Mitt’s Case for American Empire
It’s hard to imagine a politician more schizophrenic than Mitt Romney. As Massachusetts governor, Romney was pro-choice, supported amnesty for illegal aliens and was gay friendly. As a 2008 Republican presidential candidate, Romney became pro-life, opposed amnesty and gay marriage. In his new book, “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness,” Romney says hardly anything about abortion, illegal aliens or social issues, but plenty about how government must grow and do more, with his biggest beef with President Obama being where it should grow and what it should do. Critics might be inclined to compare Romney’s big government philosophy to that of the last Republican president but Romney’s is actually worse–particularly on the issue that has most defined Bush’s legacy.
Whereas President Bush ran for president in 2000 opposing Bill Clinton’s nation building overseas (something Bush would not live up to), Romney begins his book and presumably his 2012 presidential campaign, by making crystal clear that his concept of “American greatness” is inextricably tied to more war, more nation building and an even more ambitious foreign policy. Romney not only firmly believes the US should be the world’s policeman, but continuously frames practical foreign policy questions in moralistic, religious-like language. Claims brother Romney: “there can be no rational denial of the reality that America is decidedly a good nation. Therefore it is good for America to be strong… freedom for our grandchildren and for people everywhere can be guaranteed only by America-a strong America.” Looking back on the 20th century, Romney explains: “we found that our vital interests could not be secure in the face of threats to the cause of freedom elsewhere… America took on the task of anticipating, containing and eventually defeating threats to the progress of freedom in the belief that actively protecting others was the best way to protect ourselves.”
For Romney, foreign policy is not simply a question of the national interest or even practical defense, but securing freedom for “people everywhere,” and “American greatness” means recognizing that the national interest and global interests are, and always have been, indistinguishable. While Bush said of America’s dealings with other nations in 2000, “If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us… If we’re a humble nation but strong, they’ll welcome us,” Romney explicitly rejects that America has been or ever could be “arrogant” and Bush’s notion of a humble nation directly contradicts exactly what Mitt believes makes America great-benevolent hubris.
Whereas George Washington warned against “foreign entanglements” and John Quincy Adams advised that America “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy,” Romney wants endless entanglements and sees monsters to destroy everywhere. In addition to championing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Romney considers Iran, China, North Korea and Russia grave “threats” and also believes it is the US’s moral obligation to admit Georgia into NATO, which would have conceivably put American boots on the ground in that country in 2008. During that border battle between Georgia and Russia, a campaigning John McCain immediately injected the US into the mix, proclaiming that Americans were “all Georgians now.” No doubt, Romney shared McCain’s sentiment, though what concrete interests the US might have in that conflict are vague or speculative at best. Still, Romney forebodes: “We are engaged in two hot wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and facing growing threats in almost every region of the world. Weakness invites challenges, acts of intimidation, acts of aggression, and sometimes war.” For Romney, “sometimes” is all the time.
Romney writes of President Obama “His effort to expand the size, reach and role of government is without precedent in our history,” and yet the former Massachusetts governor-who also still defends TARP but complains it’s just being handled wrong–actively promotes a foreign policy, the size, reach and role of which is also without precedent in our history. Writes The American Conservative’s Daniel Larison: “A huge standing army, military outposts scattered around the globe, perpetual war and the arbitrary use of force by executive order-are these really compatible with the national character (?)… The security and warfare state is no less and actually far more alien to these shores than any entitlement program. It is far more dangerous to the constitutional government that truly was one of the most admirable achievements of our ancestors, and it goes against the grain of most of our national history.”
In 2000, Bush campaigned on a foreign policy closer to that of America’s first president, but went on to do the exact opposite. With his book, Romney has kicked off an early 2012 presidential campaign abandoning the limited government vision of the Founders from the start, while making the case that imperial hubris is the very definition of “American Greatness.”
If the big government case for perpetual war and protracted empire Romney makes in his book counts as “conservatism” in 2010, then limited government advocates will need to find a new term. And if Mitt Romney becomes the Republicans’ presidential nominee in 2012, conservatives will need to find a new party.
Your argument is not with Romney nor his book No Apology. He describes very well foreign policy conservatism. But you have distorted its meaning and leapt to conclusions often given by liberals and anarchists and Obama. Imperial hubris? Those are your words not Romney’s. That sounds like something Obama would have said. And Romney’s record stands on limited government, not no government, not declining government, Those latter ideas are those of anarchists. Your entire argument is not so much with Romney but with conservative ideology. You have not proved he is wrong but rather have proved you don’t understand conservatism.
I respectfully disagree with you, Lori.
Conservatism in its purest form means preservation and a reluctance to change. What causes more change than a global agenda? Whether it’s remaking the world in America’s image, or remaking America in the world’s image, both sides of Congress seem to be out of touch with conservatism and this country’s foundations and traditions.
As for Romney, as you say “his record stands on limited government,” namely, that he is against it. A person can’t establish a state-wide healthcare program and claim to be FOR limited government. Those two things just don’t jive.
While I respect his ability to bring down the deficit of Massachusetts as governor, I am simply wary that his tactics wouldn’t translate well to the national level if he were to be elected President. For example, the Massachussetts health reform law is legal under the Constitution, as it was delegated that the states have jurisdiction to make laws not expressed in the Constitution. In addition, his views on same-sex marriage and abortion, while okay as governor, would be unconstitutional if enacted as President.
That is why I don’t think he would be a good candidate for the Republicans in 2012, should he get the nomination. What’s more conservative than the original document and principles that this country was founded on? It doesn’t matter if one’s driving force is biblical or humanitarian, that doesn’t give them the right to infringe on others’ freedoms, be they political, social, or economic in nature.
Mr. Hunter,
We must have read different versions of the book, because I don’t recognize anything you said.
Pure fabrications.
the problem with Romney and ALL other politicians is akin to the problems within the coaching/management ranks of most professional sports leagues/franchises. it’s the same old/same old approach. the same names are always considered for the same openings. a cosmetic tweek here, and a semantic two step (to the right, or the left), but no new blood; no young turks. of course the downside is, when a true maverick is hired and succeeds (Mike Tomlin, Pittsburgh Steelers), “young turk” becomes the benchmark, and a new class of same old/same olds (soon-to-be retreads) becomes the status quo.
I hope that genericBrand and other conservatives make the effort to read “No Apologies” rather than commenting on what others have told them about the book.
Lori is correct. “No Apologies” is not suggesting that America post a Legion in every world outpost. The book only asserts that America needs to be strong enough so that the world’ bullies will not have a free hand.
Not 1 of his 5 (f-i-v-e) sons is or has been in uniform!
To Romney: I admire the morally unambiguous, Reagan-like stance on foreign affairs, but any foreign policy will grow more expansive due to demands on the only real global power. If your baseline is expansive, I shudder to think about the end result.
To Neo Carlinist: the problem with politicians (in a democracy) is the people who vote for them.
Jane wrote:
“Mr. Hunter,
We must have read different versions of the book, because I don’t recognize anything you said.
Pure fabrications.”
I don’t think most liberals would agree with Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin’s interpretation of Barack Obama’s book “The Audacity of Hope,” saying that it isn’t “socialist” or doesnt advocate for statism in any way. Yet, when you read between the lines, Obama’s statist tendencies are fairly evident in his book.
Mitt Romney’s book reads as nice and as fluffy as Obama’s, but the governor is advancing his political philosophy here (at least his current one) and it’s quite clear that a President Romney would be a George W. Bush redo. The neoconservative foreign policy that dominated the Bush administration is a primary theme in Romney’s book and Mitt’s technocratic, hands-on approach to government isn’t substantively different from Bush or Obama’s.
This is not a “pure fabrication” but fairly evident to anyone whose perception of Romney’s book isn’t already shaded by their own comfortability with big government Republicanism, as so many obviously were when Bush was in office.
Mitt is the only person on the national stage I can think of that has even a chance to confront the massive problems on the horizon of the future of this country. Hie entire adult life has been devoted to fixing enormous problems, and this will be the biggest turnaround of his life and maybe all time. We need Mitt in 2012! America depends on it.
World’s Bullies? Who the hell is a bully anymore? Russia is weak, Iran has the second lowest per capita defense spending in the Middle East, and who the hell has North Korea invaded lately? We do not need to spend a third of what we are spending on the military. THe whole thing is a farce. We could take out Russia easy, but they have nukes so no go, same with N Korea. Iran is going to be a rehash of Iraq, with us probably finding out that there wasn’t really any heavy duty nuke building going on, but we will blow the nation away in the meantime. And about having a legion in very nation? Shoot we have over 700 bases to which we can do that. IS Mitt going to close some of those down? If not he is indeed advocating something akin to having US personnel everywhere on the globe. Conservatism as in the “Old Right” was about true limited govt and staying out of foreign entanglements. All we are doing is installing puppet regimes and spreading Cultural Marxism. But according to Lori, I guess that is what conservatism is all about!!!!!
Lori, if invading the world and initiating domestic big government programs is conservatism, then Romney is your man. In case you are unaware, many if not most of the necons who have taken control of the Republican party have their roots on the left. The only thing they want to “conserve” seems to be US hegemony over the world while “spreading democracy” a la Trotsky. (Where is that mandated in our founding documents?) They also equate Israel’s interests with those of the United States. Of course our two-party duopoly will grovel before Israel lest they enrage the Zionist amen corner in the US. Romney is just another historical illiterate like G. W. Bush and the world cannot afford another one of those disasters!
Willard “The Rat” Romney is a neocon. We don’t want neocons running a government without boundaries, we want a government that conserves in order to exist another day.
Lori,
Your problem is not with Jack Hunter, but with the definition of Conservatism itself. It seems by “Conservatism” you mean Neoconservatism, and therein lays the problem. Neoconservatism is about big government, big corporations, Globalization and interventionist foreign policy. Traditional Conservatism is about precisely the opposite. Thus, the basis of your controversy.
Let me add that I seriously doubt you’ll find much else in American Conservative magazine or its website to your liking either. May I suggest the following sources for more satisfying reading:
• Commentary
• Front Page Magazine
• Policy Review
• The National Interest
• The Public Interest
• The Weekly Standard
I have a correction to make concerning the title of this article. The “American Empire” no longer exists as it has been replaced by the US-Israel Empire” with the US being totally subservient to the interests of Israel. Mitt and his ilk want to ensure that the US never returns (as a stand alone sovereign nation) while advancing the Neocon foreign policy agenda of the US-Israel Empire. One cannot be considered patriotic in modern day America without wrapping themselves in the Israeli flag along with the stars and stripes.
As a lifelong conservative, I vow to NEVER support a Romney ticket.
Lori — Do you believe it is lawful and morally acceptable for the United States to kill large number of civilians in order to expand US influence and increase US control over resources located in other people’s countries? If you do, there’s precious little to distinguish you from loyal Germans of the 30s and 40′s or medieval Christian crusaders (except that you are more comfortably distant from the violence you support). Such beliefs are endangering families in this country. Those we attack can’t be expected to sit back and accept it forever. We’re been very fortunate. We murdered 2-3 million Vietnamese, without a single reprisal “on our homeland.” I don’t think we can get away with that kind of mass murder much longer. There will be a response.
Lori,
Your problem is not with Jack Hunter, but with the definition of Conservatism itself. It seems by “Conservatism” you mean Neoconservatism, and therein lays the problem. Neoconservatism is about big government, big corporations, Globalization and interventionist foreign policy. Traditional Conservatism is about precisely the opposite. Thus, the basis of your controversy.
Let me add that I seriously doubt you’ll find much else in American Conservative magazine or its website to your liking either. May I suggest the following sources for more satisfying reading:
• Commentary
• Front Page Magazine
• Policy Review
• The National Interest
• The Public Interest
• The Weekly Standard
Couching all US actions in “Freedom and Democracy” and in quasi-religious terms is one of the hallmarks of the old US Freemasonry clique. FDR and Bush did the same thing. Its all hypocritical doubletalk. They say one thing and do the exact opposite
Mormons and Masons are the same. He is just another member of the Judeo-Masonic OWG NWO Order
Mitt is a cowardly chickenhawk. He avoided going to Nam, but now wants to send young boys, and girls, to die in his imperial adventures.
I LOVE ALL THE COMMENTS, YOU ALL MADE GOOD SENSE, EXCEPT LORI, OFCOURSE.
Mitt romney is a mormon jehadist,as a mormon bishop he belives that dark skin people are cursed by the God,as written in the book of mormon,he believes the past mormon chruch presidents statement were inpired by the God,and some statements are intersting: such as John Tayler,past mormon church president said “negros are the agents of devil,which god put them on the earth”,and whites are the “angeles representives”. Brigham Young said “negros will not go to haven like you and I,the good negrose will go to haven as the servants of the white people”
I left a replay you did not print it why?
lori is one of those millions who take the name “conservative” because the elites that she worships called themselves “conservative”. while they’re really “neoconservatives”. she just parrots what she’s been told, needing no desire to look up the facts for herself.
David,
Romney is a Neo con that will get no support from me but please don’t attack my religion. ( I am a Mormon) I don’t think Romney is a racist. If you are insisting the LDS church is racist then they probably wouldn’t be sending millions of dollars to Africa to train people to be self reliant. you quote people that lived 100 + years ago but you don’t look at recent things church leaders have said. I encourage you to look up the Man named Ezra Taft Benson. Romney will not get my vote ( I voted for Ron Paul and will vote for him again in 2012 if he runs again) Its clear Romney is no Conservative as he supported the Bailouts and Health care in his home state. You can prove Romney is not conservative without going after his religion
Romney is simply terrible. He’s a statist of the warfare state variety which has done more to spread big government than all the domestic welfare programs combined. People like Lori are not conservatives in the classic sense. They are confused neocons who have been hyped up by the Know Nothing motormouths of am talk radio. We need to close all military bases abroad, get out of NATO and the UN and terminate the special relationship with Israel. Then repudiate the national debt, it will NEVER be repaid and go on a full 100% gold standard with fractional reserve banking outlawed.
Anything less is just more of the same old, same old.
Romney plans to wrap himself in Bush’s mantle???? Guess who I’m not voting for.
Bush was the worst President of my 70 plus years, and, to my eternal shame, I voted for him twice.
If it was even Jesus Christ running to be POTUS and planning to wrap himself in Bush’s mantle, I wouldn’t vote for him.
I don’t have any problem with Mitt’s religion, but I do have a problem with he record of changing his mind over and over on issues in order to get elected – that sounds like a lack of conviction and sleazy-ness to me.
I voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 Republican Presidential Primaries and I was very disgusted how the media rolled out the red carpet for Mitt and gave him all kinds of recognition – even though he didn’t win many votes. Nearly all of my Conservative friends (even the Neo-Cons) are now saying they made a mistake by voting for McCain or Romney…
Romney didn’t win a single Southern State in the Primaries and that’s the current base of the GOP. He would have lost worse than McCain/Palin (the eventual Neo-Con ticket).
And finally, I agree with most of the comments about Romney being a Bush-Supporting-Neo-Con. Bush is one of the worst Presidents we have ever suffered and I think that Romney would have only been a continuation of the Bush Neo-Con agenda…plus, Romney was the governor of Massachusetts (the same State that gave us Dukakis)…enough said.
Romney is a neocon, faux conservative and closet socialist. If the Republican’s nominate Romney, Palin or any of the other closet socialists being pushed at us by the Republican establishment Obama will be a two term president. I and many people I know will support tea party canbdidates at the local level but will vote third party for a presidential candidate if any of these Republican establishment types are on the ballot for president. And for those of you who beleive Sarah Palin is a conservative I would submit that NO true conservative would support or campaign for John Mccain.
[...] Hunter agrees with me about Romney’s book. [...]
Wow. A lot of people don’t like Romney. It was nice to hear from the Mormon guy. They receive a lot of undeserved abuse in these blogs.
The thing that keeps people from dismissing Romney is that although he’s pretty new to politics (not counting his observation of his Father’s career), he went from gubernatorial politics in the most liberal state in the union to a pretty serious run at the Republican nomination. There’s definitely something to this character.
As for his perspective on government, he’s no Ron Paul, but he’s also no Barak Obama. Since there’s a chance he might be a front runner again, there are a few questions that I have for him:
1. Will you move federal government toward something that resembles its constitutional limits?
2. Will you move foreign policy from agressive and unrealistic intervention to the prudent pursuit of national interests?
3. Do you have the ability to explain to the American people (including the millions employed by government) how this will make our nation a better place to live now and in the future?
All of my specific questions about corporate and banking cartels, policies towards the UN and other nations, and change management, flow from these fundamental questions.
Drop us a line, Mitt.