The 111th Congress should
-
Abolish all foreign aid
-
Replace all government-to-government aid with people-to-people aid: aid from Americans and their churches or voluntary associations directly to the people of other nations who are in need
-
Eliminate all government barriers to American presence in other nations (e.g., Cuba, Iran, etc.).
In 1892 the Supreme Court of the United States declared very forcefully and emphatically that America was "a Christian nation." America was settled and created by Christians whose goal was to "exercise dominion" over the earth under God and create a "City upon a Hill" which would ultimately Christianize the entire world. In other words, Christians emigrated to a foreign nation in order to Christianize all other foreign nations. This worldview should be the basis for all U.S. foreign policy.
Any foreign policy which could be described as "isolationist" is not a Christian foreign policy.
Exposing the True Isolationists by Ron Paul
From Advocates for Self-Government:
"Isolationism" has many negatives. For decades in America, "isolationism" has been a smear word. In many circles it is associated with hostility towards foreign nations and cultures, nativism, and ignorance.
And in fact, many U.S. isolationists in the past weren't just for political non-intervention. They wanted to restrict trade and travel. To build a "wall" around America, creating a so-called "Fortress America." Some even felt America should be totally self-sufficient: trading with no one.
None of that, of course, has anything to do with libertarian foreign policy views. Libertarians favor free trade, the freedom to travel, diplomacy, and lively and ongoing cultural interaction with people worldwide.
A far better word for this is "non-intervention." Libertarians are "non-interventionists."
That's still a clumsy word, unfortunately, and it is better understood when coupled with a short description of what it means, such as I gave two paragraphs ago.
It's also sometimes helpful to describe this as "America's original foreign policy" or "the Founder's foreign policy," and to quote the classic Jefferson line: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."
Some wit once said that the difference between "isolationists" and "non-interventionists" is that the former are hermits, while the latter are gentlemen.
Ron Paul has put it very well: "Non-interventionism is not isolationism. Non-intervention 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."
Finally, it is sometimes useful to point out that the current U.S. foreign policy of endless intervention in the affairs of other nations, U.S. troops and military bases in almost every nation, sanctions, trade barriers, travel restrictions, and aid to tyrants and dictators is increasingly isolating America from the rest of the world. In this sense, the true "isolationists" actually are the interventionists.
When someone labels libertarians as isolationists, they are knowingly or unknowingly smearing us and misrepresenting our views. This should be corrected, in a friendly and persuasive way, so our true ideas can be understood and embraced.
To call Jefferson, Washington, or Ron Paul an "isolationist" is uninformed or deliberately misleading.
And there is great irony here.
If a candidate believes it's good policy to overthrow foreign governments by bombing thousands of innocent non-combatant civilians and replacing the secular regime with an Islamic theocracy, and then imposing tariffs and protectionist sanctions on nations that oppose U.S. nation-building, cutting off trade, cutting off travel, and in numerous other ways isolating Americans from these nations and their people, their commerce, and their culture, he is not called an "isolationist." Such a candidate is, however, an imperialist.
Consider these words of America’s first President. While he did open the door to “temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies,” the weight of his words was for the United States not to “entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice.”
“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities . . .
“Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?” (George Washington, “Farewell Address,” 1796.)
Or consider the words of President John Quincy Adams, in 1821, when he was Secretary of State, in response to foreign nations’ question, “What has America done for the benefit of mankind?”
| |
“Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles
to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama,* the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend 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 assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet on her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.”
Her glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice." ~ John Quincy Adams |
* How many Americans can even understand what Adams is saying? Not many.
Aceldama is a Greek word found in Acts 1:19 (This became known to all who lived in Jerusalem, so that in their own language they called that field Hakeldama, that is, “Field of Blood.”) and based on two Aramaic words, field and blood, pronounced together as cha KAYL de MAH. The Greek transliteration, Hakeldama, is often Anglicized and pronounced as ah SEL da ma. It refers to the field the priests bought with the money Judas received for betraying Jesus and later returned to them. It was a place for the burial of strangers and was formerly called the potter’s field according to Matthew 27:7. It is located by tradition south of the valley of Hinnom, Gehenna, the biblical picture of hell. As the word is used by President Adams, it means a place with dreadful associations. |
next: Trade
|