Before I rebut this myth, let me first express my complete disbelief in the idea of the liberal pacifist. Democrats are the party of peace? What nonsense! Liberals use the government to impose their will on the rest of us and at the end of every argument with the government is the point of a gun. Would a liberal rob me at gunpoint, take my wallet and give it to someone less fortunate? An illegal? An environmental group? No, of course not, they would say. But make no mistake about it, they do it every day and we must refuse to play along with these pseudo-pacifist thieves. Now, on that happy note…
I doubt there are many warmongers in any party, but it is along the lines of foreign policy where you will find a giant schism in the conservative movement. Without getting too inside-baseball, let me say there are neo-cons, paleo-cons, and libertarians, with some mixing in between. But on the whole, the traditional conservative view is a non-interventionist one. What follows is a rundown on Conservative foreign policy positions and why we believe as we do. Note, these are my beliefs and while many conservatives would agree, others would not.
The United States must avoid intervening in the affairs of other countries.
Our Founding Fathers were very clear on the issue of foreign policy. They had just broken from an imperialist power and believed that our neutrality would be vital to our nation’s survival. Moreover, they knew that war leads to larger government and a decrease in liberty. Conservatives believe we should be the “friend of liberty everywhere, but the guarantor and provider of ours alone”.
Let me note here that I understand and appreciate the neo-conservatives that believe in a more interventionist approach a la the Reagan Doctrine. Reagan, who I believe was one of the best Presidents this nation has ever seen, argued “We must not break faith with those who are risking their lives…on every continent from Afghanistan to Nicaragua…to defy Soviet aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth. Support for freedom fighters is self-defense.” In that vein, we have many conservatives that believe we have a duty to help people liberate themselves from tyrannical governments. Very solid arguments can be made for this position. I just strongly disagree.
It is interesting to me that these conservatives can staunchly resist government interference in domestic affairs due to the damage it causes, but fail to see that the very same problems arise when the U.S. interferes in the affairs of other countries. One of the main flaws in a neo-con policy is that it is under wartime conditions where the government expands the most and the liberties of the people contract. In addition, conservatives rail against liberal policies at home, noting how they inevitably bring about unintended consequences no matter the good intentions. Well, that is EXACTLY what happens on the world stage. For example, Reagan’s policy of Soviet containment led to our support of the mujahedin in Afghanistan, which subsequently led to the rise of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Whether that was the right thing to do can be argued to no end, but the point is – – actions have consequences.
The sad truth is the U.S. is under attack from so many militant elements because of our interventionist foreign policy. Our military presence in Arab countries has engendered a hatred of America as we are seen as an occupying force in their sovereign land. Islamic terrorists did not attack us on 9-11 because they hate freedom and the American way of life. That is ridiculous. Do not get me wrong – – – the blame for such atrocious acts falls squarely on the shoulders of the terrorists, but it is shortsighted not to examine our actions on the world stage that might have put us where we are today.
The United States must decrease her worldwide military presence.
The United States is now entangled in so many alliances and treaties that we are committed to go to war on behalf of nations all over the globe. We have over 700 military bases around the world. We have troops in over 130 countries. We must begin to withdraw from many of these countries and extricate ourselves from treaties that are not in the best interest of the U.S. or that compromise our national sovereignty. We cannot allow the freedom of our citizens to be sacrificed to gain or maintain the freedom of others. Just because we have a voluntary military, does not mean we should place them in harm’s way without a vital national interest. As for Afghanistan and Iraq, we must see those countries through. You break it, you own it.
The United States must remove herself from the Middle East.
Israel is in the right, and we should be unafraid to say so, but Israel is strong enough to fight her own battles and determine her own destiny.
The United States must trade with all nations, regardless of the form of government.
Conservatives believe that the best way to spread democracy to a country living under a tyrannical government is through economic activity – – we must lead by example. When there is a peaceful, voluntary exchange of goods between people of different nations, liberty will naturally expand through exposure to our American way of life. The most driven and intelligent among them will either find a way to leave their oppressive states or begin to force change within their government. Even though I am disgusted at the way so many idiot liberals fawn over Castro, a murderous tyrant; I do believe the lifting of the embargo is the best thing for the Cuban people.
The U.S. Government should cease foreign aid all together – both military and economic (aid should be a private endeavor).
Not only is foreign aid an unconstitutional transfer of wealth from American citizens, it is often extremely damaging to the recipients. In a recent book called “Dead Aid”, the author Dambisa Moyo makes a strong argument that Western aid to Africa, totaling over $1 trillion in the last 5o years, has not only perpetuated poverty in Africa but has worsened it. She explains that much of the money pouring into Africa has funded brutal and corrupt regimes, increased dependency, stifled entrepreneurship, and disenfranchised the citizens, as governments are beholden to foreign donors and not the people. She points out how the African countries that have rejected the aid route have prospered, while others have become aid-dependent and hopelessly mired in poverty. She calls for the misguided outsiders (insert Hollywood celebrity here) to halt all aid to Africa within 5 years as she wants it to break free. She outlines a road map for the development of Africa’s poorest countries, which does not rely on foreign aid.
The U.S. must also stop military aid to foreign countries. The reason for this should be obvious.
The United States must maintain an unrivaled, state-of-the-art military.
The most important responsibility of the federal government is to protect the lives and freedom of the American people. Weakness invites aggression; therefore we must maintain peace through superior military strength and readiness, as well as a resolve to use it if necessary. It is absurd that the Obama administration and Congress can seem to find no single area in which to cut costs OTHER than on our military, one of the few areas the federal government has a constitutional duty to maintain. Where will the money go instead? To fund the Liberals’ completely unconstitutional domestic programs.
The United States must maintain a dominant nuclear arsenal.
As much as we would all like to live in the nuclear-free world Obama outlined in Prague, it is a naïve wish. We cannot put that genie back in the bottle. The nuclear club is not so exclusive anymore, and while you may be able to get China or Russia to talk the talk and throw us a bone here or there, we now have third-world nations who would never give up their nukes.
Driving home this point, North Korea decides (on the same day Obama was in Prague) to launch a long-range rocket, that could have easily carried a nuclear warhead. This was, of course, in violation of the completely ineffectual U.N. resolution 1718240592350257.4092. While some of the actions Obama plans to take to safeguard nuclear materials are good, the idea behind subverting our national safety so we can take “moral responsibility” is a purely liberal, purely stupid idea. As we are behind Russia and China in military strength outside of the nuclear realm, we cannot cede the only high ground we have.
The U.S. must spare no expense in installing a comprehensive missile defense system.
It is positively CRIMINAL that Obama is advocating taking steps to fight global climate change, while at the same time cutting funding and scaling back our plans to build a shield to defend against missile attacks by rogue states!
Obama met with Russian President Medvedev (Putin’s talking doll) to discuss arms reductions and Russia made clear it strongly opposes our missile shield plan. Perhaps this sounds familiar? Ah yes, let’s think back to Reykjavik when Reagan and Gorbachev were close to the historic first achievement in arms reduction, when at the last minute Gorbachev insisted the U.S. scrap its plans for a missile-defense system. Reagan offered to share the technology with the Soviets so that both our countries could be protected, but Gorbachev refused. Unwilling to use the safety of the American people as a bargaining chip, Reagan walked out. Oh my gosh, that’s it, people said. But it wasn’t. Talks eventually resumed, Gorbachev caved and they signed the INF Treaty.
The U.S. government must always work on behalf of Americans first.
Our President and Congress are in office to serve us, represent us and protect us, and they do so with funding by us. They are not there to serve the world community, redistribute our wealth to poorer nations or serve as international policeman. America must not participate in any union (including the recent economic one agreed to at the G20) that forces us to relinquish control to any foreign authority or international body. We should not be out to gain approval from foreign countries, who clearly (and rightly) have their own national interests at heart.
The U.S. should immediately remove ourselves from the United Nations.
The U.N., a nice liberal idea that has utterly failed in practice. The U.N. is now nothing more than a forum for third-world dictators and corrupt socialist bureaucrats. It is completely ineffectual at its founding mission of preserving world peace and human rights. Who can forget when Libya ran the human rights committee a couple of years ago? There is absolutely NO reason the U.S. should continue to fund and subordinate our interests to an America-hating organization that is now nothing more than an international slush fund for corrupt diplomats.
The President of the United States and other foreign dignitaries should at all times, when abroad, speak proudly on behalf of the American people.
When the Teleprompter in Chief was asked about American exceptionalism over the weekend, Obama said he believed in American exceptionalism but said the British probably believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. Why did he feel the need to qualify his answer? To avoid seeming arrogant? I don’t think so. I believe he qualified his answer because he does not believe in American exceptionalism. He is one of the many liberals who follow the relativistic line of thought that says that one society or civilization is no better than another…just different.
What a disappointment to have the President of the United States representing us abroad with constant apologies regarding our arrogance, our civil rights history, our dropping of the atomic bomb, our torturing of prisoners, and even our treatment of the American Indians. Like a husband on the advice of a marriage counselor, Obama felt the need to admit our wrongdoings and weaknesses to engender good will. It was completely unnecessary as Liberals are always popular in Europe, and no matter how much they love him, he cannot (and did not) get anything more out of them than they would have given to Bush. It is possible for a leader to be strong, dignified and respectful without sending the inappropriate message that there is little to admire in America.
Contrast Obama’s performance with my personal hero, Ronald Reagan, who held a firm conviction regarding America’s goodness and our positive role in the world. Reagan said, “Under this administration, our Nation is through wringing its hands and apologizing.” Ever the optimist, he inspired Americans to be their best and believe the best about their great nation, and he had a profound respect for our Constitution.
The United States Government must stay out of humanitarian disasters.
As much as we may agonize over the state of affairs in other countries, it is vital to the maintenance of our free republic that we keep our federal government out of the charity business. Despite a common belief to the contrary, aid for humanitarian disasters would not dry up just because the U.S. government failed to save the day. Private donations from America for the tsunami victims in Southeast Asia totaled over $1 billion.
What about in the case of genocide? Again, the U.S. must stay out of the internal affairs of foreign countries. As horrible as it sounds, to intervene in such situations requires a military presence – – – we are sending our troops to war. The definition of “genocide” is the deliberate destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. And how is that any different from so many major wars fought in the past?
The same people who argue for military invention in places like Darfur, where the number of the dead is currently placed at around 450,000, argued against our going into Iraq to depose a dictator under who’s rule more than 600,000 civilians were executed, including 100,000 Kurds in one action. On the grounds of stopping genocide, Clinton bombed Kosovo. Subsequently, the Albanian majority drove out hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Jews, and others in huge wave of ethnic cleansing.