Last
week I appeared on a national television news show to discuss
recent events in the Middle East. During the show I merely suggested
that there are two sides to the dispute, and that the focus of
American foreign policy should be the best interests of America
not Palestine or Israel. I argued that American interests
are best served by not taking either side in this ancient and
deadly conflict, as Washington and Jefferson counseled when they
warned against entangling alliances. I argued against our crazy
policy of giving hundred of billions of dollars in unconstitutional
foreign aid and military weapons to both sides, which only intensifies
the conflict and never buys peace. My point was simple: we should
follow the Constitution and stay out of foreign wars.
I was immediately
attacked for offering such heresy. We've reached the point where
virtually everyone in Congress, the administration, and the media
blindly accepts that America must become involved (financially
and militarily) in every conflict around the globe. To even suggest
otherwise in today's political climate is to be accused of "aiding
terrorists." It's particularly ironic that so many conservatives
in America, who normally adopt an "America first" position,
cannot see the obvious harm that results from our being dragged
time and time again into an intractable and endless Middle East
war. The empty justification is always that America is the global
superpower, and thus has no choice but to police the world.
The Founding
Fathers saw it otherwise. Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist
foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address:
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations
entangling alliances with none." How many times have
we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How
many champion Jefferson and the Constitution, but conveniently
ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Washington
similarly urged that the US must "Act for ourselves and not
for others," by forming an "American character wholly
free of foreign attachments." Since so many on Capitol Hill
apparently now believe Washington was wrong, they should at least
have the intellectual honesty to admit it next time his name is
being celebrated.
In fact,
when I mentioned Washington the other guest on the show quickly
repeated the tired cliche that "We don't live in George Washington's
times." Yet if we accept this argument, what other principles
from that era should we discard? Should we give up the First amendment
because times have changed? How about the rest of the Bill of
Rights? It's hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding
principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to
justify foolishpolicies today. The principles enshrined in the
Constitution do not change. If anything, today's more complex
world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist
foreign policy.
It's
easy to dismiss the noninterventionist view as the quaint aspiration
of men who lived in a less complicated world, but it's not so
easy to demonstrate how our current policies serve any national
interest at all. Perhaps an honest examination of the history
of American interventionism in the 20th century, from Korea to
Vietnam to Kosovo to the Middle East, would reveal that the Founding
Fathers foresaw more than we think.