Liberty in America
columnist: rtbohan

Topic: Barack Obama
And When It Is Wrong....

---

"Our country, right or wrong: when right, to be kept right; when wrong to be put right."--Carl Schurz

---

by rtbohan
(Libertarian)
Sunday, July 20, 2008

Carl Schurz([link edited for length]) was an immigrant to the United States from Germany after the failed revolution of 1848. Becoming a citizen of the United States, he was a Union General during the Civil War, served as Senator from Missouri, and was Secretary of the Interior from 1877-1881. The above quote was a statement made during a Senate debate in 1872 while opposing President Grant's plan to acquire an overseas colony in Santo Domingo. But Schurz gave special emphasis to it more than twenty years later, when he was working as an anti-imperialist to block the war with Spain and the imperial policy of the McKinley administration.

Schurz was not a pacifist. He had, after all, been in the military. Many of his actions, for example his willingness to violate treaties with the Indian tribes while he was Secreatary of the Interior, were not admirable. His anti-imperialism sprang, at least in part from racism. But his attitude toward foreign policy and toward imperialist ventures, are relevant to U.S, politics and foreign policy today. In the Harper's Weekly of April 16, 1898, the week the Congress, pushed not only by the McKinley administration but also by a press generated public demand, declared war, Schurz published an article "About Patriotism." In this article, he said, "The man who in times of popular excitement boldly and unflinchingly resists..clamour for an unnecessary war...to the end of saving his country from calamity...is at least as good a patriot as the hero of the most daring feat of arms and a far better one than those who cry for war before it is needed, especially if they let others do the fighting."

At least a part of the motivation of the nineteenth century anti-imperialists was racist in nature. But in addition to the racist concern about the danger of opening citizenship to "less advanced" peoples, the Anti-Imperialists, such as Schurz and George S. Boutwell([link edited for length]). were even more concerned about a government with control of resources not dependent on the laws or the votes of citizens. They believed that in an empire where many of the people were subjects of the United States but without the rights and powers of citizens, the government would too soon reduce the citizens to the position of subjects. They believed that an American empire would be constantly at war, and the liberty which made the country great would be destroyed..

The United States is currently engaged in two wars, one in Afghanistan which was regarded initially as a reprisal for 9/11, and a pre-emptive war in Iraq. Using 9/11 and these two wars as a pretext, the current administration, unfailingly supported by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress, is already treating its citizens as subjects, shredding the constitutional provisions protecting civil liberties, and treating the states as simply local agents to finance and carry out its unconstitutional policies. The Real I.D.., FISA and the wiretapping and the invasions of privacy which violated even the FISA show the contempt the administration has for the constitution and for the American citizen. And the statements of both John McCain and Barack Obama promise not only a continuation of these policies but an expansion of them. Remember, the Violent Radicalization and Home Grown Terrorism Act (also known as The Thought Crime Act) which passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 404 to 6 last year is still alive and in Committee in the Senate

John "Bomb,bomb, bomb, bomb,bomb Iran" McCain has announced that he intends to continue the war in Iraq until victory and he intends to have a military presence in Iraq for one hundred years (he later said "make it a thousand") He has said that he can have most of the troops out of Iraq by 2013, but he does not say whether he will bring them home or have them in Iran. The hundred year and thousand year remarks are defended by his admirers in the press as being reasonable if he is talking about an empire rather than war.

The Roman Empire (if you include the Eastern or Byzantine) Empire lasted more than 1500 years. But it was constantly at war, whether for conquest or against risings by the subject people. Of course for almost the last1000 years of that time the Empire went on, but the city and the population of the Roman territory had been abandoned to theocratic rule and repeated invasion by foreign armies.

During the Republican primaries, only Ron Paul really offered an alternative to the McCain version of America's future.  He called for a more "humble" foreign policy for he United States.  It is not a coincidence that Ron Paul's supporters encouraged him to remain in the race long after all of McCain's other challengers had dropped out.  The remarkably shabby treatment of Ron Paul and his supporters by the Republican establishment was not a coincidence either.

Four of the Democratic candidates in the primaries, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama called for an end to the war in Iraq, which was the Democratice party line. But none of them clearly enunicated a broader vision of foreign policy.  Kucinich and Gravel were forced out of the race early, along with the two candidates, Biden and Dodd, who supported the Bush war policy.  With only two candidates remaining in the race, Senator Clinton began modifying her position on Iraq, and before her withdrawal had joined McCain in promising to devastate Iran if that country were not willing to follow orders from the United States.  Senator Obama continued to talk about withdrawal from Iraq during the first year of his administration, and did not threaten Iran, as McCain and Clinton had.  That lasted until the primaries were over and Senator Clinton withdrew, leaving the nomination, for practical purposes to Senator Obama. 

 But once his path to the nomination and probably to victory in the election was assured, Senator Obama began to outline his foreign policy plans.  The withdrawal from the war in Iraq was rescheduled for sixteen months after his inauguration, that is, May of 2010.  This is not only a far cry from "during my first year in office", it is a pledge, like Bill Clinton's promise to have American troops out of Kosovo within  six months, which is made to be broken.

Feeling confident of his success, Obama Joined Bush, McCain and Clinton in threatening Iran.  His statement that he would do "everything in my power" to prevent any "threat" to Israel, repeated for emphasis, is rather scary.  Everything in my power echos the Bush answer to the question asked of President Bush if he would use nuclear weapons against Iran, to which he replied "All options are on the table."  This is an interesting position, since it means that the only country which has ever dropped an atom bomb, and the only nation which admits to using "dirty" bombs, is threatening a nuclear attack on a "rogue state" which might acquire a nuclear weapon in ten years because we cannot be sure they will refrain from using it, as every law abiding nation does.

On Tuesday, in preparation for his overseas tour, Obama delivered a formal address on foreign policy([link edited for length] which is breathtaking both in its grandiosity and its hubris.  He talks about forming a new world wide alliance with "friends who share our values, saying that this groups will for other United Nations, World Banks, Natos and possess "overwhelming military strength with sound judgment" and "would shape events through military force..through the force of idea....through economic pwer...It would support strong allies...and focus on every corner [sic] of the globe...."  He stresses that we will not be working alone because he intends to make Europe provide for its own military defense.  He does not, however, say that he will take the one step which would force Europe to provide for its own defense--bringing our troops home.  He says that he will double foreign aid, but he does not say that he will change the distribution formula which allocates seventy-five percent of that aid to Israel and Egypt, and he does not say where the money will come from when we need massive foreign loans even to meet the current national budget. He says that we will take control of Russia's nuclear weapons and prevent any rogue nation from possessing nuclear fuel.  He has apparently trumped John McCain's rather vague vision of empire.

I would say that defeating such a plan would make this a critical election not only in U.S. history but is world history.  But with both major parties preparing to nominate imperialist candidates, it might be more true to say the election is meaningless.  Of couse, there are other candidates, but I really do not expect any of them to seriously challenge the two party charade.  The Green Party calls for non-violence in foreign policy, but this is a philosophy and not a policy, and they did not nominate a philosopher king for president.  Ralph Nader ventures into foreign policy only to call for a "reversal" of our policy in the Middle East, but says nothing about the rest of the world or even about his definition of  "reversal" . The Constitution Party has a good and more specific commitment;  "Never again should United States troops be employed on a foreign field of battle without a Declaration of War by the Coungress.  We proposed that the United States repudiae to send U.S. troops to participate in foreign conflicts... and we  propopose thee United States cease financing or arming belligerents in the world;s troubled areas. (www.constitutionparty.com).   Bob Barr, the candidate of the Libertarian party says, "Our national defense policy must renew our commitment to nonintervention.  The proper use of force is clear.  If attacked, the aggressor will experience...the....wrat of the American fighting man.  However, invading or intiating force against another nation based upon perceived threats and spculative intelligence is simply un-American.  We are better than the policy of pre-emptive warfare."

Unfortunately, none of these positions is, or will be, adequately communicated to the American voters.  Even when the candidates of the other parties are mentioned, it is usually in terms of which of the two dominant parties candidates will be hurt, and the positions of the candidates of the minor parties on lesser issues.

For Americans who are thrilled by the prospect of imperialist piracy, or regard imperiatlism with indifference, they should bear this in mind:  While historians have spent a good deal of time describing and dissecting the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, they have spent too little time concentrating on the rise of the Roman Empire.  Because the Rise of the Roman Empire caused the decline and fall of the Roman Republic 

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
23 thumbs so far

2008 rtbohan, all rights reserved.
Published: Sunday, July 20, 2008
Last modified: Tuesday, July 29, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of rtbohan only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. rtbohan is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by rtbohan of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.