalist papers, and about how Abraham Lincoln, having defeated the Confederacy, basically redefined the term "federal government." It seems like prior to that, nationalism wasn't even an option: The United States were more like a group of united States than one national U.S.A.

So THAT got me thinking about the whole states' rights ball of wax, and about how I still support the federal government's action in denying southern states the right to protect slavery as a social and economic institution.

But there is a piece of ideological "high ground" conceeded there, because the founders of the U.S. never intended the Federal government to have the kind of all-powerful control that it now wields over the States. So I guess I have to decide whether or not I think Lincoln fixed something that was broken.

My overarching view of government is that it is an institution God has established to restrain evil, be it a kingdom or a representative democracy. Now, when a government, say, Alabama, wants to protect an evil like slavery, does another government have the right to step in and force Alabama to change? Remember, the founders never meant the Federal government to hold the States accountable for anything except a few bare minimum responsibilities to the Union. Even the armed forces were volunteer: each state sent a number of troops, troops who remained categorically belonging to their respective states.

A couple implications are dangling just out of my reach. It seems like if I support President Lincoln's invasion of the southern States and forced compliance with national policies like Emancipation (and I do), I ought really have little trouble with American foreign policy since then. All the international furor over invading "sovereign nation-states," if applied to the American Civil War, seems very ridiculous, unless the lives and freedom of Iraqi men are of less value than the lives of southern slaves.

Still, there's something here which doesn't quite feel right. I think that maybe a change has taken place, where Lincoln may have invaded the southern States to free a group of people in bondage, it seems like most foreign policy through the 1900's was aimed at extending U.S. power through the world, or developing ways for Americans to profit most in business, or gaining access to less expensive energy sources, and now that we're the most powerful, it's like we're committed to the task.

I still think that invading Iraq was right, given the current state of affairs, but wonder if Lincoln's new America gave birth to something he didn't forsee (but maybe should have).

[img]eek.gif[/img]

Yikes.

What do you think?

[robkemp]

my friend joe, check out this book at the liberary some time "the clash of civilizations and the remaking of the world order" by samuel huntington. it is an interesting book, unfortuantely not excepted in political theory circles. the situation w/ iraq is different than the south, the south was never a soverign state, but a group attempting to suceed from the union, so the issue is more comparable to russia and chechnenia than u.s and iraq. also while the founders never intended the federal gov. to weld so much power they did sign the bill of rights which cemented basic rights of all citizens. it was these rights that the south ignored in there treatment of slaves. not only the south but the entire union, for the north treated african americans w/ just as much contempt as the south. to add some spice to the war in iraq, national geographic last's issue was about 'the end of cheap oil', they basically say that the u.s. consumes 25% of the worlds oil and has only 5% of the worlds population. with the rise of industry in china, their consumption of oil, which has been relatively low, has sky rocketed and will continue to do so. therefore oil prices will continue to rise. now, it is not secret that the u.s. and middle east don't see eye to eye, but the leaders of the middle east have to listen to us because we line their pockets and keep them filthy rich. if china becomes the middle east biggest buyer of oil, the middle east can just give us the finger if they want, this results in the necessity for us to have a u.s. friendly gov. in the middle east, aka iraq. now i don't know if i agree w/ all i just wrote, even though it came out of my own head, but unfortuantely it makes sense and it makes even more sense because of our past actions in the world which have been made to safe guard our own finicial interests.

[robkemp]

hey ya'all here is a website dealing with the consitution and other federal documents that is very helpful and very easy to read and use.
http://www.usconstitution.net/

[chasingsophia]

Anybody going to see Farenheit 9/11?

[derwen]

Hm., I can't say that I'll be seeing "Farenheit 9/11," simply because I don't care for Michael Moore or his politics. I saw "Bowling for Columbine," but I didn't see him come to any conclusions--just more problems--some of which I can understand.

It seems that his movies (or "Bowling for Columbine" anyway) are full of complaints, but no real suggestions for action. Not: "What can we do better," but "Here's how the president is wrong, etc., etc." Given some of the content of his latest movie, I hope the MPAA decides to keep it at an R rating.

[iamang77]

Thanks for the insight, Joe. I had never thought before about how much Lincoln and the results of the Civil War may have had an impact on our current federal gov't. Very interesting. Most of us American kids were brought up to assume the Civil War was necessary and ended just as it should have. Given, I agree with you that slavery had to end... but yes, I think you're probably right that the Civil War set a precedent for the national government gaining a bigger role and influence over the States. That is sometimes good and sometimes bad, I guess.

Sorry I didn't have any new insight for this discussion. Just a "Hmm, you made me think."

[iamang77]

By the way... is my icon distracting?

[Rrose Selavy]

I do intend to see F 9/11. I didn't rent Bowling For Columbine until after the famous Oscar's speech, but I would have liked to have been able to know what people were up in arms (HA!) about.

An interesting thing about BFC was that I came to a very different conclusion than Moore based on his evidence. I feel that the gun control issue still comes down to personal responsibility, and that we the people have failed (again) in keeping our society a civil society.

I am curious to find out if my conclusions will again be different than Moore's in his new docuganda.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ June 24, 2004 12:56 PM: Message edited by: JJVW ]</font>

[chasingsophia]

Wha... what was that, Ang? I was, uh, kinda... nevermind. No, not distracting.

I prob'ly won't see F-9/11. I mean, hey, I know what I'm going to get, and I know that I just disagree with Moore (www.michaelmoore.com). Roger and Me was really good, though.

[chasingsophia]

Really good review of the movie:

Unfairenheit 9/11