Foreign Policy

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?

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.

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/

Anybody going to see Farenheit 9/11?

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.

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."

By the way... is my icon distracting?

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>

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.

Really good review of the movie:

Unfairenheit 9/11

More back to topic:

Very interesting, Joe, and I hadn't thought much about it until I started watching "Gods and Generals" again the other night. Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, et al. were more dedicated to their own states rather than to the Union as a whole. Am I more dedicated to Missouri, and am I willing to defend it at all costs from any invader, foreign or domestic?

A rather interesting question that the invasion of the South during the Civil War certainly changed how the States are in view of the Federal gov't. If you were to ask me, do I think the states have more power than the federal gov't, I'd of course say no. But did they at one point? Was the United States that George Washington, et al. envisioned the same United States we have today? Certainly not.

Very interesting nonetheless

Yeah, state loyalty has changed. I think it's a little obnoxious whenever, at party national conventions, each elector starts with "From the great state of...." It's something that's just kinda lost on me.

Changing gears, I'll ask a question:

What is your foreign policy?

Actually the US Civil War can be viewed as a 2nd Constitutional Convention. One of the biggest stumbling blocks to the original convention was the issue of slavery, and more specifically did the "federal" government have the authority to dictate to the states on the issue. In order to get around the impasse the issue was loosely left up to the individual states to decide. As the nation became more and more divided the slave holding states became ever more disassociated with national feeling and felt the feds were over stepping their authority. This ofcourse led to the Civil War. Lincoln's ONLY objective, as stated by himself repeatedly during the course of the war, was to restore the Union as a whole. He personally detested slavery but initialy had no intention of abolishing it. It was a political move to keep European nations out of the conflict that finally forced his hand in freeing the slaves. After the war ended and slavery was no longer an issue the issue of state's rights took a back seat and was no longer discussed on the national stage. Any politician who tried was accused of being a "bloody shirt" ie warmonger and that was also a term applied in general to Democrats during the Radical reconstruction years. It wasn't until WWI that the federal government assumed more power and then during FDR's tenure of office and his many social programs did the federal government assume the proportions we know it by today. It continued to grow as a result of WWII, the Cold War and then from JFK's vision and LBJ's enactment of his Great Society. Ronald Reagan was swept into office iin 1980 in part with a promise to get "big government off the people's backs" and today we see the federal government become larger and more intrusive than ever.

Thanks for the political history reminder, Cagliostro (interesting choice of a name, by the way). I had lost sight of Lincoln's prime objective (restoration of the Union) and his main driving factor in Emancipation (ironically: foreign politics).

You call the Civil War a "2nd Constitutional Convention." It strikes me, that at the first, a vision for the U.S. was finally adopted by all by the means of persuasion and argument, whereas the interpretation of that consensus was fought over with guns, and the winner got to have his interpretation of the Constitution become the law.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ July 01, 2004 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Mastedon Farm ]</font>

Forgive my rambling, but I'm not trying to organize anything here-- just get everything in my head down before this page expires...

Anyhow, I'd like to remind everybody to do a gut check on their gut feelings, and try to establish why you feel the way you do. You say you've had a abd feeling over recent US foreign policy joe-- my personal belief is that this is exactly what the folks in the mass media biz want you to think. You almost never see anything good on tv or in print regarding US policy, so it doesn't surprise me at all that you have a sourness over the topic. I've on occasion felt the same way.

That said, let me ask this-- How united would the united states be were the state governments dominant? IN some sense I think the idea of unity involves collective submission to a common authority. Unfortunately, I believe that this common authority the the states in the union submit to is being corrupted and is in a state of decay. To some extent, I consider this a natural result of the US gov.t being in the hands of men, as anything that remains in mans' hands will be corrupted. (Take the catholic church, for example. Inquisitions, anyone?)

I find it unfortunate that we are at conflict with our brothers in the flesh around the world, but the reality of human nature dictates that force be used on occasion. More unfortunately, practical considerations limit the amount of intelligence that can be passed on to me, so I am not able to make judgement calls on actions that are carried out in the name of my nation; I am relegated to trusting those in authority to make decisions in these matters on my behalf.

More later. Gotta sleep.

onemore thought I forgot to add-- We are instructed that "if someone slaps you on one cheek, turn the other cheek to him, that he may slap it also." not "if someone cuts off one arm, turn the other to him, that he may sever it also."

I'm not entirely convinced, but I suspect that admonitions to endure persecution for Christ's sake do not necessarily scale to the national level.

I was reading that early on (during the late 1700s) the name of this country was spelled: the united States. The "united" almost seemed an afterthought? It certainly isn't now the way it was once envisioned.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Switzerland a very loose confederation of Cantons, but not really a very united nation, and Italy for a very long time wasn't the Italy we know it today, but a loose collection of states?

I wonder if a country the size of the current United States would survived with the states having more authority than the Federal government itself? It might have when there were only 13 of them, but with 50, and the current size of our country, would it even be possible?

I heard something interesting this weekend.

I heard someone pray that God would enable President Bush to rule justly.

It struck me: was the office of president *ever* considered a position of "ruling?" Isn't ruling what kings do?

Regarding the media: man, I don't know. I could watch Fox News all day and still probably come away thinking that we're in trouble.

The other thing that's informing my sour gut is something I've heard Rush Limbaugh say many times: oil is the fuel of freedom. His point is always that the freedom of Americans to do what we want depends on having cheap oil. At first I thought he was kidding (he's been hammering that line for a year and a half or so, so it wasn't just an isolated comment) -- my freedom DEPENDS on my having access to cheap oil??? But no joke from "el Rushbo;" he means exactly that, and "whether we like it or not, that's the way it is."

[sigh] I don't know. But stepping back, I know that the U.S. has made it policy in the past 100 years to "promote" governments and governors around the world who are "friendly" to U.S. interests (e.g., the School of the Americas). This goes so contrary to how I try to live my life: Be me, if Canada or North Korea or the Netherlands like me, cool, we can work together; if they don't like me, mind my own business, and of course defend myself when attacked (unless it's for Christ's Kingdom, but as you pointed out, Aristarchus, that's a different matter completely - I'm not a pacifist). No riding and wrangling to install Joe-friendly regimes so that I can get cheaper ice cream (mmm... moosetracks).

Derwen,
The reverse question might be asked: can this bohemoth of a national government survive? And wouldn't things like health care and food programs and social security (beginning with the for-the-sake-of-the-argument premise that these programs must exist at all) be better handled in small batches, by the states, or even further down the ladder to the county or city levels?

Interesting about the Swiss: that might explain why they're always "neutral" in wars and stuff. mmm... cheese and chocolate.

You guys rule. Yes, all of you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Mastedon Farm:
[sigh] I don't know. But stepping back, I know that the U.S. has made it policy in the past 100 years to "promote" governments and governors around the world who are "friendly" to U.S. interests (e.g., the School of the Americas). This goes so contrary to how I try to live my life: Be me, if Canada or North Korea or the Netherlands like me, cool, we can work together; if they don't like me, mind my own business, and of course defend myself when attacked ... No riding and wrangling to install Joe-friendly regimes so that I can get cheaper ice cream (mmm... moosetracks).

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well said, Joe. I know there are people out there (Pat Buchanan, namely) who wish that the U.S. were more of an isolationist nation like Switzerland. I know the idea was around there during the World Wars, and during WWII, I don't know if we would have gotten involved if it hadn't been for Pearl Harbor. (Or that's what I hear, anyway).

Cheap gas is nice, but should we be the world's police officer taking down bad regimes and setting up ones that like us? ...?

Sometimes I wish we had a more isolationist stance toward the world, but is it possible when you're the largest (in terms of money), most powerful nation in the world? Would it be possible for us to reverse course and to stay out of world affairs? Probably not. It's something to hope for, perhaps.

I was thinking about the "I" word when I wrote that, and I guess I'd try to draw a distinction between being willing to fight agressive nations (like Germany in WWII) who invade and harass my neighbors with guns [big breath] AND fighting hostile nations for economic gain. Note my distinction between aggressive and hostile.

I just thought of something: someone might charge me there with apathy for the Jews' sufferings had Hitler merely contented himself with their torture and not invaded others. But doesn't it seem that aggregious human rights atrocities are committed by nations who invariably turn on other nations? Germany: first the Jews, then the Poles. Iraq: smoke the Kurds, then head for Kuwait. Egypt: torture dissidents and Christians, then set a bead on Israel.

Because eventually, bullies get tired of picking on their younger brothers and start taking the neighbor kid's milk money.

[img]graemlins/sleepy.gif[/img] &lt; Is that guy sneezing???

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ July 06, 2004 11:34 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Mastedon Farm ]</font>

warning- sleep deprived, shotgun-style comments and questions ahead...

Regarding Limbaugh's point regarding oil dependence. It's not so much a question of cheap ice cream, but of infrastructure and mode of operation. Virtually every item in our lives has spent time on a semi trailer-- oil for diesel fuel. The majority of us live beyond human-powered distance from our jobs-- oil required to get to work. We use electricity like a 7th grader eats pixie sticks-- oil drives the trins that feed the power plants, and the transmission line maintenance vehicles. Beyond that, many of our states are larger than most european nations. the unfortunate fact is that that the american way of life is indeed energy dependant--our jobs, our freedom of movement, our food, pretty much everything in our lives is oil-driven at some point...

Another interesting thought is, if al-quaida succeeds in knocking the US back to the 6th century as they so badly want to do, what does that do to the balance of power in the world? While I agree that it isn't "nice" to be a dominant nation, what are the alternatives? Human nature dictates that there will always be a top dog, and there will always be middle and bottom dogs. What other nation would you like to see on top of the world? Egypt? the netherlands? france? Brazil? I'm no fan of modern american culture by any means, but in comparison to what the rest of the world has to offer, we've still got a good thing going here. Granted, this good is being pissed away by people (primarily on the coasts) who want everybody to sing kum-ba-yah, not have an opinion on anything, and not stand up for anything, so we can be more european. That said, I'll be the ethnocentrist, and say that my concepts of fairness, justice, opportunity, and morality are head and shoulders above those advocated by the bin-ladens and jong-ils of this world.

But to hell with all that. Let us not loose sight of the fact that all institutions of man are all going to burn some day in the fire, and that our job here on earth is to tell people about the guy who's passing out the flame reterdant pajamas.

Agreed almost completely. But calling oil a need is a little inaccurate, because we have chosen the lifestyle we lead. But the problem remains: whether we want it or need it, we get it from others, and the intrusive foreign policy of the past century was in part driven by the acquisition of oil from these others.

In short, even if we "need" it, it's still wrong to acquire it by manipulation and coercion.

I'd also like to point out, as you did, that some confuse freedom and liberty with "the American way of life." Really, it's the same mistake that many leftists make: The right of equal opportunity under the law confused with the right to live at a certain comfort level (i.e., "livable wages"). Limbaugh makes the same mistake, only not at American taxpayers' expense but at the expense of people from other nations.