 |
The Loss of Independence – HUMAN EVENTS — This nice essay reminds us that as we celebrate Independence Day, we have none.
For most of the 19th century, the nation followed the economic policy of Hamilton and the foreign policy of Washington — and was richly rewarded. By the first decade of the 20th century, America was the most independent and self-reliant republic in all of history.
And by staying out of two world wars of the 20th century until many of the bloodiest battles had been fought, America emerged in 1945 economically and politically independent of all other nations.
During the Cold War, however, Americans came to believe that a temporary alliance, NATO, was necessary to prevent Joseph Stalin’s empire from overrunning Europe and turning the balance of power against us. To help our wartime allies and former enemies Japan, Germany and Italy to their feet, we set aside Hamilton’s policy and threw open the American market to the goods of Free Europe and Free Asia.
These should have been temporary alliances and temporary measures. Instead, they were made permanent.
No longer free of foreign entanglements, as Thomas Jefferson urged, we now have commitments to defend 50 countries. The old Hamiltonian policy of “Prosper America First” has given way to worship of a Global Economy, at whose altars we sacrifice daily the vital interests of our own manufacturers and workers.
Two Chinese manufacturing plants went capooey earlier this year. The market for large mortar shells for public displays were cut in half. Luckily, the Chinese can build a new one faster than one can say Mexican M80. The Commies saved the show.
Yep, American Imperialism is alive and well, and with the exception of a few troublemakers like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, everyone loves our empire. Oops, everyone in America loves our empire.
Best author on this subject is Chalmers Johnson. All “empires” fail. We can either recognize that and start letting go like the British did, or we can expend all our resources and hang on to it, risking the destruction of our own country under mountains of debt.
The irony is the same people who despise our “empire” and “global meddling” want us to be good citizens of the world.
Pick one — you can either be a country to itself, or a citizen of the world. Not both or neither.
Anti-globalism nuts are full of crap. Effectively they want us to be Europeans by “protecting” our industries and pretending that having the government involved in every aspect of production and sales is good.
Not to mention the largest reason the NATO/other organizations are problems for us is mister asshole’s unilateralism in Iraq.
Those organizations were genius moves by the folks who built them. We could initiate things all over the globe, gather support and push “our agenda” and still have it under the auspices of multi-nation support. The only times that became a problem was when the other countries involved completely disagreed with us, which would be a democratic thing, hm.
The presidential assholes keep wanting to dismantle all this diplomatic infrastructure without UNDERSTANDING it. They think it restricts us, when it actually allows us to get what we want without having to expend our resources and men… which would be very Jeffersonian.
@ Jim:
Listen, if the globalization nutheads hadn’t dragged countries like China and India kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century in the name of profit, we wouldn’t be having this oil shortage we have today. The globalizers “needed” their markets, so now they’re ravenous consumers of oil — which would have happened eventually, but at their own pace, if the Intels and 3M’s of the west hadn’t forced it to happen in such a short time. Look at us now.
Globalization is evil. It’s nothing but economic imperialism gussied up for the ignorant, and it backfires every time.
“Anti-globalism nuts are full of crap. Effectively they want us to be Europeans by “protecting” our industries and pretending that having the government involved in every aspect of production and sales is good.”
And failure to follow that advice has led the EU to be the richest country in the world, not the US anymore. Also EU is more technologically advanced than us, has better and cheaper health care, and rank above the US in education.
Go back a couple of pages, Denmark is the happiest country in the world, while the US is bogged down in unnecessary wars, and well resented around the world for its interference in other people’s affairs.
ugh. the US was never “independent” of the global economy. as colonies and as a newly-independent nation, we were an exporter of raw materials (tobacco, cotton, foodstuffs) and an importer of manufactured goods. foreign capital (British, primarily) bankrolled our railroads and fueled our industrialization.
oh, and his history is a load of crap, too:
“In 1812, however, James Madison, goaded by “war hawks” Henry Clay and John Calhoun, and ignoring the counsel of the Farewell Address, declared war on Britain and came near to seeing his nation torn apart.”
one, the US was never even close to being torn apart by the War of 1812(New England was never on the verge of seceding), and two, the US declared war on the UK for a number of reasons, including the fact that the British Royal Navy was kidnapping Americans on the high seas and forcing them to serve in the RN. even an “isolationist” nation shouldn’t put up with that.
as usual, Pat Buchanan is full of it.
#6 Just one tiny itch:
EU is NOT a country.
Not an real Union (like the USSR was), not even a federation. As to being richer than US, (If we were a country) it’s simple: The G8 already has 4 European countries.
So, what’s this nonsense about World Bank and IMF telling developing countries to open their markets for American goods and services? Should the US stop all its exports in favour a free independant closed market?
So are you guys going to be voting for Pat Buchanan next?
#7 and #10 win this thread.
Conservative View Point + Rejection of Global Capitalism = Pat Buchanan
While I’m certainly farther to the right than most around here, I can easily say this is a viewpoint that has properly been rejected by history.
Then again, I think this argument has nothing to do with political spectrum, as both the far right and the far left can buy in to it. This argument has the one thing the extremes on both ends buy in to: bullshit… the variety of which can’t be backed up.