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 foolish
policies 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.