Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
No US Troops in Ukraine, Thank You Very Much
If you’ve listened to today’s flagship podcast, you know it got a bit spicy. (If you haven’t yet listened, you’re in for a treat.) To briefly recap, co-host @jameslileks noted his support for Ukraine. Our guest considered his support insufficient because he does not want the U.S. military sent into the war zone.
This critique struck many Ricochetti as odd since the public agrees with James by a large margin. A recent Reuters poll showed that only 26 percent want troops tromping about the Transdnieper. The guest said, no problem, because public opinion is “malleable” (shudder). After the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention general governmental incompetence over two decades, I suspect we are less malleable than expected.
The days of massive American intervention are gone, at least for quite a while. I prefer a foreign policy that’s more John Quincy Adams than Woodrow Wilson, especially considering all the messes on the homefront.
In an 1823 letter to our Minister in Madrid, Hugh Nelson, JQA wrote:
It has been the policy of these United States from the time when their independence was achieved to hold themselves aloof from the political system and contentions of Europe… The first and paramount duty of the government is to maintain peace amidst the convulsions of foreign wars and to enter the lists as parties to no cause, other than our own.
Just so. The exigencies of the Cold War drastically changed this attitude, but it is long past time we return to its wisdom.
In his Independence Day address of 1821, Adams more completely laid out his foreign policy vision [emphases mine]:
America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.
She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama [field of blood], the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet on her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world; she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit….
Her glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.
America was founded as a nation that minded its own business. The sooner we return to that vision, the safer we, and the world, will be. This is not “isolationism,” but common sense. We elect leaders to enact our will and protect our nation; it is other nations’ duty to do the same. If an enemy attacks us, we unleash hell upon them; that doesn’t mean we can police the world. We refuse even to police our own borders.
George Washington foreshadowed J. Q. Adams’ foreign policy. In his farewell address, our first president said:
Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct. And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it?
…In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur…. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests.
So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.
… it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
…Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.
They might even demand you place a Ukraine flag emoji on your social media profile. Washington continues…
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it…
Wherever it is possible, bring our troops home. As long as we are not attacked, keep them here. Our military was founded to protect America, not any other nation, no matter how noble their fight may be.
Fair warning: I am not very malleable when body bags are advocated.
Published in Foreign Policy, Military
Again, how is this a criticism? Which part do you disagree with??
If Bush identifies those things as being the current state of the Republican Party, at least those outside of the GOPe, and he DISAGREES WITH THEM – which he apparently does – then it’s criticism. If HE doesn’t think the party SHOULD be that way.
Of course “Nativist” and “Isolationist” have negative connotations, which is why those terms are used.
Instead call it “Putting the interests of the citizens of America first.” Or perhaps “Respecting our nation and culture and deeming them important and worth protecting.”
I can find pictures like that all day long. It means nothing.
The photos with Trump and the Clintons are even cozier.
When did he ever say he disagreed?
Of course, I’m for a “pull up the drawbridges” approach to foreign policy. (Not entirely, but close.) Time to put a complete moratorium on any and all immigration, maybe for several years. Time to focus on the United States, and stop being the world’s policeman or the global ATM.
I might even suggest it’s time to pull out of NATO. I don’t believe it’s in the national interest to keep it going if all it’s for is dragging us into conflicts that have nothing to do with us.
This makes certain “conservatives” angry. So be it. I don’t see that they’ve conserved anything over the last 40 years.
I haven’t looked for quotes, but sometimes “disagree” doesn’t need to be said, depending on context etc.
You can say “those people are nativists” which might just be a description.
Or you can say “THOSE people are NATIVISTS!” which is very likely – if not obviously – derisive, even without a “*snort*” or “Ptooie!”
Those terms are only negative if you want them to be. I’ve heard the term “isolationist” for years in describing historical trade policies of the United States and it was just a term used to describe conditions. “Free trade” is the opposite term used. That could be negative too if you want it to be. In fact I think it is often used as a pejorative on this site.
“Nativist” is a new term for me but all the definitions I’ve seen don’t mention anything derogatory.
No, no . . . “nativist” and “isolationist” definitely have negative connotations. In their usage they are almost exclusively negative. I didn’t realize there was even a question about that.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but “nativist” has clear negative connotations regardless of how one might literally define it.
You are “mind reading” again. Everybody seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel to find any scrap of evidence that Bush may have “hinted” or “telegraphed” some criticism against Trump, but it is not there. This is no different than looking for the evidence of Russian Collusion. Meanwhile, if you want to find Trump criticizing either Bush or his father you’ve got ample public quotes of him openly mocking them or calling them “liars” and sarcastically a “serious genius.” And that was before any of these Bush references were made, so it wasn’t in response to anything Bush said about Trump.
Then what better term would you use to describe your views on wanting to stay out of foreign entanglements. I can’t think of a better term than “Isolationist.” It is the term always used for any country in the world that wants to stay out of foreign affairs.
Your description of “Putting the interests of America first” is very accurate, but it is a sentence clause, not a word. What word would you use instead of “Nativist?” If there is no other than maybe it’s time to invent one.
“American.”
That doesn’t work. Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden are Americans.
I love how my point on Papa Bush was ignored.
win.
You can call somebody a **** ****** and the mere truth of it doesn’t make it less an insult. When Bush says these things, he’s not being encyclopedic in his description — he’s criticizing. Bush turned into such a wimp that he backed away from HIS OWN Republican administration before it was even over. There’s a reason that much of the base feels that Bush never had a bad word to say about Obama and never had a good one to say about Trump, and it’s not because we’re a bunch of drooling hicks, unable to comprehend CNN’s nonsense.
Great. Find me one with Bush and Trump.
Also
Bush II led us into two wars we did not win.
By win I mean: We got in, we achieved our objectives and left. We did not leave two functioning democratic states. That was the stated goal. We did not do that, we did not win.
100% George W. Bush’s fault. He was in charge and he screwed it up.
And no, the idea we achieved our objective because we deposed someone and the objective later changed does not wash. We did not achieve the objective of nation building independent democratic nations.
Fail.
Loss.
America has not won a war (or police action) since WWII. At best, we have won some battles, like Panama.
That term was in full swing for the last six years. It means Republican Racist monolingual hick.
Beat me to it.
Sure they are, Yuri:
You think I couldn’t say the same thing about you, or anyone else, the same exact words, two separate times, but have it apparently mean the opposite depending on HOW I said it?
Hello, have you met language?
Bryan Stephens: “Pappas Bush was best Fiends with Clinton. Clinton.”
I didn’t think it had much relevance. Donald Trump was even better friends with the Clintons than Pappa Bush.
It’s not just Obama and Trump. Bush doesn’t comment on any political candidates.
When Trump donated money to the campaigns of Harry Reid and Terry MacAuliffe, many Trump supporters shrugged it off saying, “Trump is a businessman. Of course he’s going to donate to both Democrats and Republicans.”
But I don’t see that kind of generosity applied towards other Republicans. A double standard seems to be at work here.
No, they’re not. They may say that they are, but they’re globalists.
Silence is violence! s/
According to Trump, not only are Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden not Americans, neither is George W. Bush or Mitch McConnell.
Eventually the list of people who qualify as Americans will get smaller and smaller. That does not seem like a recipe for success in furture elections.
Not once POTUS
Win.
Ha.