Last week, I touched on the idea of internationalism or the idea that America should be involved militarily in other nation's affairs is not a settled debate even though many of today's history books and both political parties present it that way. In a way, I can't blame the author for this viewpoint since he wrote this book in 2003, at the height of the terror scare.
Since World War II and the start of the Cold War, most modern historians or politicians have presented the America First crowd as being a bunch of rubes or luddites. You'd almost think that the tendency of Americans to not want to commit blood and treasure to un-neccesary wars was an early 20th century phenomenon if you listen to many of the politicians from either party. The actual history of American's views on foreign involvement is much more complex than that.
America was founded by men largely weary of the constant state of warfare in Europe. In the treaties and war powers agreements that were common there, they saw a countries constantly having to commit to military conflicts which were not in there interest and subject to the whims of their allies. In some cases, these alliances would discourage war as they were supposed to, however in other circumstances, it would actually encourage it by giving a weaker nation the means to pull a stronger nation into war.
This led to many legendary arguments over whether to create alliances with France or Britain and whether to accept foreign help in the Indian wars as America expanded West.
The idea that we should be involved in our neighbors affairs (largely to keep Europe out of North America) became a commonly held idea with the Monroe Doctrine.
The strict isolationism except in cases of our direct interest started to decline with the many democratic revolutions in the Americas (should America automatically offer aide to democratic rebels or should we intervene only in our direct interest). It further declined with Teddy Roosevelt pushing the country into the Spanish War and some of our first pacific territories.
It was revived slightly with the immigration booms of the late 19th and early 20th century and the voices for non-involvement in World War I during Wilson's day.
We know the rest of the story. World War II and the Cold War immediately after made it "impossible" for us to not get into hundreds of conflicts around the world as well as many more soft power exercises where we'd help with the overthrow of various governments that weren't friendly to the United States.
However, isolationism is back in style and should be taken a little more seriously.
The USSR is dead and Russia is a shadow of the threat that it once was even if it can roll over its neighbors (which up until 25 years or so ago were part of its territory). China is on the upswing and will excersise more influence in its region of the world. This is an immutable fact and there is nothing that we can do about it.
Americans are weary of being involved in endless engagements in Afghanistan and recently Iraq which had no well defined explanation of what victory even was. Luckily, isolationism prevailed when the president and many in congress were pushing the idea of getting involved militarily in the Syrian religious civil war.
Hopefully isolation continues to prevail and we can focus on defense on the war on terror rather than foreign monsters to destroy as Adams liked to say. The gimmick of calling someone an "isolationist" because they don't want to be involved in other countries civil wars will continue to fade in time.
6/7/14
5/31/14
#28: Woodrow Wilson: Initial Thoughts
OK, so the rumors are true that having a child puts a crimp in your free time. The last time I wrote a post was a little over a year and a half ago, just before our daughter Edith was born.
I'm trying to pick up the pieces of this project and restart the journey of reading a biography on every American president and writing about it. Hopefully I can rededicate myself and power through the 20th century over the next year or so.
I just finished the biography of Wilson by H W Brands and there were a couple interesting things I observed that I'll expand on in later posts.
This book was written in 2003, so unlike many of the other biographies I've read which were written by contemporaries of the presidents, this book was written from a relatively modern viewpoint of American culture. The great debates of the day (internationalism, America's role abroad, economic policy etc.) are largely covered as settled debates rather than ongoing arguments.
Wilson was not always the "Wilsonian" internationalist we make him out to be in contemporary culture. In fact, he considered foreign policy his weakness and spent most of his first term trying his hardest to keep America out of World War One. It took the cajoling of Teddy Roosevelt (sort of the John McCain of his day when it came to any war question) to push him to American involvement.
He was actually incapacitated with a severe stroke during much of the debate during his signature issue of trying to create the league of nations post World War One. His wife largely acted as his proxy during this time claiming that she'd represent things that Wilson would say while not allowing anyone to actually see him.
Wilson was a southerner at heart and largely ignored the great racial strife that was taking place across the country. Wilson being prejudiced is really not that special of a finding considering that the vast majority of white America was back then except for the fact that he is such an icon for do-gooders (for lack of a better term).
Looking forward to getting back into the project and hoping I can do roughly a post a week.
I'm trying to pick up the pieces of this project and restart the journey of reading a biography on every American president and writing about it. Hopefully I can rededicate myself and power through the 20th century over the next year or so.
I just finished the biography of Wilson by H W Brands and there were a couple interesting things I observed that I'll expand on in later posts.
This book was written in 2003, so unlike many of the other biographies I've read which were written by contemporaries of the presidents, this book was written from a relatively modern viewpoint of American culture. The great debates of the day (internationalism, America's role abroad, economic policy etc.) are largely covered as settled debates rather than ongoing arguments.
Wilson was not always the "Wilsonian" internationalist we make him out to be in contemporary culture. In fact, he considered foreign policy his weakness and spent most of his first term trying his hardest to keep America out of World War One. It took the cajoling of Teddy Roosevelt (sort of the John McCain of his day when it came to any war question) to push him to American involvement.
He was actually incapacitated with a severe stroke during much of the debate during his signature issue of trying to create the league of nations post World War One. His wife largely acted as his proxy during this time claiming that she'd represent things that Wilson would say while not allowing anyone to actually see him.
Wilson was a southerner at heart and largely ignored the great racial strife that was taking place across the country. Wilson being prejudiced is really not that special of a finding considering that the vast majority of white America was back then except for the fact that he is such an icon for do-gooders (for lack of a better term).
Looking forward to getting back into the project and hoping I can do roughly a post a week.
10/13/13
#27: William Howard Taft: A Friendly View
As you can imagine, the supply of available biographies still in print for Theodore Roosevelt was somewhat larger than the selection for William Howard Taft. Roosevelt was larger than life and such an iconic presence that books are still written about him and make the New York Times best seller list frequently. Taft on the other hand is best known for getting stuck in the bathtub and is largely a foot note in history as an unremarkable president but a better supreme court justice.
The fact that Taft spoke like a supreme court justice and seemed about as likeable as a friendlier Antonin Scalia may have been why he needed a friend to write this biography for him.
The book I read was written in the 1930's by what seems to have been a Taft enthusiast and would certainly have been written when he was still living. My belief is that this was a sort of public opinion minded book written within the recent end of Taft's presidency in 1913, like a "Decision Points" for George W. Bush or "Dreams of My Father" for Barack Obama.
The book explores some interesting parts of Taft's life, like his time where he served as Roosevelt's Secretary of War as the essential ruler of the Philippines after the Spanish American war where it portrays him as a wise and benevolent leader. During and after this time, it also details Taft's desire to join the Supreme Court and details how Roosevelt convinced him instead to "do his duty" and run for the presidency after his term was up in 1908. The author then seems to insinuate Roosevelt craved power and turned on Taft in 1912 where he tried to take the party nomination from him but Taft ultimately prevailed.
More or less, Taft is portrayed as a noble, self sacrificing statesman while Roosevelt is portrayed as a force of nature, not in full control of his own passions and whims.
This is of course the book the author was most likely paid to write, so it's important to take it with a grain of salt, but it's interesting to see an early 20th century biography designed to drive poll numbers more than informing people.
The fact that Taft spoke like a supreme court justice and seemed about as likeable as a friendlier Antonin Scalia may have been why he needed a friend to write this biography for him.
The book I read was written in the 1930's by what seems to have been a Taft enthusiast and would certainly have been written when he was still living. My belief is that this was a sort of public opinion minded book written within the recent end of Taft's presidency in 1913, like a "Decision Points" for George W. Bush or "Dreams of My Father" for Barack Obama.
The book explores some interesting parts of Taft's life, like his time where he served as Roosevelt's Secretary of War as the essential ruler of the Philippines after the Spanish American war where it portrays him as a wise and benevolent leader. During and after this time, it also details Taft's desire to join the Supreme Court and details how Roosevelt convinced him instead to "do his duty" and run for the presidency after his term was up in 1908. The author then seems to insinuate Roosevelt craved power and turned on Taft in 1912 where he tried to take the party nomination from him but Taft ultimately prevailed.
More or less, Taft is portrayed as a noble, self sacrificing statesman while Roosevelt is portrayed as a force of nature, not in full control of his own passions and whims.
This is of course the book the author was most likely paid to write, so it's important to take it with a grain of salt, but it's interesting to see an early 20th century biography designed to drive poll numbers more than informing people.
2/4/13
Gun Rights and Gun Wrongs
Text of the 2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.---------------------------------
It seems like the gun debate is going to go on now no matter how many times the issue got brushed under the rug by both parties in the past.
I'm very conflicted on where I stand on this issue. As a libertarianish person, I tend to ere on the side of rights, but am concerned over the extremism I hear in some of the gun rights advocates.
I believe in the right to own guns, but the idea that the government has no business deciding who is allowed to have guns or how deadly the guns are allowed to be is ludicrous.
It's not that I fear guns or anything like that. In fact, I own a 20 gauge, a 12 gauge and a 22. Unlike Barack Obama, I do not shoot these guns "all the time", but I do feel it at least establishes that I'm not some sheltered city dweller that fears anything deadlier than a three inch knife.
The NRA and other organizations are correct in that the right to bear arms was not just for hunting. If you really read the constitution, it refers to a well organized militia. The thing that seems to be lost on many of the NRA lobbyists and the voters they manipulate though is that this militia was for the protection and not the overthrow of the government. The thing that is hard for many to understand in this day and age was that there was no "standing army" or permanent professional fighting force. Militias were gathered from local citizens who provided their own arms (muskets at the time) in the event another country or the native population would attack their state.
The idea that the 2nd Amendment was solely to prevent Tyranny is absurd. Were this true, then George Washington himself would have violated the constitution by having the army put down the Whiskey Rebellion. The idea that any government would accept its own demise as legitimate is ridiculous.
It makes no sense that I need to take a test to get a drivers license and then continually get my vision tested throughout my life to ensure I'm not a danger to myself or others on the road but any one could go to a gun show and buy a gun without so much as a criminal background check. You could have a Nazi tattoo on your forehead and be wearing a shirt that says "I like to kill people" and you could walk out of there with the ultimate instrument of life and death. This is wrong and anyone with any sense should agree.
Regarding the lethality of weapons that are allowed, I'm not sure where I stand on this, but I do know that there has to be some limit. The idea that malcontents are allowed to have the same firepower as a seal team storming a fortified perimeter is nonsense. If you think this seems unconstitutional, then you need to ask yourself if your neighbor should be allowed to set up mortars in their yard or if you should be able to go to Arizona and buy a nuclear weapon. Just because it can fit in your hands doesn't mean their should be no limits to its power.
The NRA and all their special interest parrots are ultimately not acting in the interest of gun owners. Pushing their dystopian, Mad Max vision for the country with armed details for all and kindergarten rifle patrols just will allow people like Nancy Pelosi who hate guns to write all the rules. Nothing is not an acceptable answer for what the nation should do about its mass murder problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
