Given recent events in the Middle East, some general observations regarding the foreign policy of the American Right and Left seem warranted.
The foreign policy of the large majority of those on the American Right is statist and putrid at its core. It is based on American dominance through the use and the threat of the use of violence, and has little foundation in respect for the civil and economic liberties of other peoples and nations. Respect for the principle of self-determination is close to absent.
The foreign policy of the mainstream Right not only (justifiably) seeks to defend America from the violent aggression of foreigners, but is fundamentally driven by the amorphous concept of defending “American interests” abroad. For over a century, the overriding goals of American foreign policy have been to open foreign markets to our exports and to secure foreign sources of raw materials on terms favorable to us. Also important in more recent years has been the goal of maintaining the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency. To achieve these goals, America has interfered in the internal affairs of other nations and used military violence. When you treat other peoples and nations in this manner, is it surprising that they resent it? Should it be surprising that many in the world do not have a favorable opinion of U.S. foreign policy?
Unfortunately, although the rhetoric may be slightly less confrontational in tone, the foreign policy of the large majority of those on the Left is not fundamentally different from the Right’s. In fact, important aspects of modern U.S. foreign policy were established by icons of the Left, i.e., Wilson, F.D. Roosevelt, and Truman. For many, many years, U.S. foreign policy has been molded and implemented by a consensus of the Right and the Left.
In addition, as many Libertarians and Classical Liberals over the years have noted, there is a nexus between foreign policy and domestic policy; the two compliment and reinforce each other. Putting principle aside for a moment for the sake of argument, it may be illustrative from a practical standpoint to examine the fate of Great Britain in the 20th century. Arguably, three intertwined factors most contributed to its significant decline: unnecessary wars; increased socialization of its economy; and, inflation. Does this pattern sound familiar?
{ 9 comments }
The fundamental problem with foreign policy is a psychological one. Most of us are far removed from the realities of what the State is doing abroad and likely have little interest in gaining a solid understanding of those realities. That is why most people latch on to simplistic explanations about what is taking place.
As long as (most) people have the idea that the people in power somehow “represent” them (albeit badly at times) and are looking out for them, then the government will have something close to carte blanche in designing and carrying out foreign policy. The challenge to those of us who see these policies as anathema is to persuade others that their so-called representatives are really a group of con artists with whom they have nothing in common and who have a nefarious agenda all their own. However, others are very resistant to accepting this point of view because it is contrary to all they have been told and it is unpleasant (to put it mildly) to think that one’s leaders are sociopathic.
This is, of course, over and above the problem of the way that the “defense/security” apparatus has entrenched itself financially.
Dennis – good article.
My own slant is that , in Europe in particular, much of the turmoil was generated by failures of the economic systems. Socialism, in particular, fails to produce. This leads to shortages. People fight amongst each other for control of limited resources. They look overseas. They use colonialism to exchange fiat money for goods and services. They encourage other countries to accept fiat money for commodities like oil. Under efficient economic systems, surplus goods and services in one economy can be exchanged for surplus goods and services in another economy. The problem arises when someone wants tangible (scarce) goods and services, such as gold. Then, conflict arises. Countries then decide to just take other countries resources using force. Substantial portions of domestic production go towards producing armaments. Other countries are willing to accept armaments as payment for other commodities. Sooner or later, this leads to war.
“The foreign policy of the large majority of those on the American Right is statist and putrid at its core.”
‘How to win friends and influence people.’ There’s a lot of ‘those on the American Right’ and if your going to ‘reach’ them it doesn’t serve your purpose to tell them they smell. Be nice. Tell them that “Economics, like chemistry, has nothing to do with politics’. Tell them that economics is a science; it doesn’t yield to foreign policy or domestic policy. If we try to function ‘outside the scope of economics’ we get war.
Telling the American Right that they’re ‘putrid’ because they’re operating outside the Laws of Economics is like trying to cure the plague by killing fleas.
“If goods don’t cross borders, armies will” might be a better approach?
“The foreign policy of the large majority of those on the American Right is statist and putrid at its core.”
My comment refers to foreign policy and not to the individuals themselves, and as I state later in the posting, applies to the Left as well.
Also, I believe that my assessment is accurate, i.e., those on both the Right and Left who support a non-interventionist foreign policy are very few in number and largely marginalized by the party majorities and power structures. The reception given to the foreign policy positions of Ron Paul by most of those on the Right and Left is probably the best example of this.
Your comments regarding economics as a science are accurate. However, I would add that hegemony can be economically beneficial for the entity with the power for a considerable period of time. In addition, ethical issues are also important, including the right of nations, peoples, and even individuals to self-determination.
It’s worth considering that foreign policy is not only shaped by the policy makers. The policy makers are heavily influenced by third parties, including the owners of those “American interests” and foreign political leaders.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/215223
the us likes pushing multiculturalism in other lands, too.
the reaction to ron paul’s foreign policy prescription speaks volumes:
http://is.gd/whwobk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiSffkYz_rk
it’s just an accident, a technical glitch that results in the switching of one year’s presentation for the next.
Truman, A couple of years ago i really knew nothing about him. so I did some studying. Truman did damage America. he was like a encyclopedia of stupid ideas.
Comments on this entry are closed.