Jeff Taylor, author of Where Did the Party Go?: William Jennings Bryan, Hubert Humphrey, And the Jeffersonian Legacy, considers the possibilities for the Left, the Right, and everybody else to work together against our ruling elite and its bipartisan wars.

Everybody Against Empire

By Jeff Taylor

The extent of American isolationism—which really means reluctance toward entangling political and military alliances—varies from year to year, but there is an America First instinct that remains constant. Public opinion partly accounts for why the U.S. did not enter World War I in 1915 or World War II in 1939. Wilson and Roosevelt certainly wanted to push the nation into those conflicts earlier than was possible. Of course, we ended up fighting anyway. Americans’ disinterest in having themselves and their loved ones put in harm’s way overseas also hindered plans to send a large amount of ground troops to the Balkans in the 1990s. A decade later, it meant that McCain’s contention that “We are all Georgians” was met with more laughter than seriousness.

Muscular American imperialism is not a winning issue for any political party. Politicians usually cloak their imperial designs while campaigning because the idea of expending American blood and money in obscure places halfway around the world does not appeal to average Americans. They care far more about practical domestic issues. The U.S. government acting as policeman of the world has never been a popular idea among Americans. It is costly and implies that our own society has reached such a state of perfection that we can easily afford to look elsewhere for problems to solve. Meddling in other people’s affairs creates enemies and can actually make our own people less safe. There is a difference between being a helpful big brother and being an arrogant empire. Even if we concede the existence of good intentions on the part of our government, perception becomes reality for people in the rest of the world.

The Iraq War was never really popular. A vast majority of Americans rallied around the president when the invasion began in 2003, but there was widespread resistance throughout 2002 when the idea was first publicly raised because many Americans did not see Saddam Hussein as a genuine threat to the country. After the much-touted WMDs failed to materialize and the American death count continued to rise after Bush’s declaration of Mission Accomplished, opposition to the war grew. During the fall 2004 campaign, half of Americans believed the war was a mistake. (Despite claims to the contrary by both Bush and Kerry.) A year later, a majority felt that way. According to a 2005 Harris poll, 53 percent said taking military action against Iraq was the “wrong thing to do,” and only 34 percent thought it was right. The shift in opinion, depending on circumstances, indicates that support for the war had always been soft and conditional.

Americans are not pacifists. The vast majority are not even close to the quasi-pacifism of a William Jennings Bryan. We live in a country that glorifies the military. Still, it must be said that most Americans are also not as callous and martial as those who rule in Washington; after all, it is their loved ones who are personally experiencing the brutality and bloodletting. Presidents may fret about wars while photographers snap pictures and reporters note their burdened souls, but they do not send their children into combat. Like the Bush Jr. administration, most Americans are unilateralists. In fact, they are unilateralists of an isolationist, not internationalist, sort, so it is a unilateralism that exceeds that of Republican leaders. Unlike many Democrats, they do not think we need the permission of Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac, or any other foreigner to wage war in defense of ourselves.

The question is, Was this truly the case with Iraq or were there other motives behind the attack and occupation? Many patriotic citizens either opposed the war from the start or soured on it when they realized that the Iraqi government had been no threat to us. Americans who support more of an interventionist foreign policy tend to view our government as a Good Samaritan on the global stage. In most cases, they wrongly attribute their own well-meaning attitudes and Judeo-Christian values to their leaders. They assume that these leaders are acting on the basis of moral idealism. This is a largely mistaken impression.

Regardless of the rhetoric used as policy justification, our leaders are usually guided by the principles of political realism and their less than altruistic policies have led to the widespread international perception of the U.S. not so much as a Good Samaritan as a Schoolyard Bully. Most people are not grateful for U.S. intervention because it is often accompanied by military violence and political domination. Scores of sincere Americans cannot understand this natural reaction of others. “Why do they hate us?” “We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.” et cetera.

Read Full Article...


© 2012 Front Porch Republic

 

 


Liberals Love "Liberty Drones"
By Jim Bovard - February 09, 2012

Obama Tramples on God's Turf
By Patrick J. Buchanan - February 09, 2012
Comments: 2

All The Lies Fit to Print
By Philip Giraldi - February 09, 2012
Comments: 2

More


How Terrorism Becomes "Entirely Defensible"
February 09, 2012 - Comments: 1

Obama and Missile Defense
February 09, 2012

Rubio's Iran Hyperbole
February 09, 2012 - Comments: 2

Russia Still Isn't Going to Abandon Assad
February 09, 2012 - Comments: 2

More


Identity Versus Philosophy
June 20, 2011

Ron Paul Won the Debate
June 15, 2011 - Comments: 4
More


Nicholas Wade on the Trade-Offs of Editing
December 20, 2011 - Comments: 1

Balls of the Moth
November 20, 2011 - Comments: 1

More



Detroit Misses the Train (Again)
By GLEN D. BOTTOMS

The Word From the UK
By WILLIAM S. LIND

 

 

 

Using technology licensed from Unz.org, one or more U.S. and foreign patents pending
Letters@amconmag.com
The American Conservative
4040 Fairfax Drive Suite 140
Arlington, VA 22203