From this perspective, the worrying parallel for the right is not 1992 but the liberal overreach of the 1960s. By embracing leftish causes that were too extreme for the American mainstream””from unfettered abortion to affirmative action””the Democrats cast themselves into the political wilderness. Now the American people seem to be reacting to conservative over-reach by turning left. More want universal health insurance; more distrust force as a way to bring about peace; more like greenery; ever more dislike intolerance on social issues.
So some sort of shift seems to be under way. Would it be a change for the better? The Economist has never made any secret of its preference for the Republican Party’s individualistic “western” wing rather than the moralistic “southern” one that Mr Bush has come to typify. It is hard to imagine Ronald Reagan sponsoring a federal amendment banning gay marriage or limiting federal funding for stem-cell research. Yet Mr Bush’s departure hardly guarantees a move back to the centre. Social liberals like Mr Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger are in a minority on the right. On the one issue where Mr Bush fought the intolerant wing of his party, immigration, the nativists won””and perhaps lost the Latino vote for a generation.
In terms of foreign policy, America’s allies, especially in Europe, would also be unwise to start celebrating….
I’m a bit puzzled by the Republicans being blamed by many for there not being a new immigration bill and that Latinos who wanted a bill are blaming them for it. The last time I looked the Democrats controlled Congress–and the House by a huge margin. And, when the Republicans controlled Congress, I don’t remember the media ever giving anyone any blame for anything that happened there except the Republicans because it was essentially their Congress to maneuver things through or block. It seems like, no matter what the issue, the media is going to lay no blame at the feet of the Democrats in Congress for anything that might hurt them in the next election even though they have the legislative power. It is not the Republicans fault that the Democrats have such apparently incompetent leadership that turns everything in Congress into mush. And listen to the Dems complain about the Iraqi Congress for not getting things done and going on vacation. Yet all these members of the Iraqi Congress risk their lives everyday. What is the Democratic Congress’s excuse for accomplishing nothing and then going on vacation?
“Nativist.” That’s what the Economist thinks of the opposition to the failed immigration bill. Could the editors name one European country which tolerates the waves of illegals as the U.S. has? You can’t even rent a hotel room in Europe without a passport and, in some cases, visa.
Perhaps the Economist is simply in favor of the continued exploitation of illegal Latinos in low-paying jobs.
I think I read this exact same column in Newsweek in late October 1987, after the GOP lost control of the Senate in the 1986 mid-term election and after the stock market crash. Everyone was saying how the Reagan era was over and the country was turning left. We know what came next.
The only principle ‘The Economist’ cares about is spelt ‘principal’, along with the profit it can turn from it, whether from stem cell research, casinos, gay weddings, abortion merchants or whatever. It is tone deaf to Christianity. A good thing too, since half the goods we enjoy in the west are now produced by semi-slave labor in Asia. ‘The Economist’ just loooves the new tycoons of China.
Katherine, “remember the stranger that is in your midst.” Invite in and feed the stranger, for in doing so, you may be entertaining angels unaware. Let us all remember that by giving a cup of water to the least of these, we give water to Christ. Let us not be found guilty of binding Him in chains, separating Him from His family, and deporting Him.
Thanks, justinmartyr, so in addition to opposing massive migration of illegal immigrants (I am married to the son of an immigrant) under conditions which are neither good for our country nor positive for many of them, I am now a major sinner as well, in your eyes. Blanket condemnations don’t become either side of this argument.
what a legacy Rove, Kaiser Dobson and the Bush Regime have left the party of Lincoln, Goldwater & Reagan
Bob,
I sure appreciate your lack of using any deragotory terms and ad hominim attacks. It’s such a breath of fresh air to see your complimentary speech on the forum.
(/sarcasm)
Justin,
Remember the Bible also speaks of supporting the government in Romans 13 and (I think) Peter’s epistles.
I see nothing wrong with feeding and clothing illegal aliens, as long as we make it clear to them that after their immediate needs are met, they must comply with the law and go home, to begin the process legally.
My dad just came up for a visit, and he reports that his friend who works in sanitation sees massive quantities of ‘free’ food being tossed out in homes where illegal aliens live (sometimes 30+ to a household) — canned food, frozen meats, etc. just tossed out. This is food that could go to feed those in our communities who truly need it, the poor Americans in our midst. Would you say that we should take food and clothing from them to feed those here illegally?
Reply to #5.
When I encounter newly arrived Hispanics I strive to assure them through my demeanor and behavior that I respect them as individuals. And I think that that is meets the ‘sense’ of the quotation that you provided.
But don’t be deceived. Politically, this massive wave of Hispanic immigration includes some very anti-Norte Americano elements whose intent is less that benign.
The other day, while on a long car trip and while listening to the radio, I heard a heavily accented Hispanic activist tellng his audience [citation paraphrased] that, “we are a revolutionary force that will take the United States away from it’s current owners because we are coming in great numbers with a high birth rate and the non-Hispanics are weak and have a low birth rate.”
The Republicans have controlled government for most of the last decade. In that time, they have federalized education, enabled Wilsonian crusades for democracy overseas, completely failed to protect the territorial integrity of the nation, and expanded the Medicare subsidy to drug manufacturers and their customers. They have let in a sea of pan-Hispanic nationalists with no culture of the rule of law or limited republican government and they have increased the debt burden on our children and grandchildren. I see very little for a leftist not to like in the agenda of the GOP as it is presently constituted.
One of my favorite Reagan quotes is ” A nation that cannot defend its borders is not a nation”. The liberal Christianity position espoused by Justinmarty would effectively end the nation state – though I suspect many liberal Christians are opposed to nationalism.
I am not so sure that Reagan would not have championed a federal ban on gay marriage and he was very pro life so I am not sure on stem cells either. The Economist takes a world view on economics – not a British, Western or American one – as to US internal politics it is not our friend.
Romans 13 can never be used as a justification for doing evil. All but one of our Apostles died for disobeying civil “authority” to defend Truth. Remember Jesus’ magnificent exchange with the Centurion of Faith? One can never be in authority unless one is a man under Authority. That is, we hold authority only inasmuch as we are subject to true Authority. And our story has but one Author. Obey his writings.
Christ lives in squalor, cleaning our toilets, mowing our lawns, and building our houses. All He asks is what our forefathers asked for when they came (extra-legally) to this land — to live a quiet life, mind His own business, and work with His hands. We know we are lying when we classify Him as a terrorist or security risk; we know this is a position statistically and logically indefensible. His blood is on our hands when we enter the voting booth and command our civil servants for the next four years. We don’t personally bind him and drag Him by the beard from land we don’t own. It’s a tidy, unmessy guilt. Christ commanded us to carry the sword in defense, but this is not defense in any sense, this is aggression. His blood is on our hands, and that of our children.
justin,
Conquest is simply the story of less enlightened times. For that matter, I don’t see anywhere in your lament about Islam’s ruthless homogenization of the Middle East and North Africa or the fierce tribal wars on the American continents.
The immigration policy of the Western elites is nothing less than an attempt to rebuild the Tower of Babel. There is a spiritual economy to the division of mankind into separate nations. The good news for us troglodytes is that liberal democracy will not survive the importation of millions of people whose loyalties lie with institutions that pre-date the State.
many liberal Christians are opposed to nationalism
Well, I’m hardly “liberal”, but I am opposed to nationalism, which is not the same thing as patriotism. We have another King, Jesus, who’s kingdom is not of this world. To become overly attached to this nation or that society is idolatry, as much as attachment to forbidden sex acts.
I’ve said what I have to say on the immigration issue on this site before: it’s mostly a media event and just not something to get excited about. Yes, there are a large number of illegals in this country, the majority of them coming from Mexico. The majority of them are hard-working productive folks who contribute to the economy through sales and other taxes. Nevertheless, we can certainly talk about how to address that problem, but should do so in consideration of what is right or wrong and what will actually work.
Bottom line: Jesus will judge us on how we treat “the least of these”.
Words Matter,
Do you live in an area where people have watched as their ambient culture and language changed from Anglophone to pan-Hispanic or pan-Caribbean? Such areas exist in numbers. Were these people not entitled to some sense of nationhood? You can be assured that the newcomers are devoted nationalists.
Your position is completely open-ended. If the entire nation of Haiti decides to come here, must they be allowed? Albanian gangsters? Marxist revolutionaries? People with communicable diseases?
Reactionary,
Exactly. Romans 13 can never be used to justify doing evil. In fact, I think it says just the opposite (“Live a good life so you need not fear those in authority”). However, immigration laws are not unjust. They are not designed to ‘put down’ anyone, nor violate anyone’s human rights. They are laws that need to be enforced so that the government and the citizens of that government can be secure and safe. It’s the willful disregard of those laws that must be spoken out against by the Church, while at the same time helping those here who need help so that they can return home and begin the legal process of immigration.
Reactionary –
I live in North Texas, in what passes for “the inner city”. My parish church is largely hispanic (2 Spanish Masses, 3 English, 1 Latin). Clerks at the stores readily speak in English and Spanish as needed. I pay taxes to the hospital and school districts and it’s not services to immigrants that concern me.
And, of course, my position isn’t “open-ended”. My position is that it’s not that big a deal: it isn’t the whole country of Haiti coming here. It’s people from Mexico who can’t earn a living in their own country. Of course, we shouldn’t let in gangsters, revolutionaries, or terrorists. I just don’t happen to think a wall on the border will keep them out.
Actually, given the number of “Mediterranean” restaurants springing up around here, I think we may have a fair sprinkling of Albanians, hopefully not gangsters.
Words Matter,
12 to 20 million illegal immigrants “not that big a deal?” Over 50% rates of illegitimate births (to birthright citizens, btw) “not that big a deal?”
It is a very big deal; it is unprecedented in human history, in fact.
Based upon Words Matters assertion I will include non-liberal Christians in my proposition that will now state that many Christians do not believe in the nation state ideal. We are a nation of immigrants but if we allowed everyone to come here who wanted to we would no longer be a nation state – we would be the world. Many Christians think that is a good thing – they may be right. I think it is naive. I think Justinmarty perfers to live in the spiritual world. I am sure he is a very nice man – but his children/grandchildren would not do well here on Earth were he in charge of government policy.
Reactionary,
Glad to see that we are on the same page after our disagreement on sex ed :)! However, I fear you are wrong about there not being a parrell in human history to massed illegal immigration. I think Rome about 400 BC started letting in large numbers of Germanic peoples into its domains (we uncharitably call them the Barbarians) – Rome fell soon thereafter.
libraryjim, as always, thanks for the kind words
chips, how does following Jesus translate into support or opposition to the rather recent phenomenon of nation states, facilitated by developments such as mass literacy and the early mass media ?
I wonder if the current immigration, as a percentage of the population, exceeds the Irish immigration of the mid-19th century, or even the Italians of 50-75 years later. As one who deals with the public hospital in my work, and who dealt with it before the current (allegedly) overwhelming influx of Mexicans, I do say that it’s more a media event, and perhaps a example of political gamesmanship.
You know, it really does help discussion to avoid reducio ad absurdum: Albanian gangsters, indeed! The whole nation of Haiti indeed!
And chips, yes, I don’t hold the nation-state, nor any political system as an ideal. Biblically, the Kingdom of God is our true nation, and as wonderful as I hold the United States, the same Bible which speaks against same-sex relationships also speaks against placing things of this world above God Himself. Avarice is as deadly a sin as lust.
chips –
[blockquote] I think Rome about 400 BC started letting in large numbers of Germanic peoples into its domains (we uncharitably call them the Barbarians) – Rome fell soon thereafter. [/blockquote]
Unless you mean 400 AD, then Rome didn’t fall soon after, since Rome fell in the 5th century AD (some 800-900 years later).
Quite right Adam my mistake 400 AD.
The US actually ended mass immigration in the 1920’s by passing a bill which gave quotas to each nation roughly in percentage to the makeup of the US population. Ireland stoped large scale migration because perhaps a majority had already left – Ireland did not have a large population to begin with (their are more Irish in Ny than Ireland). Italian mass immigration ended with the 1920’s era immigration act. I think they started going to Argentinia. Thus by 1970 America was mostly native born for the first time. The post 1965 era immigration is our first non European mass influx – it is creating challenges. The key is to have a fair but firm policy – focused on US ecconomic needs and our ability to absorb immigrant populations and transform them into United States citizens. We can all be children of God and love one another – but good fences make good neighbors.
Anyone else notice the huge irony that illegal immigrants come to this country for the opportunities created by the very system of laws they so readily break?
If we look again at the Economist article which was posted, the question is whether the U.S. is “turning left.” Part of that answer depends on one’s definition of “left;” in the Economist’s view, “left” is what they agree with. Are conservative anti-green? Again, it depends on the definition. Many analysts have assumed that the 2006 Congressional Democratic victory meant a turn to the left, hence this magazine’s wistful thinking. In fact, however, many of the newly-elected Democrats are “blue dog” types from conservative districts, and Speaker Pelosi has had a notable lack of success in herding this group her desired direction. A lot of the electoral success had to do with Republicans who were sick of the earmarked and huge continued spending by their own members of Congress. The party which understands the electorate’s disgust with the spending and anger over the attempt to push an ill-conceived immigration bill through without normal legislative procedures is a party which will succeed in the future.
The Irish, Italian and Slavic influx into the Northeast was extremely problematic. Its legacy includes gangsterism, labor activism, and kleptocratic municipal governments. Nevertheless, the immigrants were not given the benefit of civil rights laws, welfare, and affirmative action to club their hosts over the head with. This incentivized assimilation and an “American” identity.
The sheer numbers, radically different heritage, and support of the public and private elites over the objections of the common citizenry is completely without precedent. But ironically, the “open borders” which the social democrats espouse will lead to a breakdown of social democracy itself. The secular state will not survive the influx of so many peoples whose loyalties are to institutions that predate it. The US will break along its cultural and ethnic fault lines and the experiment wrought by the American and French Revolutions will end. At that point, we will finally be on the road back to organic society.
One thing I would suggest:
If the Catholic Church and other denominations are so concerned about the treatment of illegal aliens, then why don’t they send more missionary teachers to the countries of origin to train the citizens for skilled labor and basic educational levels so that they can apply legally for immigrant status?
That seems logical to me. They could also, of course, train them up into the way of discipleship, so we can increase the Christian population here and in their home countries.
Or train them while they are here, so when they advise them to ‘go home and obey the law’ they will be taking skills back home to put to use there.
libraryjim –
Well, a lot of Catholic (and other) missionaries do exactly what you suggest. And here’s what makes sense to me: take the money we would spend on an ineffective wall and build some industries in northern Mexico. If we also pressure the Mexicans to clean up the corrupt local governments and drug trafficking (problematic given the fondness of Americans for drugs), there might be fewer people crossing the Rio Grande looking for work. Remember, its the industrious ones we are getting, by and large.
We are building industry in Nothern Mexico – I would rather plants be built there than in China. However, one problem we have created is by allowing the best and brightest of the Mexican working class in – Mexico’s effectiveness at building a middle class is stymied. I would bet heavily that if the US had the will to build a wall and have mobile enforcement with high tech survelance (air and ground) we could effectively shut down the border ( it might take 20k border patrol). With sensible enforcement inside America ie fines upon law breaking employers, a workable id system, and allowing law enforcement to enforce immigration laws – the number of illegals would be substantially reduced to the point of being able to have a guest worker program. I would recoomend (once the illegal population got down to under 5 million) to have a 3 million guest workers one a three year visa with no dependent visas (1 millon issued per year). The American worker would benefit as wages would rise and the guest workers payroll taxes could fund the program. The guest workers could then take skill sets back home to improve their countries when the visas expired.
As I recall, we HAVE been sending business and industry to Mexico — in fact, my Dodge Caravan had a sticker “Assembled in Mexico”, yet Mexican Citizens are still coming illegally into the US. So, that idea is not working.
Your second suggestion might work with the new president of Mexico. The previous one didn’t think too much of “American interference” and did nothing to stop the exodus of his citizens, in fact, If I recall correctly, he [i]encouraged[/i] it. Money sent from the US to Mexico ranks high on the list of national income for Mexico, so why would they want to stop illegal border crossings?
Oh, well, I think the best solution is more ARMED guards and deputized citizens along the border, in addition to the fence.
Chips,
very well said.
Matt,
The immigration debate is one within the family – economic moderates and conservatives (alligned with liberals) v. nationalistic conservatives and moderates (including many centrist democrats). The reason the democratic leadership cannot mannage the war is because they are uterly clueless about defense issues (many I think are opposed to National Defense – they might defend the upper east side but maybe not). They are so clueless that most instinctively change the subject when it comes up. Bush has done a poor job of managing the Iraqi war – I think it is because he is a good person and thinks to well of others. Spending should be brought under control (the Rep leadership is guilty as charged) but the Dems have no history of doing so except by gutting the DOD – which helped lead to a badly managed war. In fact the budget deficit is dropping like a stone thanks to a growing economy fueled by tax cuts. IF the country does move to the left and we get National Health – we are in a real pickle.
The dems have avoided talk of impeachment because there has been no impeachable offense and they are terrified of the loony left.
Chips,
again, an excellent summary.
chips,
Bush is no more “managing” the war than he is “managing” the EPA. He has training as a jet pilot but is not a historian or military strategist. Thus, the war is being managed by the DoD which has large staffs of highly trained people dedicated to the job. They are doing it poorly because they don’t really have a war to manage. The US military is set up for battlefield manuevers in armed conflicts with other state militaries, and they are gangbusters in that area. Unfortunately, the current conflict is between and among the US and non-state insurgencies. An Iraqi state cannot emerge to quash these insurgencies because 1) its governors lack credibility with large sectors of the Iraqi populace and 2) the US presence prevents the emergence of a militant Shi’ite state that would send the foreigners packing and slaughter the Sunni insurgents in their beds.
Now, to immigration. Mexico is not failing to build a middle class because the “best and brightest” [i]mestizos[/i] are leaving for the US. Mexico is failing to build a middle class because it is becoming a failed state: the rule of law is disappearing and property is not secure, either from the government or from criminal gangs. In this sense, emigration acts as a safety valve for the kleptocracy down there.
I agree with your proposal for securing the border, in none of which Bush or the Republicans are interested by the way. The US government is hoping to fund its welfare and warfare liabilities by expanding the tax and economic base, and this requires far more immigrants than your proposal allows. It will not work because immigrants are not coming here to pay taxes for stupid white people, and immigrants get old and sick and want public assistance too.
Thanks Library Jim. Reactionary I agree with all of your points – however I think Mexico has always been a failed state (Santa Ana – Poncho Villa et al) and the safety valve prevents positive change from occuring (same is true of Cuba and Miami). The beauty of a guest worker visa is that the immigrants would not get old (I would add a requirement that the sponsoring employer provide at least some health insurance as part of the visa deal)- they would be replaced by new young ones – unfortuenatley the US does not have the good sense to make a firm but fair arms length negotiated deal with migrant workers in our national interest.
Matt,
I concur. I doubt the towns that have felt the US military’s force believe Bush is “too nice.” In a way though, he is “too nice.” The slippery rationalizations for this conflict have now settled on disarming the numerous non-state militias and insuring democratic government, whatever that means. Now, the way to do this is the old fashioned way: public executions of adult men, humiliation of women, and indoctrination of the children, as the Muslims once did with the Janissaries. Those Iraqis still standing will then be free to vote for our choice to lead the client regime.
As I am sure you would agree, the US is simply not up to this task, institutionally or ideologically. The best we can do is hold down a lid on the civil war that is trying to break out. If we are going to stay this course, then Americans just need to inflate their currency and accept a death toll of around 2,000/year and around 8,000/year injuries for the next decade or so.
Matt,
The president is and has always been a very good but naive Methodist – building a true democracy from scratch is and was a tall order (continental Europeans have had trouble mastering it) – probably needed a western minded military strongman at the top – introduce local democracy at the bottom – our troops stay until order is created and an election could be held. The invasion force was too small as was the occupation force. The stand-up of the Iraqi armed forces should have included troops culled in from the former army – and paid retirement for many who were culled out. The scale of training was way too small as was the timetable (Churchill was right in that it takes two years to make a soldier – and he was talking about Ango Saxons reasonalby educated). Reactionary may not be nice enough.
I would not eat crow because my altenative was Al Gore who is very scary and even more naive than Bush followed by Kerry who is anti the US armed forces and likely a committed pacifist. Kerry was an impediment to our successful conclusion of the guerrilla wars against the communists in Latin America. I would also not eat crow becasue the invasion of Iraq was necessary because 1) Iraq was in violation of his treaty obligations 2) it either had a WMD program or could have easily reestablished one 3) our so called allies wanted to end the sanctions; and 4) he bluffed ours and all the other credible intelligence organizations into believing he had WMD (if we believed it to be so it would have been wrong not to invade). Bush did a lousy job of preparing the Nation mentally for a long war – Americans expect instant results. This war for civilization will likely last a generation at a minimum.
chips,
I’ve got a better idea: how about the barbarians stay over there, and we stay over here.
If our liberal democratic charters will not allow even this minimal safeguard, then the die is cast. The US will fall to the non-secular forces of Islam and pan-Hispanic nationalism.
Reactionary,
Your strategy would be ideal. However, in an international ecconomic interdependent world (with oil in all the bad places – save of course Texas) with Jet aircraft – I do not believe that it would work. We just need to be more assertive about our national interests and a little less namby pamby. Power abhors a vaccum and their hasnt been one since 1815 (though it was tested on occasion).
chips,
On the contrary, cross-border trade even at the height of the ethnic nation-state was abundant. The globalism by which public and private elites commit labor and capital arbitrage is not free trade. In any event, if you want to buy into the globalist lie that Muslims will not trade oil unless we allow them the free access and association that they do not allow us, the die is cast. A nation that cannot muster even that minimal will deserves its fate.
Matt,
America is a modern experiment in secular and liberal democracy. It is a time-limited one, and that time is coming to an end.
Matt,
Hussein was a bad guy and with a fairly modern state supplied by the Russians and Chinese. He was a real threat – in 2003 or later to America’s oil supply and stabillty in the Mideast he would also have been in a position to aid and abet non state actors such as Al Queda (whether he would have done so is speculation). Based upon credible inteligence estimates of his capabilites both actual and potential – he had to be taken out while world opinion would permit it. Bush failed to educate the American public because he was (I believed) convinced that we would find WMD and he failed to prepare for the very likely possibilty of a drawn out insurgency (since this was an arab nation that is very negligent). The fact that WMD was not found does not mean that a rational state – sans your preference for non-intravention and reluctance to kill – should not have gone to war (hence no need for crow). From your earlier posts you seem to be a very moral nice person – but the world is a very dangerous place. I would be in favor of bombing both N. Korea and Iran into the stone age with our B-2s if I thought it would save American lives or reduce the risk to the west in the long run – sooner rather than later. I hold very parochial foreign policy views whcih may make me a bad Christian and I can accept that. However, I take comfort in knowing that had England and France gone to war in 1938 over Czechoslovakia and not waited until Poland – Hitler would have been stoped before he killed millions of people. Non intervention and Pacifism can also have uninteded consequeces.
chips,
The default position should always be neutrality and non-intervention. Had the US not intervened in WWI on the side of the British and French, the combatants, with their forces depleted and their treasuries drained, would have been forced to sue for peace and the political stability and economy of the German nation would have been preserved. And just as Wilson’s misguided crusade for democracy unleashed awful social and political forces that he did not understand and could not control, so will Bush’s misguided crusade for democracy in the Middle East.
So many of today’s problems are the result of yesterday’s government solutions. This is what happens when decision-making is detached from those who actually bear the consequences of policy choices. Foreign policy is no different from domestic policy in this regard.
Fascinating interchange. My two cents:
Cent #1- The ’03 war was the resumption of the ’91 war due to undeniable violations of the terms of the ceasfire. It was not a new war and was clearly justified under international law. Whether we SHOULD have resumed the war is an entirely different question.
Cent #2- The “big lie” is alive and well. We DID find WMDs. No nuclear – only the remainder of his program. No biological – but many components. But many chemical (the “c” in NBC), specifically Silkworm missiles with sarin warheads. (Recall what a tiny amount of sarin did in the Japanese underground station a few years ago.) This was confirmed in reports by the Army colonel in charge of the WMD search. (The lame response from opponents is that they were old and might not have worked.) Again, it’s a separate issue whether we should have resumed war. But let’s discuss based on facts, not myths.
PS: The genesis of the current mess was the incredibly stupid Franco-British division of the Middle East post-WW1. They tried to superimpose modern nation-states where none existed, ignoring the tribal society nature of the Middle East and its longstanding animosities.
Reactionary,
Had the United States not intervened in WWI the Kaiser would have won after having eliminated Russia. Britain and France would have been defeated – Britain held off the April Ludenforff offensive but knew they had to hold on long enough for US troops to make a difference. Absent the US entry allied morale would have crumbled. Your post is a rewrite of WWI history. Sans the Royal Navy guarding the seas and in a modern age of jets, balistic missiles and WMD – fortress America – a concept held by both you and Matt but for different reasons is not realistic. This country was blessed by large oceans separating it from potential foes – I am not saying that Pax Americana will work well or for long – just that I cannot predict the consequences of quitting.
chips,
And what would be the terrible consequences of the Kaiser winning, assuming that would have been the case? Would they have been any worse than the chaos and hyperinflation that created an audience for a demagogue like Hitler?
Why were we able to deter the armed-to-the-teeth Soviet Union but are somehow impotent against the Muslim rabble? And if Muslims are such a threat, why do we let them in here when we are fighting them over there? In an age where NBC devices will soon be widespread, such a policy is just insane.
Also, what is this talk about “America’s” oil supply and Saddam’s supposed threat to it? If American consumers need oil, they must either obtain mineral rights from the government or private landowners or they must purchase it on the open market. In any event, I will be sure to go by Walter Reed and thank all the soldiers there for protecting America’s oil supply.
Reactionary,
1) Europe under German dominion under the Kaiser or der Fuhrer would have been a bad thing for US interests (remember we were/are an allied power). Britain’s policy of preventing Europe from falling under the control of one power since 1588 (and continued by us since 1941) has been a good one.
2) We are not impotent against the Muslim rabble – we will prevail as long as our morale does not falter – I agree our immigration policies are idiotic.
3) homocidal maniacs sitting atop the largest resovoirs of oil reserves can have disasterous effects on the open market – we cannot allow the us economy to be held hostage. I am very greatful for our solidiers sacrifice – but a nation’s ecconomic interests are worth fighting for – no blood for oil is an utopian croc.
Based upon your arguments, I have concluded Reactionary that you must either be 1) Pat Buchanan or 2) my father. 🙂