← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Sertorius
Thread ID: 20637 | Posts: 11 | Started: 2005-10-13
2005-10-13 15:12 | User Profile
A Conservative Foreign Policy by Paul M.Weyrich
In 1951, one of America's true conservatives, Senator Robert A. Taft, published a book titled A Foreign Policy for Americans. I think what Senator Taft wrote then applies to our own time as well.
In discussing the purposes of American foreign policy, he said:
"There are a good many Americans who talk about an American century in which America will dominate the world. They rightly point out that the United States is so powerful today that we should assume a moral leadership in the world . . . The trouble with those who advocate this policy is that they really do not confine themselves to moral leadership. . . In their hearts they want to force on these foreign peoples through the use of American money and even, perhaps, American arms, the policies which moral leadership is able to advance only through the sound strength of its principles and the force of its persuasion. I do not think this moral leadership ideal justifies our engaging in any preventive war . . . I do not believe any policy which has behind it the threat of military force is justified as part of the basic foreign policy of the United States except to defend the liberty of our own people."
Like the Founding Fathers, Senator Taft valued liberty here at home above "superpower" status abroad. The Founding Fathers understood that these two are in tension. To preserve liberty here at home, we need a weak federal government, because a strong federal government is the greatest potential threat to our liberties. The division of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government is intended to make decisions and actions by the federal government difficult. But playing the great power game abroad demands the opposite. It demands a strong federal government that can make decisions, including of peace or war, quickly and easily. To a large degree, that is the kind of federal government we now have.
But should we? In my view, the next conservatism needs to take a hard look at our foreign policy from exactly this perspective. Do we now have a foreign policy that requires a federal government, and particularly an executive branch, so strong that it is a danger to our liberties? If we do, then we have a fundamental contradiction at the heart of our foreign policy. Why? Because the most basic purpose of our foreign policy should be to preserve our liberties. As Senator Taft understood, this touches on the most sensitive foreign policy question: to what degree should America be active in the world? Since his time, the whole Washington Establishment, the New Class, has come to condemn his position, which I think is the real conservative position, as "isolationism." But the word is a lie. America was never isolated from the rest of the world. Rather, through most of our history, America related to the rest of the world primarily through private means, through trade and by serving as a moral example to the world, the "shining city on a hill." That policy served us well, both in maintaining liberty here at home and in developing our economy. As Senator Taft wrote, "we were respected as the most disinterested and charitable nation in the world."
Then, after World War II, we instead began to play the great power game, which the Founding Fathers had opposed. Because of the threat of Communism, that was necessary for a time. But when Communism fell in the early 1990s, we did not return to our historic policy. Rather, we declared ourselves the dominant power in the world, "the only superpower," the New Rome as some would have it. We set off on the course of American Empire, despite the fact that empire abroad almost certainly means eventual extinction of liberty here at home.
The next conservatism needs a different foreign policy, a foreign policy designed for a republic, not an empire. It needs to recognize that the Establishment wants to play the great power game because it lives richly off that game. But the next conservatism is about throwing the Establishment out, not enriching it further. The next conservatism's foreign policy should proceed from these wise words of Senator Robert A. Taft:
"I do not believe it is a selfish goal for us to insist that the overriding purpose of all American foreign policy should be the maintenance of the liberty and peace of our people of the United States, so that they may achieve that intellectual and material improvement which is their genius and in which they can set an example for all peoples. By that example we can do an even greater service to mankind than we can do by billions of material assistance - and more than we can ever do by war."
Paul M. Weyrich is the Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation. [url]http://acuf.org/issues/issue45/051006news.asp[/url] =================== Needless to say, we won't hear this discussed on "talk radio" or Fox News.
It is good to see that Paul Weyrich seems to be on the road to recovery.
2005-10-14 02:15 | User Profile
I have always found Weyrich an interesting but strange fellow. There are times he takes establishment positions and at other times he threatens to become a Paleo-Conservative. I don't know if he is either an independent thinker or a kind of trimmer, trying to keep his contacts with the "mainstream" conservative movement. He is a truly puzzling figure on the American right.
2005-10-14 04:13 | User Profile
George Washington, da...
Leon Trotsky, nyet.
2005-10-14 20:37 | User Profile
[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][/FONT][QUOTE=CornCod]I have always found Weyrich an interesting but strange fellow. There are times he takes establishment positions and at other times he threatens to become a Paleo-Conservative. I don't know if he is either an independent thinker or a kind of trimmer, trying to keep his contacts with the "mainstream" conservative movement. He is a truly puzzling figure on the American right.[/QUOTE]Well Weyrich doesn't have the literary acumen of a Chronicles editor or tough crust of a Francis or Buchanan. He is a political activist, committed in general to the GOP establishment's primary goal of playing the elections game. To that end, he is reportedly the man who has a direct line to Karl Rove.
Maybe because of that he seems to have vacilated between paleo's and mainstreamers. He initially went along with the purge of paleo's in the 86, (where Novak attacked Fleming) but seems to have been trying to recover the damage this move did to cultural conservatives lately.
He certainly has seeemed to become more radical recently, such as reflected in some of Lind's moves, like his attendence at the IHR conference, and when he says things like
[QUOTE][SIZE="3"][FONT="Times New Roman"]The next conservatism needs a different foreign policy, a foreign policy designed for a republic, not an empire. It needs to recognize that the Establishment wants to play the great power game because it lives richly off that game. But the next conservatism is about throwing the Establishment out, not enriching it further. The next conservatism's foreign policy should proceed from these wise words of Senator Robert A. Taft[/FONT][/SIZE]:[/QUOTE]
It sure sounds like a clarion call to to popular conservative movement he help found to break with the neocon establishment. The question is though, after waiting so long, if its now too little and too late.
2005-10-14 20:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CornCod]I don't know if he is either an independent thinker or a kind of trimmer, trying to keep his contacts with the "mainstream" conservative movement. He is a truly puzzling figure on the American right.[/QUOTE]I'm curious BTW about your use of the metaphor trimmer - maybe you could explain it for me, I've head it but never exactly been sure in what sense. One encyclopedia I have says
[QUOTE][I]Sail trimmers are generally very focused team players[/I] who want to do their specific job to perfection and expect no less from all other crewmembers.[/QUOTE]Is that part of what you mean?
2005-10-15 14:53 | User Profile
Sert, thanks for posting the article. Good stuff.
Isolationism won't work. Glad to see he approached that topic and stepped up to the plate. His well articulated commentary about "world's only super power" chose an activist Imperial role was the mistakes made in both Somalia, and Bosnia, in Kosovo, and it continues today.
Policy makers forgot the six point test of compelling National Interests, and decided that constructive engagement meant battalions of troops on the ground, the world's policeman, which is exactly what we don't need to be.
From [URL="http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/ml_057800_weinbergerdo.htm"]http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/ml_057800_weinbergerdo.htm[/URL]
[I]The Weinberger Doctrine reflects the collective lessons of the Vietnam War learned by the U.S. military with its resolution to avoid such quagmires in the future. All these lessons were distilled into the six points comprising the Weinberger Doctrine. They are as follows:[/I] [LIST=1] [][I]The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved. [/I] [][I]U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed. [/I] [][I]U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and [U]with the capacity to accomplish those objectives. [/U][/I] [][I][U]The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary. [/U][/I] [][I][U]U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.[/U] [/I] [][I]The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.[/I][/LIST]How soon "we" forget, eh? [I] AE[/I]
[quote=Sertorius] A Conservative Foreign Policy by Paul M.Weyrich ==snip== "I do not believe it is a selfish goal for us to insist that the overriding purpose of all American foreign policy should be the maintenance of the liberty and peace of our people of the United States, so that they may achieve that intellectual and material improvement which is their genius and in which they can set an example for all peoples. By that example we can do an even greater service to mankind than we can do by billions of material assistance - and more than we can ever do by war."
Paul M. Weyrich is the Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation. [URL="http://acuf.org/issues/issue45/051006news.asp"]http://acuf.org/issues/issue45/051006news.asp[/URL] ===================
2005-10-15 16:27 | User Profile
Don't forget Weyrich's conference on "cultural separatism" in 1999. In 1999, under Clinton he was a separatist. He must have succeeded because in 2000 after Bush became president we heard no more of it. To the rest of the world, the PC of the Clinton era didn't vanish like the mist of a bad dream, leading to a better tomorrow in which all our fears were dispelled.
I think it is clear what side he's on and why he's on it. Taft and Weyrich sound like sanity itself, but that is by contrast to surroundings. But dig a little deeper and learn what the program is. If we all became Weyrichites tomorrow and declared our cultural independence would the country be a better place? Let's have a sample of the program the FCF's own mouth: " Until recently, the objective of cultural conservatives, those Americans who still adhere to our ancient, Western, Judeo-Christian culture, was to retake existing cultural institutions - the public schools, the universities, the media, the entertainment industry and the arts - from those hostile to our culture and make them once again forces for goodness, truth and beauty. We sought to do so primarily through politics, by electing fellow cultural conservatives to high office and expecting them, once elected, to use politics to help restore our traditional culture." --- ### Macrobius *2005-10-15 16:30* | [User Profile](/od/user/1680) Trimmers were moderates in early 18th century England, between Whig and Tory, back when Tory meant Jacobite. I'm sure the nautical allusion was understood as part of the connotation. --- ### Okiereddust *2005-10-15 22:37* | [User Profile](/od/user/29) [QUOTE=Macrobius]Trimmers were moderates in early 18th century England, between Whig and Tory, back when Tory meant Jacobite. I'm sure the nautical allusion was understood as part of the connotation...... OK, that makes sense. Yes, Weyrich sounds like the quintessential trimmer. Every political organizer knows succesful politics conists of how well you manage the two conflicting needs of contemporary political science thought, that of "enlarging the tent" vs. "energizing the base". Weyrich sounds like his whole political life has been about managing these two tendencies. Although he seems to have epitimized both of them himself. He participated in some journals with paleo's like Fleming, but cut ties with them after the 1986 neo vs. paleo split and went with the neo's. Lately he seems to have been trying to drift back. Which seems odd. The easiest thing to do would be perhaps just o give Fleming a ring and say "let's let bygones be bygones" (Well perhaps not the easiest thing with the reputedly difficult Fleming. As it is, he seems to know the right buzzwords, but I'm not sure what depth he has to them. Like you note below > Don't forget Weyrich's conference on "cultural separatism" in 1999. In 1999, under Clinton he was a separatist. He must have succeeded because in 2000 after Bush became president we heard no more of it. To the rest of the world, the PC of the Clinton era didn't vanish like the mist of a bad dream, leading to a better tomorrow in which all our fears were dispelled.
I think it is clear what side he's on and why he's on it. Taft and Weyrich sound like sanity itself, but that is by contrast to surroundings. But dig a little deeper and learn what the program is. If we all became Weyrichites tomorrow and declared our cultural independence would the country be a better place? Let's have a sample of the program the FCF's own mouth: " Until recently, the objective of cultural conservatives, those Americans who still adhere to our ancient, Western, Judeo-Christian culture, was to retake existing cultural institutions - the public schools, the universities, the media, the entertainment industry and the arts - from those hostile to our culture and make them once again forces for goodness, truth and beauty. We sought to do so primarily through politics, by electing fellow cultural conservatives to high office and expecting them, once elected, to use politics to help restore our traditional culture."[/QUOTE]Yes yes yes. He utters the right words but do they have substance? See "cultural conservatism" sounds good to us, but the neo-cons also are big fans of the term. David Horowitz has his "Center for Cultural Renewal" etc etc. We can talk about restoring the traditional conservative cultural values of our Republic, but which values, and which republic? Is it the conservative values of Edmond Burke, or those of the neocon idols of Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King? Everybody believes in restoring our ancient western culture, but whose version of it? That's what perhaps explains his puzzling personna. He would like to be a conservative icon like Robert Bork, but sometimes seems he wants to do so in the manner of the proverbial political insider like and lack of a paper trail like Harriet Miers. At least that's one interpretation. Of course Werich isn't alone. I think his ambivalence is pretty much sytompatic of mainstream conservartism as a whole. --- ### Okiereddust *2005-10-15 23:06* | [User Profile](/od/user/29) [QUOTE=Angeleyes]Sert, thanks for posting the article. Good stuff. Isolationism won't work. Glad to see he approached that topic and stepped up to the plate. His well articulated commentary about "world's only super power" chose an activist Imperial role was the mistakes made in both Somalia, and Bosnia, in Kosovo, and it continues today. Policy makers forgot the six point test of compelling National Interests, and decided that constructive engagement meant battalions of troops on the ground, the world's policeman, which is exactly what we don't need to be. [/QUOTE]The problem is that its not our policy makers forgot the doctrine of "compelling National Interest", more than they forgot, or are vague, (unintentionally or intentionally) whose National Interest we are supposed to defend, or even which nation they themselves are loyal to. In any event isolationism and Taft (however much they are comparable - I haven't really closely studied Taft), may not be the only principle of a foreign policy, or in a good situation even the main principle, but in our situation it is a good first principle. The same way of the Hypocratic Oath for Doctors "First, Do No Harm"? That may involve doing nothing, if the Doctor admits he doesn't understand the problem well. Which certainly applies to our present situation in foreign policy. --- ### Angeleyes *2005-10-16 15:29* | [User Profile](/od/user/1513) [quote=Okiereddust]The problem is that its not our policy makers forgot the doctrine of "compelling National Interest", more than they forgot, or are vague, (unintentionally or intentionally) whose National Interest we are supposed to defend, or even which nation they themselves are loyal to. In any event isolationism and Taft (however much they are comparable - I haven't really closely studied Taft), may not be the only principle of a foreign policy, or in a good situation even the main principle, but in our situation it is a good first principle. The same way of the Hypocratic Oath for Doctors "First, Do No Harm"? That may involve doing nothing, if the Doctor admits he doesn't understand the problem well. Which certainly applies to our present situation in foreign policy. I'll disagree only mildly. "Doing nothing" is recipe for being surprised, and having others shape the forward progress of the world, for better and worse. However, building relationships and how one remains engaged with the various nations of the world takes a lot of care and balane of what sovereign interests are versus long term strategic and economic interests. The one thing we probably agree on is: Policeman of the world is a fools role, and has been since Wilson's time. AE ---