-
U.S. News: Obama-Kelley Meeting
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The SPLC: Big Bucks, the FRC, and Jimmy Carter
May 7, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Mark Levin Talks to the NRA
May 7, 2013 | 0 comments
-
POLITICO: RUSH LIMBAUGH MAY PART WITH CUMULUS
May 5, 2013 | 13 comments
-
The Problematic Frank Luntz’s Stockholm Syndrome
April 25, 2013 | 11 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Over at the American Conservative, Daniel Larison seems to have developed an interesting definition of “intervention” in the affairs of other nations when it comes to the Founding Fathers.
Aside from giving the erroneous impression that I am endorsing endless foreign interventions (Uganda anyone?), he appears to be redefining “intervention” so that it applies only to Europe and Asia. Notably not counted by Larison is perhaps one of the biggest interventions in all of American history — the Monroe Doctrine.
Ron Paul and other “non-interventionists” love to quote John Quincy Adams to the effect that America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. This sounds lovely… but for the fact that it was Adams himself as Secretary of State who wrote the Monroe Doctrine for Founding Father President James Monroe. The Monroe Doctrine, of course, roped off basically half the earth (!!!) in the form of the Western hemisphere, specifically intervening in the affairs not only of every nation in the hemisphere that is not the United States but not coincidentally also intervening in the affairs of European nations that wished to involve themselves further in Latin American affairs. In fact, the U.S. was working with Britain on this quite specifically to keep various European powers out of the Hemisphere as various Latin American countries gained their independence from, for example, Spain or Portugal, effectively intervening in European affairs on a massive scale. This Founding Father intervention invention was so potent John F. Kennedy would cite the Monroe Doctrine well over a century later as grounds for potential nuclear war with the Soviets in the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Ronald Reagan would cite it in confrontations with the Communists in Nicaragua.
One can argue over whether intervention is or is not a good policy and when or where if it is. But to try and say as Larison and Paul do that the Founding Fathers just didn’t do this is just flatly not so. They did — quite specifically Presidents Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, plus John Quincy Adams as Secretary of State for Monroe (although technically speaking JQA was not a Founder).
There is nothing “hawkish” about this. It is simply historical fact. And Mr. Larison for some reason wishes to make believe history is other than it is.
View all comments (22) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/07/daniel-larisons-make-believe-h
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Of Wizards and Weapons
- Screwtape Talks Turkey
- The End of the Castros?
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Ed| 12.7.11 @ 5:52PM
Don't bring up the Barbary Pirates with the Paultards either. Those are pirates, ie. guy that go arr and walk around with peg legs, not nation states.
Sean| 12.7.11 @ 6:33PM
So you know nothing about Paul's policy ? Ron Paul would have went after the pirates also since they attack American shipping. Jefferson also went to Congress on them.
Jack in Wi| 12.7.11 @ 7:10PM
Ron Paul would have used the Constitutional Techinique of letters of Marque and Reprisals against non government pirates and terrorists. That is what they were put into the Constitution to handle. It would have been a hell of a lot cheaper to put a 25 billion dollar price on the head of Osama Bin Laden then spending many tens of thousands of American casualties and trillions of dollars.
Sea Cucumber| 12.7.11 @ 6:08PM
Larison has replied to your attempted rebuttal:
http://www.theamericanconserva.....athers-ii/
Sean| 12.7.11 @ 6:39PM
Looks like Lord has been destroyed again
C Bowen | 12.7.11 @ 6:21PM
Lord was scared of Iraq and clearly lacks honor as he still posts on foreign policy issues.
Red Phillips | 12.7.11 @ 7:12PM
Jeffrey, you clearly don't know when to shut up. Larison has a doctorate in Byzantine history from the University of Chicago. The last time I checked they didn't let dummies in there. Perhaps, just perhaps, you should think it over next time before you decide to fire off another one of your intemperate rants accusing some PhD of not knowing what he is talking about.
Jeffrey Lord - The Real One| 12.7.11 @ 7:37PM
Red...
By the way, your enthusiasm for those with a PhD must mean you are a supporter of the only GOP candidate for president who has one....Newt Gingrich.
Gee. Interesting.
aware| 12.8.11 @ 5:38AM
Distraction. A technique used to avoid the argument when you don't have facts on your side. You just can't help but embarrass yourself.
Red Phillips | 12.8.11 @ 9:00AM
I support the GOP candidate who has an MD, just like I do.
Jeffrey Lord - The Real One| 12.7.11 @ 7:17PM
Red...
You mean like all those Ph.D's that got us into the Obama mess - or Vietnam? I'm with Buckley. I will go with the first 100 people in the Boston phone book rather than the Harvard faculty. Obviously, you are with the Harvard mindset. We disagree. How's that Ph.D. created Obama stimulus working?
C Bowen | 12.7.11 @ 7:31PM
Buckley was pro-Vietnam--he wrote that he had to kick the John Birch Society out of polite society because they wouldn't support Vietnam.
Jeffrey Lord - The Real One| 12.7.11 @ 7:39PM
C Bowen...
Ahhh...a John Kerry "conservative" surfaces....
C Bowen | 12.7.11 @ 8:10PM
Ah, you wrote something against Vietnam. Can't you keep things straight?
It was obviously a stupid war.
When Kerry was agitating for war with Iraq because Saddam was mean and had WMDS, I was against him.
You are the Kerry Conservative, as you proudly admit that you supported the Iraq invasion because Saddam was mean.
Show some honor already.
Red Phillips | 12.8.11 @ 9:08AM
I'm not necessarily a big fan of credentialism. If I was, I wouldn't be an MD commenting on foreign policy. But I have commented enough on blogs to know that there are a lot of people out there who know a lot more than me about certain subjects, so if I am going to make a statement of fact, rather than opinion, I make sure I'm right before I put it on paper.
My point was that someone who has a history of making egregious historical misstatements should show a little restraint before he spouts off about an expert not knowing what he is talking about.
Red Phillips | 12.8.11 @ 9:16AM
Also, you REALLY do not want to play the populist here. As Mark Tooley, probably unintentionally, observed in his column yesterday, the masses used to oppose intervention and it was the internationalist Elites who wanted interventionism and greater American involvement in the world. (Get it? Internationalists, not parochial Americans, want greater American involvement in the world including military involvement.) So by advocating for interventionism you are doing the bidding of the internationalist Elites. It's sad that you don't understand that. So again, you really don't want to go all populist on me. You are a shill for the internationalist class and don't even know it.
Dai Alanye | 12.8.11 @ 10:38AM
Since he presumably lacks a history degree it's a wonder Red P considers himself qualified to pontificate on history. But whatever.
Prior to WW II the vast majority of Americans opposed intervention. It took a big war and an international conspiracy (Communism) to change that view. We are now faced with another international conspiracy, militant Islam, and most Americans, I imagine, recognize the advantage of fighting Islamic terrorists beyond our borders.
There are those, however, who cling to the hope that if we pull in our horns all foreign menaces will somehow evaporate. Good luck with that idea, as it sounds to me something like paying Danegeld in hopes the Vikings will stop being so mean.
Clint| 12.7.11 @ 7:29PM
" George Will, "Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush Doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?"
William F. Buckley, " It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative. It’s not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn’t invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is …”
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
Bob K.| 12.7.11 @ 10:07PM
This is a remarkable (re) interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine as we have been taught to understand it.
This is the first time I have seen where our national interest in prohibiting intervention by other nations in the affairs of our hemispheric neighbors (which is how Kennedy and Reagan understood it) has been used as justification of our own intervention in other countries like, say, Afghanistan?
Nemo| 12.8.11 @ 7:24AM
As a PhD myself, I must say a word in our defence ... doctorates were held by a majority of those whho took part in that distinguished acaddemic/administrative event, the Wansee Conference ...
Seriously, Jeffery, The American Conservative is a fever-swamp inhabited by crack-pots that disgraces the name of Conservative. It is better just to ignore it.
cfountain72 | 12.8.11 @ 3:28PM
Yes Nemo,
It is best that you stay inside your self-reinforcing neocon echo chamber. Wouldn't want to sprain your cerebrum with anything more complex than 'Them Islamofascist, Sharia Law-lovin' Mooslim's hate us fer' our freedoms! Let's send our Troops (God love 'em) to fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here.'
The notion that the US government's foreign policy is actually capable of making mistakes and creating enemies that we, the citizens, will have to deal with is truly crack-pot and certainly not Conservative. Of course, to your mind, maybe LBJ and Wilson are foreign policy conservatives?
A Remnant Conservative| 12.9.11 @ 3:47PM
I'm delighted we have Lord writing these essays. He shows how intellectually bankrupt his, and neocon, ideas really are.
Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman blow his article out of the water: http://www.mikechurch.com/Toda.....ctors.html
I can't wait for Lord to reply to them, if he has the courage and believes his ideas are strong enough to withstand debate.
Woods already showed how little Lord has a handle on the issues a while ago: http://lewrockwell.com/woods/woods180.html