Is the Era of Isolationism in this Country over?

A quick game of Who-am-I?

I was one of the greatest presidents of the United States.  Yet I did not invade any other country during my presidency.  Instead, I focused my foreign policy on peace building and human rights.  Who am I?

I almost wish Newt Gingrich, Darrell Issa, and Grover Norquist read my blog, because I’m about to punch them all in the face.  No you stupid Reagan worshipers:

It’s Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy Carter never dropped a bomb.  That’s only one of the great things he did as president.  Where we’d be if Jimmy Carter had won a second term keeps me up at night.  Let me tell you this-I doubt we’d be in this mess.

Jimmy Carter was our last isolationist president.  When Obama and/or the GOP Congress are letting me down, it often feels like he was the last true liberal to occupy the White House.

It often feels like isolationism is loosing momentum.  1981 was over thirty years ago.  Ever since then, this country has barely had a minute where we were not involved in some sort of overseas conflict.  Reagan secretly sold weapons to Iran while publicly supporting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War.  His vice president flipped the position when he was president and took us into Iraq.  Although Clinton deployed troops and dropped several bombs, we never had a real war on our hands.

The W. came along and soon after that 9/11(thank-you, Ronnie) and we plunged into Afghanistan.  Then came Iraq, much like Syria now: except with a more hawkish administration.  We all know how those turned out.

None of this is like what James Monroe outlined for US Foreign Policy in the Monroe Doctrine:

The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments; and to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.

Indeed, while Carter’s policy of “strict neutrality in conflict” would have seemed like a radical statement for Obama to make in his campaigns, it was in fact the blueprint US Foreign policy for almost a century.

I suppose I’m expected to use this post to endorse Rand Paul, who wants to take this country back to the isolationist level.  A Paul presidency, while being in support of American isolationism, would probably ignore women’s health, the Voting Rights Act, and a lot of other principles that are important to this country.

No.  On this issue I’m endorsing a second term for Jimmy Carter.

 

 

 

 

 

Not Fooled By Libertarians

A couple weeks ago, I heard an interesting NPR story on libertarians. An interesting recurring theme was how the Libertarians would win over anti-war young people: those of us who supported Obama because of Iraq and were disappointed by his intervention in Syria.

Yes, it will.  Those who are upper-middle class members, have parents to get them through college, and will probably have upper-middle class jobs as adults.  The people who benefit from inequality

But those of us who care about jobs, the environment, gun control,voting rights and inequality will not be fooled.  Libertarians are Republicans with a few sane ideas.

They aren’t totally unhypocritical like they portray themselves as.  Rand Paul may talk about the evils of government, but none of that matters when it comes down to women’s health.

Libertarians aren’t supportive of issues young people such as myself believe in, like protecting the environment.  They want to cut taxes for the rich and continue corporate welfare, allowing inequality to grow exponentially as it is doing now.

Guns are more important than safety.  An important libertarian ideal.

And leaving women out of this “freedom from government” thing is just not cool.

While we should be considering legalizing marijuana and getting rid of drones, there are liberals sounding the alarm on these issues as well.  Congressional Democrats should embrace the support of libertarians if they agree on certain issues.

But VOTING for a Libertarian?  That’s just disgusting.