Tag: isolationism

American Exceptionalism and Our Place in the World

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics4 Comments

Obama-Shrinks-2After almost 2 terms under the failed “Smart Power!” Foreign Policy of Petulant President Pantywaist, Barack Hussein Obama, our allies around the world are asking themselves, “Will America still have our back in the future? Are they still a Super Power?”

Telegraph.co.uk posted the following interesting story, yesterday…

After six decades serving as the global policeman, the United States is now signalling its retreat from the world. With the Middle East engulfed by the flames of sectarian conflict, Europe’s borders menaced by the threat of war and China starting to flex its muscles in Asia-Pacific, it is clear the world has entered a new period of volatility.
That uncertainty begs tough questions for Britain: how should we respond to this new American pragmatism? And as our traditional ally turns inward, what should that mean for British foreign policy?

Ian Bremmer, the American foreign policy guru who coined the phrase “G-Zero” to describe this new and unstable world, is the author of ‘Superpower’, a best-selling new book that explores America’s options as a superpower in the 21st century.
 
Here he talks exclusively to Peter Foster about the strategic choices now facing America…

…PF: As we enter this period of post-Cold War instability, is the current US disengagement good or bad for what comes next?

IB: “It’s not good, but let’s be clear- engagement cannot be half-assed. Engaging doesn’t mean telling people you’re going to engage and then screwing them over. It means really engaging. It doesn’t mean setting a red line, and then backing off. And if you asked me if I believe it is credible right now to take big bets and tell the Europeans ‘we’re really there for you’, and the Japanese, ‘we’re really there for you’, and the Gulf States ‘we’re really there for you’, then the answer is ‘no’.

Are we going to get presidents that are going to consistently get behind that and really support an American-led world order? It’s possible, but I doubt it.”

PF: So is playing the ‘indispensable’ Superpower role essentially beyond the capacity of America now? Fiscally, militarily? 

IB: “No, there are absolutely things we could be doing that would be ‘indispensable’. America has money, interest rates are low, and if we want to print money, we can. If we want to support allies, we can. But indispensable doesn’t just mean, ‘oh we’re going to do drone strikes against Isis’. It means actually going to develop the kind of support that would, over the long-term, build economic opportunities for all these disenfranchised people across the Middle East.

“We’re the only country in the world that could put the resources on the ground that could actually fix the Middle East. We’re the only country in the world that can create global architecture, global alliances. We’re the ones that created Nato. Even if our allies like the Brits say ‘we don’t want to spend as much’, we still have to stick with it – because the absence of that is chaos. That’s what the ‘indispensables’ would argue.”

PF: But right now the American public won’t buy into that? 

IB: “I don’t think so. ‘Indispensable’ America is now an increasingly extreme sell, domestically, for any American president.

“Americans have gotten disillusioned with the inauthenticity of their own leaders, and the politics and politicians in Washington. After living through the 2008 financial crisis, Bush vs Gore, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib – all of this stuff – and now we’re facing a $5 billion dollar election campaign where the most recognisable names are another Bush and another Clinton – you can’t ignore the disillusion.”

Like the present occupant of the Oval Office, Ian Bremmer evidently  believes that America is presently, and is inevitably destined to be “just another country”.

On March 7, 1978, Ronald Wilson Reagan, at the 5th Annual CPAC Conference , spoke the following prophetic words:

America will remain great and act responsibly so long as it exercises power — wisely, and not in the bullying sense — but exercises it, nonetheless.

Leadership is a great burden. We grow weary of it at times. And the Carter administration, despite its own cheerful propaganda about accomplishments, reflects that weariness.

But if we are not to shoulder the burdens of leadership in the free world, then who will?

The alternatives are neither pleasant nor acceptable. Great nations which fail to meet their responsibilities are consigned to the dust bin of history. We grew from that small, weak republic which had as its assets spirit, optimism, faith in God and an unshakeable belief that free men and women could govern themselves wisely. We became the leader of the free world, an example for all those who cherish freedom.

If we are to continue to be that example — if we are to preserve our own freedom — we must understand those who would dominate us and deal with them with determination.

We must shoulder our burden with our eyes fixed on the future, but recognizing the realities of today, not counting on mere hope or wishes. We must be willing to carry out our responsibility as the custodian of individual freedom. Then we will achieve our destiny to be as a shining city on a hill for all mankind to see.

You see, Mr. Bremmer, where the exceptionalism of America lies…is not in the Halls of Power…but in the courage and spirit of the average American. A courage and spirit, which our history proves, has driven American Citizens to build a nation, which is indeed exceptional among all others.

Thr secret of this country’s exceptionalism is the “Average Joe”, the 9 to 5′er, working himself into the grave to try to provide for his family.

It was this same “Average Joe”, who fired the shot heard around the world and began the War for American Independence, who stormed the beaches of Normandy on D-Day in World War II, who waded through rice paddies in Vietnam, and who swallowed sand in Desert Storm and Desert Shield. The same “Average Joe” who, as a New York City Policeman or Fireman, ran up the stairs of the World Trade Center on 9/11/01, instead of running down them. The same “Average Joe”, who simply wants things to be easier in this life for his children and grandchildren, than he had it.

It is this same “Average Joe”, who takes family and friends in, when they are in the midst of a life-altering tragedy. The same “Average Joe”, who volunteers on a soup line or at a Senior Citizens Home, or, who begins a successful business in his basement.

Liberal Bureaucrats, like Secretary of State John Kerry and his boss, are professional political prevaricators. Men and women, whose ethics and morality change with the direction of the wind, and whose egos override their judgment…every time.

America is a Constitutional Republic. We are not ruled by a faceless all-powerful government. America’s politicians, including President Barack Hussein Obama, are OUR SERVANTS….not the other way around.

And, as their Boss, we expect them to possess a more complete knowledge of the history of the most exceptional nation on the face of God’s green Earth. We expect them to honor and respect the lives given and the sacrifices made by courageous Americans, who paved the way for you and the rest of this selfish generation, who are so desperately attempting to rewrite American History in order for it to be in accordance with the tenets of their Liberal Ideology.

America’s place in the world is not a thing so fragile that it can be unalterably changed by a lightweight like Barack Hussein Obama.

As author Dinesh D’ Souza wrote…

What does the doctrine of American exceptionalism empower the United States to do? Nothing more than to act better than traditional empires – committed to looting and conquest – have done. So that’s American exceptionalism: an exceptionalism based on noble ideas, ideas that it holds itself to even when it falls short of them.

In conclusion, it is not a single politician that decides America’s place in the world.

It is the fact of American Exceptionalism.

Until He Comes,

KJ

You Say You Want an Evolution…

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

demrepA very strange phenomenon has been occurring, involving Capitol Hill Politicians…on both sides of the aisle.

The people who owe their livelihoods to us are doing an about-face in their views on the core principles which got them elected to office in the first place. It doesn’t matter what political promises were made on the campaign trail to the folks back home.

However, they’re not just simply changing their minds. They’re evolving. Republicans are evolving into Democrats and Democrats are evolving into socialists.

A social/cultural evolution, if you will.

I would say, let the professional politicians make fools of themselves, and throw themselves and whatever principles they have left into the Potomac River. The only problem is…they’re taking us with them.

For example…

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, is “evolving” on the issue of gay marriage, but she has stopped short of joining the other senator from Alaska, Mark Begich, D-Alaska, in endorsing it.

Following an address at the Chugiak-Eagle River Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday, she said, “The term ‘evolving view’ has been perhaps overused, but I think it is an appropriate term for me to use,” Murkowski said, according to the Chugiak-Eagle River Star. “I think it’s important to acknowledge that there is a change afoot in this country in terms of how marriage is viewed.”

Murkowski said she is reviewing her stance on the issue.

“It may be that Alaska will come to revisit its position on gay marriage, and as a policy maker I am certainly reviewing that very closely,” Murkowski said, indicating that she had spoken to her two sons about the issue.

“I’ve got two young sons who, when I ask them and their friends how they feel about gay marriage, kinda give me one of those looks like, ‘Gosh mom, why are you even asking that question?’”

In an interview with Alaska Public radio she expanded even more, indicating a softening of the issue.

“I think you are seeing a change in attitude, change in tolerance, I guess, and an acceptance that what marriage should truly be about is a lasting, loving, committed relationship with respect to the individual,” Murkowski said.

If she does flip, she would joined Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, as the only other Republican senator to back same-sex marriage. Begich, the Democratic junior senator from Alaska, flipped and endorsed same-sex marriage earlier this week.

Murkowski spokesperson Matthew Felling confirmed to ABC News that Murkowski’s views are the same as what she told the Alaska media and that she does not currently support gay marriage, but that she is reviewing the issue.

In 1998, Alaska passed an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Evidently, those brilliant minds that are up there breathing the heady air of the Beltway, simply have no choice but to evolve…away from the beliefs of their constituency.

The Guardian (UK) thinks that the Republicans should go squish…when they walk. Of course, Sharia Law is taking over the United Kingdom.

The one area where moderates are increasingly willing to speak up in a consistent way is on social issues. I used to live in the region that Dent represents. It’s certainly conservative area, but, increasingly, I would hear voters say something to the effect of, “I’m fiscally conservative, but and socially liberal or libertarian.” In other words, their economic beliefs lean Republican, their social values Democratic.

The fiscal issues and desire for a “smaller government” would often win out when it came time to vote, but it was notable that there was a growing acceptance – or at least tolerance – on issues like gay marriage. As Dent says:

“I hear from a lot of younger people who identify that way. There’s certainly room in the party for people like that – or there should be.”

It might explain why Dent has been one of the more vocal House Republicans supporting the Violence Against Women Act.

Moderate congressmen and governors can have a real impact on policy right now. They hold more power than they realize, and they might actually be able to change their party for the better. It starts with speaking up.

So what is all of this “evolving”into squishy mounds of Jello getting Republicans? The eternal gratitude of the Democrats, that’s what. Michael Tomasky of The Daily Beast has some advice for the GOP:

Moderate Republicans, and even mainstream conservative Republicans who want to see Washington function again, should get together to form and fund a network of organizations that will pursue four goals:

First, just make moderate Republicanism visible again. Launch a public-awareness campaign. Get a television show. Or at least get a stable of people to go on the other shows. Let Americans know that the viewpoint even exists.

Second, start an organization to recruit young people, activists of all ages, and potential candidates. Start college campus clubs and newspapers or magazines. Host big conferences in Washington and elsewhere. Give people a sense of an extant community.

Third, start running some primaries against some hard-right people in districts where victory is possible. Admittedly, there are many states and districts where there’s no chance in blazes that a moderate could beat a conservative. Many state parties have been captured lock, stock, and barrel by the Tea Party, even in liberal states (Maine). But there are some places where moderates could win. And the Tea Party may be fading.

Fourth, set up a big think tank in Washington to advance more moderate policy ideas and, just as importantly, to urge moderation in tactics as well—that is, more civility, such that every single vote isn’t a matter of warfare.

 

By moving toward Moderation and “Fiscal Conservatism only” (and, not much of that) Republicans are becoming lemmings, following the Democratic Party straight over the cliff.

I say that it’s time that the Republican Party turns back to what won them elections: Conservatism.

Back in 1979, the Iranian Hostage Crisis was all over the news. President Carter could do nothing to stop it. Americans were beaten down with insecurity and malaise. Sound familiar?

They were waiting for someone to tell them what they needed to hear.  That man was Ronald Reagan.  He told Americans that it was okay to believe in themselves again.  He proudly declared that the United States was a “shining city on a hill” whose best days were still ahead. The usual pseudo-intellectuals labelled him as too extreme and simplistic. The American people decided not to listen to them.   Reagan defeated Carter in a landslide, winning 44 million votes, or 50.7 percent, and 489 electoral votes to Carter’s 35.5 million votes, or 41 percent, and only 44 electoral votes. It put a sudden halt to the out-of-control locomotive that Franklin Roosevelt rode toward ever-bigger government and tore asunder FDR’s political coalition that had smothered the politics of America for most of the previous half-century.

Reagan never forgot who he was and where he came from. That is what endeared him to the majority of Americans.  On Election Day, when  a journalist asked Reagan what Americans saw in him, he asked:

Would you laugh if I told you that I think, maybe, they see themselves and that I’m one of them? ”I’ve never been able to detach myself or think that I, somehow, am apart from them.

Compare that statement to those of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  I dare you.

He was the oldest person ever elected president for a first term, but in the end Americans didn’t seem to mind because he was in such good health and looked much younger than his 68 years.  From the start, this humble man made his intentions very clear.  He would roll back communism where possible, strengthen national defense, cut taxes, and stop or slow the growth of government. Many disagreed with the details of his policies, but they accepted the direction he was setting and liked his positive, decisive leadership.

It was not coincidental that President Reagan’s rise in politics happened at the same time as the ascension of the religious right, the term given to millions of Christian Conservative voters who held the balance of power in many states.   Under Reagan,these people, like myself, became much more active in politics.

That is what is needed now. Strong Conservative Leadership. Reagan-esqe, three-legged stool Conservative Leadership.

Now, that would be evolution.

Americans deserve nothing less.

Until He Comes,

KJ