Posted under Conservatism & Interventionism & Iran & Media & National Review & NeoCons & Sovereignty and Secession
National Review published another attack on non-interventionism today, libeling its proponents as “isolationists” (this after the shabby treatment of non-interventionism in the Ron Paul interview). This one must have been a rush job – the authors (Alvin S. Felzenberg & Alexander B. Gray) wheel out every wheezing, decrepit canard and ancient boogey-monster in the imperialist handbook. Here’s a taste (my comments in brackets):
“The United States and the world paid a severe price for the ostrich-like behavior too many democratic nations exhibited during the 1920s and 1930s [This one has more lives than Buddha's cat].”
“But the next decade will witness increasing competition among nation-states for control of valuable resources and the exertion of influence worldwide [Imagine that? Nation-states vying for resources and influence? Unprecedented!]”
“Russia, through its control of vital energy pipelines, seeks to draw Western Europe more closely into its orbit, thereby weakening the latter’s historical ties to the United States [Uh oh - Red Dawn II]”
“The alliance of these two anti-American and increasingly menacing states could pose a threat to the United States of a kind that would make us nostalgic for the Cuban Missile Crisis [The two "menacing states" in question are... Iran and Venezuela. I'm not kidding - go read it. Iran and Venezuela will make us "nostalgic" for close calls with nuclear armageddon, or for an authoritarian communist empire hostile to the West and armed with tens of thousands of nuclear missiles]”
By far my favorite sequence of thoughts, though, is this one:
“China… has proclaimed its sovereignty over the entire South China Sea, menaced neighbors from India to Vietnam, used its economic muscle to intimidate Japan, and increased its threats against Taiwan [Sounds sinister. Perhaps we do need an inconceivably massive military with such a menace abroad]”
“the Chinese are acting from a desire to defend their nation’s trade and access to world markets, with a focus on energy supplies [Ah! Here we see that China, that muscly menace, is trying to seize "control of valuable resources" and exert its influence - precisely the dread specter America needs its fully-funded military to confront!]
Then comes a brief history lesson explaining that it was the British Empire (specifically its navy) “that gave the Monroe Doctrine force”, which gave the U.S. the space to “develop internally” and, as we all know, eventually achieve global military supremacy.
Then comes this bit of salesmanship:
“If appropriately funded, the United States Navy has the capacity to play a similar role in China’s rise.”
Count me in! Of course we need to sacrifice blood and treasure to help midwife the Communist Chinese Century. That way, according to Felzenberg and Gray, it will be the right kind of Communist Chinese Century. The good kind. Not the nasty kind.
There’s quite a bit more, and I haven’t the time to address all of it, but the closer is in my opinion particularly remarkable:
“A world in which the United States willingly ceded power and influence would both be more dangerous and prove less receptive to values that most Americans share, such as respect for human rights [Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Black sites, Blackwater], the need to restrain governments [This entire argument is against restraining the most dangerous government power, remember] through the rule of law [The Congress shall have Power To... Declare War], and the sanctity of contracts [Amendment X].”
Please do read the article, and let them know what you think – comments are open (must join to post – it’s free).
Nate on 04 Jan 2011 at 3:13 am #
Funny how you attack yje conservative National Review for labeling “non-intervention” as isolationism, but yet here you are labeling the spreading of freedom, peace, and democracy around the world to people that want it as “imperalism” when it clearly is not. Liberal hypocrisy at its finest.
S.L. Toddard on 04 Jan 2011 at 3:32 am #
That was the point, Nate.
Nate on 04 Jan 2011 at 4:58 am #
No, the point is that I hear liberals like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan calling our involvement around the world which is never in our own interests “imperialism” or “empire” and it makes me sick.
Ole Johansen on 04 Jan 2011 at 12:36 pm #
@Nate
So,have you forgotten to take your pill(s)today?
I still hope you can recover.
S.L. Toddard on 04 Jan 2011 at 1:05 pm #
the point is that I hear liberals like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan calling our involvement around the world which is never in our own interests
Well at least Nate understands that our military domination of the entire planet is “never in our own interests”. At least we are agreed on that, Nate – usually it is only in the interest of war profiteers and other members of the corporate-military complex.
Woden on 04 Jan 2011 at 1:32 pm #
What exactly do ‘conservatives’ want to spread around the world? Abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action? That is what the United States stands for now a days. We can’t fight our enemies abroad until we fight our enemies at home. Liberate America first.
Nate on 04 Jan 2011 at 6:49 pm #
S.L. Toddard,
Wow, my point was that America is an altruistic global force for good because we are so strong and powerful that we are able to do so. Way to twist my words around, but seeing as you are a complete 360 degrees away from what a real conservative is it does not suprise me in the least.
S.L. Toddard on 04 Jan 2011 at 6:51 pm #
I’m sorry – didn’t you write that “our involvement around the world… is never in our own interests”?
Nate on 04 Jan 2011 at 6:53 pm #
Woden,
I want to spread freedom and democracy so the people who are being opressed by totallitarian governmnets will have the right to decide what they want for themselves. If it is gay marriage, Walmart, and McDonalds that they want then they should be allowed to have it. It doesn’t get any more American, conservative, and free than that.
Kyle K on 04 Jan 2011 at 6:53 pm #
Wooden: Yes we true conservatives want to spread freedom and liberty around the world! And while we may fight against abortion and gays here, it is in our best interests to spread them over there. Once terrorists see there own societies becoming freer and more prosperous and more queer they will begin to focus their jihadist plans less on America and more on their own third world piece of crap countries!
Nate on 04 Jan 2011 at 6:57 pm #
S.L. Toddard,
Yes I did, and you insinuated that it is in the interest of war profiteers and conspiracy crap like that. Our involvement is an altruistic involvement of helping others by giving them freedom, democracy, and foreign aid so they do not starve to death. Making friends around the world by being a force for good is just a nice added benefit.
S.L. Toddard on 04 Jan 2011 at 7:00 pm #
If it is gay marriage, Walmart, and McDonalds that they want then they should be allowed to have it. It doesn’t get any more American, conservative, and free than that.
- An American “Conservative”
Nate on 04 Jan 2011 at 7:01 pm #
Kyle K also makes an excellent point. I would rather be deailing with trying to get them to stop abortion in their countries over there instead of dealing with a foreign terrorist threat over here.
Nate on 04 Jan 2011 at 7:04 pm #
S.L. Toddard,
Why did you put conservative in quotation marks? Are you questioning my conservative bona fides?
S.L. Toddard on 04 Jan 2011 at 7:10 pm #
Why did you put conservative in quotation marks? Are you questioning my conservative bona fides?
Why question the non-existent?
Nate on 04 Jan 2011 at 7:14 pm #
Non-existent!?! Non-existent!?! I have 2 masters degrees from Hillsdale college and haven’t missed an airing of the Sean Hannity radio program in years and yet you dare to question my conservative credentials? How dare you, how dare you!
S.L. Toddard on 04 Jan 2011 at 7:24 pm #
Non-existent!?! Non-existent!?! I have 2 masters degrees from Hillsdale college and haven’t missed an airing of the Sean Hannity radio program in years and yet you dare to question my conservative credentials? How dare you, how dare you!
Oh man. Haha – who is this? Someone is pulling my leg obviously.
Bruce on 04 Jan 2011 at 7:50 pm #
“but seeing as you are a complete 360 degrees away from what a real conservative is it does not suprise me in the least.”
“180, you stupid, spaghetti-slurping cretin – *180*! If I did a 360, I’d go completely around and end up back where I started!”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107362/quotes?qt0290914
Bede on 04 Jan 2011 at 9:27 pm #
Nate: “I have 2 masters degrees from Hillsdale college and haven’t missed an airing of the Sean Hannity radio program in years and yet you dare to question my conservative credentials? How dare you, how dare you!”
Priceless. Nate be a troll but a sometimes amusing troll.
S.L. Toddard on 04 Jan 2011 at 11:28 pm #
I highly recommend checking out Nate’s site there. Click his name for a clearer idea of where he’s coming from.
Weaver on 04 Jan 2011 at 11:34 pm #
I wonder how long Nate could be taken seriously at American Neocon?
That guy would probably sing right along, oblivious lol.
Americaneocon on 05 Jan 2011 at 4:26 am #
Hey, don’t drag me into your battlers, Weaver, ya creep. I’m a principled neocon. Folks might think otherwise, but I’m not for endless wars. I just don’t stab our guys in the back when they’re in the field like the paleos.
Weaver on 05 Jan 2011 at 11:57 am #
Bleh, you’re just a propagandist. We both know your true aims.
Politics aside: haha, please take Nate, and I suppose it’s nice to see you. I’m taken aback that you’d call me a creep though.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 06 Jan 2011 at 1:57 am #
Americaneocon,
“Principled neocon”? Isn’t that like a virgin prostitute?
And spare us your nonsense about us stabbing American troops in the back. It was you chickenhawks who got them into quagmires to begin with.
Sean Scallon on 06 Jan 2011 at 2:11 am #
Looks like we here at CHT have spooked old NRO. You don’t write articles against things you don’t fear.
RonL on 06 Jan 2011 at 6:55 am #
Nostalgia for the Cold War is misplaced. However, communists don’t believe in an afterlife tied to their historical inevitability. Twelver Shi’ites do. People whose national motto seems to be “Death to American, and who believe that their getting cleansed by a rain of fire will bring thie Messiah shouldn’t have nukes. Stalin was an evil sick man, but he never thought that a leveled Moscow would bring true communism.
As for China, the options are
1. Somehow (militarily?) stopping China’s military growth
2. Allowing them to take over the Pacific and pray they leave our interests and territories alone. (and they are already not doing so)
3. Force them to act responsibly with carrots and sticks.
Sean, are you honestly supporting the first option?
And you think I’m bellicose.
Jeremy on 07 Jan 2011 at 7:21 am #
I find the argument that America’s military interventions are always altruistic simply hilarious. When it comes down to it, unprincipled “conservatives” like Nate are just naive. They end up arguing that our leaders are pure saints who never use their power selfishly on foreigners. But ask these people about Obama and his cronies and all you get are complaints about corruption and deception and moving us toward tyranny. I guess those same people running our foreign policy have nothing but contempt for us and nothing but love for foreigners. Or maybe it’s that Republicans are pure of heart and Democrats are pure evil. But there’s nothing conservative about reasoning at the level of an illiterate child. Conservatives are supposed to be realistic, not believers in some imbecilic fairy tale where good guys are the embodiment of Pure Good and bad guys are the embodiment of Pure Evil. It’s time to grow up and face the real world.
BTW, I do know some principled neocons of a certain variety. But they’re not nearly so stupid as to believe being an American government official automatically means you never treat foreigners unjustly. They’re just cynical enough to believe that a nation must either conquer all or be conquered. THAT, I suppose, I can take seriously.
S.L.: An excellent article. NR, in typical Leftist/Jacobin fashion, is desperate to smear and distort the foreign policy of the Founders. Funny that some people would believe demonizing and ridiculing our heritage is what conservatism is all about.
roho on 08 Jan 2011 at 1:36 am #
Nate!…….You think Ron Paul and Patrick Buchanan are liberals?……Have you been in a Federal Prison for a decade?……A comma?………Give it up “Rumplestilskin”!