The Founding Fathers Were Right About Foreign Affairs

[Libertarian Muslim]

The Founding Fathers Were Right About Foreign Affairs

by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

April 16, 2002

Last week I appeared on a national television news show to discuss recent events in the Middle East. During the show I merely suggested that there are two sides to the dispute, and that the focus of American foreign policy should be the best interests of America – not Palestine or Israel. I argued that American interests are best served by not taking either side in this ancient and deadly conflict, as Washington and Jefferson counseled when they warned against entangling alliances. I argued against our crazy policy of giving hundred of billions of dollars in unconstitutional foreign aid and military weapons to both sides, which only intensifies the conflict and never buys peace. My point was simple: we should follow the Constitution and stay out of foreign wars.

I was immediately attacked for offering such heresy. We've reached the point where virtually everyone in Congress, the administration, and the media blindly accepts that America must become involved (financially and militarily) in every conflict around the globe. To even suggest otherwise in today's political climate is to be accused of "aiding terrorists." It's particularly ironic that so many conservatives in America, who normally adopt an "America first" position, cannot see the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into an intractable and endless Middle East war. The empty justification is always that America is the global superpower, and thus has no choice but to police the world.

The Founding Fathers saw it otherwise. Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." How many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many champion Jefferson and the Constitution, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Washington similarly urged that the US must "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments." Since so many on Capitol Hill apparently now believe Washington was wrong, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it next time his name is being celebrated.

In fact, when I mentioned Washington the other guest on the show quickly repeated the tired cliche that "We don't live in George Washington's times." Yet if we accept this argument, what other principles from that era should we discard? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights? It's hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify foolishpolicies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today's more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.

It's easy to dismiss the noninterventionist view as the quaint aspiration of men who lived in a less complicated world, but it's not so easy to demonstrate how our current policies serve any national interest at all. Perhaps an honest examination of the history of American interventionism in the 20th century, from Korea to Vietnam to Kosovo to the Middle East, would reveal that the Founding Fathers foresaw more than we think.

Ron Paul, M.D., represents the 14th Congressional District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives.

Source: http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul30.html

[dan2100]

While I wish Ron Paul's substantive view were more popular and perhaps embraced as the US government's policy, I think one must be careful to distinguish between some ofthe rhetoric of the Founders and their actual policies and actions.

[Brant Gaede]

While I wish Ron Paul's substantive view were more popular and perhaps embraced as the US government's policy, I think one must be careful to distinguish between some ofthe rhetoric of the Founders and their actual policies and actions.

Didn't George Washington get his fatal illness riding around the countryside to raise support for a possible war with France?

--Brant

hazy on the details

[sbeaulieu]

Brant,

Did some reading on Washington, but what's stated implies he didn't play an active role in the war, although he accepted the position of commander of the army.

However, looking at the focus of this thread, the meddling in other countries' wars is different in wars where we are directly involved, like France.

I totally agree with Ron Paul's stance. To date, it has gotten us nowhere. So why are we still there?

~ Shane

[DavidMcK]

Just because the founders might not have followed their own principles doesn't invalidate their principles. Jefferson and Washington owned slaves....does that therefore nullify the Declaration of Independence? This is the most succinct and excellent statement of the non-interventionist position I've seen in a while; note that Objectivist principles of Self-Interest and non-self-sacrifice are heavily implied in this statement.

[dan2100]

Just because the founders might not have followed their own principles doesn't invalidate their principles. Jefferson and Washington owned slaves....does that therefore nullify the Declaration of Independence? This is the most succinct and excellent statement of the non-interventionist position I've seen in a while; note that Objectivist principles of Self-Interest and non-self-sacrifice are heavily implied in this statement.

I don't think anyone here claims that hypocrisy or inconsistency invalidates principles. However, it does mean one should be careful with appealing to the Founders instead of their principles. (The same holds true with any person, including Rand. I would never say, "You should accept Rand's principles because of her character.")

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dan,

I beg to differ. I will listen to the principles of men of character and take them seriously enough to think about them, even when I do not use their language or disagree with things like the existence of God.

A person with bad character can tell me all day how much honesty is the best policy and things like that and I just won't take him seriously. The words are the same as when a person of good character says them, but the intent is very, very different.

I hold that intent is context, thus it is a critical part of the conceptual input of any statement. And historical customs are context, too.

Our Founding Fathers were men of great character. I love them.

Here's an example of approximately the same message with respect to affirming the good character of Americans by two men of vastly different character. They pronounced these statements upon assuming power. Which one moves you? I know which one moves me and which one turns my stomach.

George Washington: "The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people." (First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789.)

Barack Obama: "In reaffirming the greatness of our nation we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted, for those that prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things -- some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor -- who have carried us up the long rugged path towards prosperity and freedom." (Inaugural Address, January 20, 2009)

Notice that Washington implied the good character of Americans as being worthy of the stewardship of "the sacred fire of liberty" and Obama outright painted a picture of it. Yet, to me, Washington's message rings true and Obama's comes off as the sincerity of a con man.

Michael