The Conundrum of Progressive Foreign Policy
source: http://voices.yahoo.com/the-conundrum-progressive-foreign-policy-6149764.html?cat=9
-
-
- ibrake4rappers13
- added this
American foreign policy is a burr under the saddles of progressives. "We are imperialists" contend some. "The world's policemen" from others. The end result is United States foreign policy is a continuation of progressive Woodrow Wilson's dreams of world governance. When progressives denigrate American foreign policy, they are usually only really complaining about it when conservatives are in charge.
We supported dictators and despots in some cases and railed from dawn 'til dusk about others. Money crossed vast oceans at the speed of light. Soon for better or worse we developed material interests and we became embroiled up to our eyeballs in local disagreements. All the foregoing only convoluted and bastardized our good intentions and bipartisan hegemonic interests.
If we look back to history and specifically time lines we see American progressivism growing in influence in the late 19th Century, with Teddy Roosevelt becoming a progressive - Republican mind you - POTUS in 1901. Woodrow Wilson's 1912 ascendancy to the presidency only cemented progressive hold, and with it, foreign policy. Notice the neat dovetailing of the beginning of American foreign intrigues on a really large scale and the establishment of progressive initiatives.
The League of Nations was Woodrow Wilson's brainchild. It was so good even the United States would not ratify the League of Nation's efforts, so . . . . Oh, and did I mention the League of Nation's neat little Treaty of Versailles ending WWI was so good, according to nearly every historian and scholar with a pulse, the League of Nations is credited largely with being the first and major cause of the Second World War. Did ya know that? The League of Nations was a progressive idea they implemented, and it led to World War Two - LOOK IT UP.
FDR knew what he was doing. Churchill was doing all he could to get the US in to the war. It was, to use an over-used metaphor, the perfect storm. FDR's assisting the Brits with Lend-Lease was almost an act of war. It was an invitation and near begging for the U-Boats to sink American flagged vessels. FDR's cutting steel, rubber and oil to Japan led the Japanese military government to feel their hand forced, and Pearl Harbor and our involvement in WWII begins. For the record, FDR was a progressive. It was his foreign policy that directly led to some of the follow on events.
That we ended up in a shootin' war was a foregone conclusion, but how we ended up in combat is no mystery. We were begging for it. None of this is to say the US was bad or evil in any of this; I am merely reciting the history and helping show how on a time line progressive foreign policy was the policy in play when our modern problems started and they will persist as long as we pursue the similar course.
Progressivism speaking to "world order(s)" is one's first clue. Anytime anyone tries to tell anyone how to behave, trouble is coming, whereas instead of trying to coerce desired behavior we should merely make known what we will not accept, and then follow through without fail. Yeah, that's harsh, isn't it? Well so far being nice and issuing sanctions has been exactly how effective again?
Seems odd to listen to progressives and their supporters decry foreign policy when in my mind the foreign policy of this nation at this time is THE progressive policy in play. They wail and moan about the US conducting its foreign policy when those policies are the Woodrow Wilson inspired initiatives.
Isn't EVERY progressive idea about worldwide governing bodies regulating greenhouse gas, trading carbon credits and worldwide credit and money markets? The progressive mouthpiece will decry our foreign policy as meddling, etc., and then scream we need world orders and bodies to regulate worldwide behavior. Are y'all getting this? Is that not meddling? That is progressive's demanding their desires become international law, or at least official US policy
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-conundrum-progressive-foreign-policy-6149764.html?ca...
http://education.kings.edu/cives/imperialism.jpg
We supported dictators and despots in some cases and railed from dawn 'til dusk about others. Money crossed vast oceans at the speed of light. Soon for better or worse we developed material interests and we became embroiled up to our eyeballs in local disagreements. All the foregoing only convoluted and bastardized our good intentions and bipartisan hegemonic interests.
If we look back to history and specifically time lines we see American progressivism growing in influence in the late 19th Century, with Teddy Roosevelt becoming a progressive - Republican mind you - POTUS in 1901. Woodrow Wilson's 1912 ascendancy to the presidency only cemented progressive hold, and with it, foreign policy. Notice the neat dovetailing of the beginning of American foreign intrigues on a really large scale and the establishment of progressive initiatives.
The League of Nations was Woodrow Wilson's brainchild. It was so good even the United States would not ratify the League of Nation's efforts, so . . . . Oh, and did I mention the League of Nation's neat little Treaty of Versailles ending WWI was so good, according to nearly every historian and scholar with a pulse, the League of Nations is credited largely with being the first and major cause of the Second World War. Did ya know that? The League of Nations was a progressive idea they implemented, and it led to World War Two - LOOK IT UP.
FDR knew what he was doing. Churchill was doing all he could to get the US in to the war. It was, to use an over-used metaphor, the perfect storm. FDR's assisting the Brits with Lend-Lease was almost an act of war. It was an invitation and near begging for the U-Boats to sink American flagged vessels. FDR's cutting steel, rubber and oil to Japan led the Japanese military government to feel their hand forced, and Pearl Harbor and our involvement in WWII begins. For the record, FDR was a progressive. It was his foreign policy that directly led to some of the follow on events.
That we ended up in a shootin' war was a foregone conclusion, but how we ended up in combat is no mystery. We were begging for it. None of this is to say the US was bad or evil in any of this; I am merely reciting the history and helping show how on a time line progressive foreign policy was the policy in play when our modern problems started and they will persist as long as we pursue the similar course.
Progressivism speaking to "world order(s)" is one's first clue. Anytime anyone tries to tell anyone how to behave, trouble is coming, whereas instead of trying to coerce desired behavior we should merely make known what we will not accept, and then follow through without fail. Yeah, that's harsh, isn't it? Well so far being nice and issuing sanctions has been exactly how effective again?
Seems odd to listen to progressives and their supporters decry foreign policy when in my mind the foreign policy of this nation at this time is THE progressive policy in play. They wail and moan about the US conducting its foreign policy when those policies are the Woodrow Wilson inspired initiatives.
Isn't EVERY progressive idea about worldwide governing bodies regulating greenhouse gas, trading carbon credits and worldwide credit and money markets? The progressive mouthpiece will decry our foreign policy as meddling, etc., and then scream we need world orders and bodies to regulate worldwide behavior. Are y'all getting this? Is that not meddling? That is progressive's demanding their desires become international law, or at least official US policy
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-conundrum-progressive-foreign-policy-6149764.html?ca...
http://education.kings.edu/cives/imperialism.jpg
