The 113th Congress should
-
Abolish all foreign aid
-
Replace all government-to-government aid with
people-to-people aid: aid from Americans and their churches or
voluntary associations directly to the people of other nations
who are in need
-
Eliminate all government barriers to American commercial
and social presence in other nations (e.g., Cuba, Iran, etc.).
- Reject the policy of ensuring low prices at the gas pump by
invading other nations, overthrowing their governments,
propping up pliable dictatorships, and killing millions of
innocent civilians in order to control their oil or other
resources
America's Founding Fathers would be called
"isolationists" today:
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."
— Washington, Farewell Address (1796) [Washington’s
emphasis]
I deem [one of] the essential principles of
our government, and consequently [one] which ought to shape
its administration,…peace, commerce, and honest friendship
with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
— Jefferson, First Inaugural Address (1801)
America's Founders did not believe in using taxation (for foreign
aid) or military intervention to "bring democracy"
to other nations. Americans knew that the only way a nation
could be free is if that nation were Christian.
In 1892 the Supreme Court of the United States declared very
forcefully and emphatically that America was "a
Christian nation." America was settled and created by
Christians whose goal was to "exercise
dominion" over the earth under
God and create a "City upon a
Hill" which would ultimately Christianize
the entire world. In other words, Christians emigrated to a
foreign nation in order to Christianize all other foreign
nations. This worldview should be
the basis for all U.S. foreign policy. It is international,
aggressive, and optimistic, but it is also peaceful,
non-violent, non-aggressive, non-coercive. America's foreign
policy is very different from "the government's"
foreign policy. It is the policy of 300 million Americans who
are spreading Christianity, Liberty, and a higher standard of
living around the world.
Any foreign missions policy which could be described as
"isolationist" is not a Christian foreign policy.
Any foreign policy which relies on government coercion and
military intervention is not a Christian foreign policy.
Legislators should vote against any bill if
the policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the
light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this
precious gift, ought
to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind.
Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with
the number still remaining under the dominion of false
Religions; and how small is the former! Does the
policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at
once discourages those who are strangers to the light of
(revelation) from coming into the Region of it; and
countenances, by example the nations
who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might
convey it to them. Instead of levelling as far as possible,
every obstacle to the victorious progress of truth, the Bill
with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe
it, with a wall of defence, against the encroachments of
error.
James Madison, MEMORIAL
AND REMONSTRANCE AGAINST
RELIGIOUS ASSESSMENTS,
1785
Exposing
the True Isolationists by Ron Paul
From Advocates
for Self-Government:
"Isolationism"
has many negatives. For decades in America,
"isolationism" has been a smear word. In many circles
it is associated with hostility towards foreign nations and
cultures, nativism, and ignorance.
And in fact, many U.S.
isolationists in the past weren't just for political
non-intervention. They wanted to restrict trade and travel. To
build a "wall" around America, creating a so-called
"Fortress America." Some even felt America should be
totally self-sufficient: trading with no one.
None of that, of course,
has anything to do with libertarian foreign policy views.
Libertarians favor free trade, the freedom to travel, diplomacy,
and lively and ongoing cultural interaction with people
worldwide.
A far better word for this
is "non-intervention." Libertarians are
"non-interventionists."
That's still a clumsy word,
unfortunately, and it is better understood when coupled with a
short description of what it means, such as I gave two
paragraphs ago.
It's also sometimes helpful
to describe this as "America's original foreign
policy" or "the Founder's foreign policy," and to
quote the classic Jefferson line: "peace, commerce, and
honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with
none."
Some wit once said that the
difference between "isolationists" and
"non-interventionists" is that the former are hermits,
while the latter are gentlemen.
Ron
Paul has put it very well: "Non-interventionism is not
isolationism. Non-intervention simply means America does not
interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal
affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate
ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade,
travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations."
Finally, it is sometimes
useful to point out that the current U.S. foreign policy of
endless intervention in the affairs of other nations, U.S.
troops and military bases in almost every nation, sanctions,
trade barriers, travel restrictions, and aid to tyrants and
dictators is increasingly isolating America from the rest of the
world. In this sense, the true "isolationists"
actually are the interventionists.
When someone labels
libertarians as isolationists, they are knowingly or unknowingly
smearing us and misrepresenting our views. This should be
corrected, in a friendly and persuasive way, so our true ideas
can be understood and embraced.
To call Jefferson, Washington, or Ron Paul an
"isolationist" is uninformed or deliberately
misleading.
And there is great irony here.
If a candidate believes it's good policy to overthrow foreign
governments by bombing thousands of innocent non-combatant
civilians and replacing the secular regime with an Islamic
theocracy, and then imposing tariffs
and protectionist sanctions on
nations that oppose U.S. nation-building,
cutting off trade, cutting off travel, and in numerous other
ways isolating Americans from these nations and their people,
their commerce, and their culture, he is not called an
"isolationist." Such a candidate is, however, an imperialist.
Consider these words of America’s first President. While he
did open the door to “temporary alliances for extraordinary
emergencies,” the weight of his words was for the United
States not to “entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils
of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice.”
“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I
conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a
free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and
experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most
baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy
to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument
of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense
against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and
excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to
see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second
the arts of influence on the other. 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.
“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 . . .
“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?”
(George Washington, “Farewell
Address,” 1796.)
Or consider the words of President John
Quincy Adams, in 1821, when he was Secretary of State, in
response to foreign nations’ question, “What has America
done for the benefit of mankind?”
| |
“Let our answer be this: America, with the
same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation,
proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human
nature, and the only lawful foundations of government.
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,* 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." ~ John Quincy Adams |
* How many Americans can even
understand what Adams is saying? Not many.
Aceldama is a Greek word found in
Acts 1:19 (This became known to all who lived in
Jerusalem, so that in their own language they called that
field Hakeldama, that is, “Field of Blood.”) and based
on two Aramaic words, field and blood, pronounced together
as cha KAYL de MAH. The Greek
transliteration, Hakeldama, is often Anglicized and
pronounced as ah SEL da ma. It refers to the
field the priests bought with the money Judas received for
betraying Jesus and later returned to them. It was a place
for the burial of strangers and was formerly called the
potter’s field according to Matthew 27:7. It is located
by tradition south of the valley of Hinnom, Gehenna,
the biblical picture of hell. As the word is used by
President Adams, it means a place with dreadful
associations. |
next: Trade
|