- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
AmSpecBlog
What's the Constitution Got to do with Foreign Intervention?
I see that Esteemed Editor Antle (it's important for writers to shamelessly suck up to editors) has highlighted the Peter Berkowitz piece on conservatives rallying around the Constitution. It's an interesting argument, but another problem with Berkowitz's thesis is including a hawkish military policy as part of the constitutional scheme. The original founders desired a national government strong enough to defend America, not to remake the world. The idea that we should be protecting prosperous and populous allies throughout Asia and Europe and engaging in nation-building throughout the Third World runs counter to both the original constitutional design and sensible national security policy. Europe, Japan, and South Korea are all able to defend themselves from whatever threats lurk about them. For instance, South Korea has a GDP about 40 times that of North Korea. These so-called allies are the ultimate international freeloaders and welfare queens, living off of American taxpayers. Conservatives should echo George Washington and say no more unnecessary foreign entanglements. Let's be strong enough to smite our enemies, but let other countries take care of their own enemies.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Are you in a mob?
The Democrats say Obamacare opponents are a mob. Are they right?
Participating in this survey will subscribe you to the American Spectator email newsletter. You may unsubscribe at any time.
Robert Stacy McCain| 1.2.09 @ 1:38PM
Doug, there's no point trying to suck up to Jim Antle. He has such integrity and nobility of character that he can't be influenced by flattery, and so insightful that your sycophantic ploys will be utterly transparent to his brilliant mind.
Doug Bandow| 1.2.09 @ 2:28PM
Well, there goes that strategy. Stacy, you sure know how to put a damper on the new year almost before it has started!
W. James Antle III| 1.2.09 @ 2:49PM
Your checks are in the mail.
Mike Showalter| 1.2.09 @ 6:31PM
I'm no writer, but in the spirit of "bailout" mania, perhaps you could send one of those checks to me, too, Mr. Antle, sir!
W. James Antle III| 1.2.09 @ 7:24PM
Careful, Obama's IRS may count even this talk of checks as actual taxable income!
Glenn K.| 1.3.09 @ 6:27AM
There is no constitutional requirement for isolationism. George Washington was entitled to his opinion as to proper foreign policy but that's all it was; an opinion.
In Federalist Papers # 11 Alexander Hamilton issued a plea for the establishment of a federal navy-not just to protect trade but to project power abroad so as to tip the scales of a foreign conflict in our favor.
The Monroe Doctrine was about the projection of power abroad to prevent the establishment of a European influence here in the Americas. And...this from the poster boy for the founding generation:
"I am persuaded no constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire and self-government" Thomas Jefferson
Quite the gaggle of "NeoCons", huh?
Doug Bandow| 1.3.09 @ 7:56AM
But Jefferson believed in empire--which most everyone at the time thought of in terms of overspreading the North American continent--in America's interest. Not in subsidizing rich allies that could protect themselves. And if you'd asked him about trying to install democracy in Mesopotamia, he likely would have croaked on the spot. The Constitution created a republic with limited enumerated powers and divided the authority over foreign policy and war between the president and Congress. The founders also didn't establish a standing military. Whatever they were, they weren't neocons!
Thomas| 1.3.09 @ 9:46AM
Mr. Bandow makes the point that our "allies" should make a greater effort to provide for their own security and defense and rely less upon the resources of the United States of America. There is no debate on that point. The debate has always centered upon how best to " provide for the common defense." This debate will continued until the next time another power attempts to impose its will upon all of the world. Then the debate will be set aside, by the majority of Americans, and we'll go forth and kick a** one more time. For the moment, just be thankful that we do not have 2 or 3 million Americans in uniform with 1000 dying each day to protect our loved ones at home.
vincep1974| 1.3.09 @ 1:16PM
If the dollar collapses and the world no longer will finance our debt, how will we pay for the military?