American-Isolationism

The term in the title of this post has a hyphen for a reason, which is that Americans have a particular brand of isolationism. I have a post planned about Warren Harding and  Calvin Coolidge, and as their presidency deals with the inter-war period you read a lot about America's isolationism. Wilson dragged Americans into WWI despite it being an isolationist country, after WWI America wished to return to its isolationism, America was reluctant to join WWII because it is isolationist, etc. The problem with this is that it is pretty false.

Americans aren't isolationists, they're American-Isolationists, which is another instance of Americans putting their own brand on things. Isolationism means non-interference or non-intervention in the affairs of other nations, essentially keeping to yourself. American-Isolationism means, roughly, don't intervene or interfere beyond an ocean. If you are not beyond an ocean, however, then Americans have no problem projecting themselves into other countries.

In 1812 the United States, under James Madison (one of those "Founders" you have doubtless heard about), declared war on the British Empire, with specific aims at British controlled Canada.

James Madison

While there were several reasons for the war, such as trade restriction, an important part of the war was US expansionist interests and an idea that the US could takeover Canada. Now, this takeover of Canada was not specifically with the goal of annexing Canada into the US, although some had that interest, but rather as a method to rid the continent of the British. As former President Thomas Jefferson said at the time:

The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us the experience for the attack on Halifax, the next and final expulsion of England from the American continent.

With Jefferson in mind we also have the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, showing that the US was neither isolationist to the west or the north. In fact, during and after the Presidential election in 1844 of James K. Polk, the expansion west and north combined in the issue of the annexation of the Oregon territories. The issue wasn't just should the US expand further west, but just how far north it should stake it's claim, taking land from the British. This led to the creation of the famous slogan "Fifty-four forty or fight", referring the the longitudinal demands of some US policy makers.

The Disputed Territories Leading to the Famous "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight"

Nor was the US isolationist towards the south. Starting with the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, the US declared that the American continents (north and south) were in its sphere of influence. The Atlantic and Pacific oceans represented a barrier, within which America felt it was its right to intervene. Beyond those oceans, however, Americans wished to be non-interventionist.

As an example of the intervention to the south, consider William Walker in the 1850s. In 1855 William, with about 60 men, sailed from San Francisco to Nicaragua and took it over. This was called filibustering, when non-governmental military expeditions simply went into foreign countries. After talking over, Walker originally ruled through a puppet but in 1856 declared himself President of Nicaragua. Walkers regime was considered legitimate by the US under President Franklin Pierce.

William Walker, filibuster  

(Interesting trivia: in order to gain support from southern Americans, Walker reintroduced slavery to Nicaragua, revoking the emancipation of 1824.)

But when it came to things like WWI and WWII and involvement in Europe in general, there was greater reluctance, which is why I said that a better description of American policy is really that its alright to mess around, just not as far as an ocean away.

So when reading about the US and seeing descriptions about Americans being isolationists, just remember that in 1855 a guy and some of his friends walked into a Central American country and just took it over. And that this was a thing people did. Because Americans aren't isolationists, they're American-Isolationist, which is really more like aquaphobic.    

Villainy Without Bounds

I speak of course of Woodrow Wilson.

Glenn Beck's new book Broke was released this week, and as should be expected it is filled with such, let us say, useful history. And no history from Glenn Beck is complete without sufficient talk of Woodrow Wilson, who was the scourge of the Earth and all things beloved by God. 

Point in case, in Chapter 5, Beck informs:

Wilson’s desire to control got so creepy that at one point he decided to create a “new standard of manhood” for American soldiers. The result was a “Commission on Training Camp Activities” that regulated everything from approved soldier recreation to sexual practices, promising “protection and stimulation of its mental, moral and physical manhood. (p. 54)

Already Wilson's evil should be evident. How dare the government regulate a soldier's recreation? The last thing I want is for the government to tell soldiers what to do and how to behave.

But it gets so much worse. Just how did Wilson effectuate this "creepy" desire for control? To find out I went to the War Department's Commission on Training Camp Activities report, preparing myself for the horror I was about to read:

To the Young Men's Christian Association and the Knights of Columbus, for instance, the Commission has looked to supply a large share of the club life and entertainment inside its training camps. To the American Library Association it has instinctively turned for an adequate supply of books and reading facilities for the troops. To organize the social and recreational life of the communities adjacent to the training camps the Commission enlisted the services of the Playground and Recreation Association of America, which has placed representatives in over one hundred such communities and has harnessed the lodges, churches, clubs, and other local groups and organizations with the men in the camps. (p. 4-5)  

Thats right. Wilson's aims were so "creepy" that he brought in the YMCA. Wilson's desires were so perverse that he enlisted the help of such nefarious organizations as the Library Association. What more needs to be said?

So take heed of this lesson that Glenn Beck has taught us about villainy without bounds

Jewish Pride

Just a quick post to say that, despite the misgivings I have about religion in general, it is good to know that the one I have been born a part of can produce great pride in me:

Where In the Constitution Do You Find the Right to...?

I had a different post in mind, but after seeing this video I felt the need to express some frustration.

A common refrain heard from tea-party types is "Where in the Constitution do you find the right to [enter policy issue here]?", most recently health care but not limited to that. Of course, if someone actually tries to provide an answer to that question, they are told that it's only their interpretation of the Constitution, that's not what it actually means, and that in fact the government has no right to that policy issue. (Can I just say health care from now on?) But this is ridiculous. This question could be asked, without acceptable answer, about almost anything the government has done. Off the top of my head:

-Where in the Constitution do you find the right to form a national bank? (Thomas Jefferson and Edmund Randolph thought there was no such right, but Alexander Hamilton and some guy named Madison thought there was) [For Madison, it was in the form of the Second Bank of the US, for Hamilton it was the First]
-Where in the Constitution do you find the right to treat truth as a defense against libel? (The Zenger trial preceded the Constitution)
-Where in the Constitution do you find the right to treat actual malice as a requirement for public officials to sue for defamation? (New York Times vs. Sullivan 1964)
-Where in the Constitution do you find the right to purchase the territories of Louisiana from France? (Thomas Jefferson was against this, but President Jefferson was for it)
-Where in the Constitution do you find the right for judicial review? (Marbury vs. Madison, and just about everything after that)

There are obviously more. I wanted a couple more involving the founding fathers, but these are just the ones I thought of right away. I may update later with more. But even these show that the idea that something is "what the Constitution allows for" is somewhat nonsensical. Is Jefferson's view of the Constitution more correct than Hamilton's? And, incidentally, which Jefferson is this, the man or the President? What about Madison, should he hold a special place, his opinion valued over that of the other delegates  of the Constitutional Convention?

Could you devise a Constitutional argument for health care reform? I am sure you could.
Could you devise a Constitutional argument against health care reform? I am sure you could.

Either way, people who are for health care reform will say it is right to do it, and people who are against it will say that it is wrong to do it. Quite frankly, the Constitution doesn't play a role in it, and here is why:

If you are against (for) health care reform and I explain why it is right (wrong) in Constitutional terms, will you accept it, or will you say that I am wrong, despite using the Constitution, because my use of it is wrong?

My guess is you will say I am wrong, presuming that your view of the Constitution is the right one. So really, its your view that is guiding you, not the Constitution. And thats the way it has to be, because the Constitution does not have a voice with which to speak, it is not being in itself which can tell what fits with it and what doesn't. Thats for us to decide, and we decide that with our views, not with some inherent structure of the Constitution which accepts or rejects ideas.

So please, unless you are willing to accept any argument that someone can put in Constitutional terms as correct, don't ask "Where in the Constitution....?" because what you really should be asking is "Why do you think this is right?" Because if it is, then we will be sure it fits with the Constitution. 

Where do Libertarian Babies Come From?

While this post deals with a problem I have regarding children in general, I feel that Libertarians should be particularly troubled by this and so have a harder time with children.

So an issue I have been trying to think through recently is, from where do we get the right to raise children? It is widely recognized that parents have the right to raise their children, to command their life for a number of years: telling them what to do, where to go, what to eat, etc. But people don't have this right in general. Libertarians especially, but most people also, believe in individual freedom and choice, that no person has the rights over the life of another person.

So why is it that parents have this right over children?

Is it because the parents made the children, and so they have the right to do with them as they see fit? If that's the reason, then parents should be able to command their children's lives all the time, not just when they are young. After all, the fact that parents made the child is always true, and if the right comes from that, then the right must always be there.

Is it because the child doesn't know any better, and so it needs to have its life directed? If that's the reason, then who makes the determination about when or if the child knows better? If it's the parents call, then a parent could say that child never knows any better and so they have the right to control his/her life for ever. If this is the reason, then a person never has control over his/her life until their parents relinquishes the right. And this is without even going into the issue of whether this determination needs to be made by both parents or just one.

Or is it that the community decides when or if the child knows better? If this is true then a group of people can decide whether or not a person can have freedom and autonomy from their parents, and so the right of the child to control his own life comes from the group. So if the community decides that a 25 year old with a job still doesn't know better, its alright for the parents to control where they live, their bank accounts, etc.

Does this right to control the life of the child come from the fact that a child isn't a "person" until a certain age, and so has no rights beforehand but has all the rights of a person afterwards? If that's the reason then it would sanction all kinds of actions against children because they aren't people and so don't have rights.

Or is it that a child is a "quasi-person" who has some rights of people but not others? If so, then who delineates these rights, and who decides when a child goes from quasi- to full-person?

Even if this right to control a child's life comes from the fact that the child doesn't know any better, why is it that the parents are the ones to direct this life? The fact that a child is deemed to be unable to take care of himself proves that someone should take care of him, it doesn't necessarily mean that it should be the parents. To give the parents this right must mean that we are assuming that these parents will best take care of the child. This might make sense from an evolutionary way, a person is much more likely to take good care of family than a stranger. But then we recognize that the parent's right in this case comes from an argument for efficiency, and not some innate right to the child.

So, where do Libertarian babies come from, what arguments do people of that philosophy make to justify this right?

Why is it that we have the right to raise children?

He Kept Us Out of War

A new passion has taken over Americans, a passion for history. This new wave of historical soul-searching is a wonderful thing, but requires a complete view of history and not a hodge-podge of selected anecdotes connected with threads of ideological narrative. Part of this blog, therefore, will be devoted to filling in areas of history being omitted from current popular accounts. This first post, and another to come soon, will deal with US Presidents of the early 20th Century.

Part of this new wave of historical appetite by people involves the idea that Woodrow Wilson was a two-faced belligerent who won his second term by touting his administration’s neutrality and then immediately reversed and declared war on Germany. This view of history, as well as the overall desire for an increased knowledge of history, is inspired by Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck’s hatred of Woodrow Wilson should be well known by now, and his thoughts on this particular part of Wilson are:

    “I hate this S.O.B., and the more you learn about this guy, the more you will too. This is the most evil guy I think we've had in office. 1916, Woodrow Wilson won re-election in part -- large part due to a commitment to keep America from entering World War I. One of the campaign slogans boasted, "He kept us out of war." There was a very strong anti-war sentiment in America at the time. Americans -- if Americans favored a side, they would have gone with the Germans, because Germans were the largest ethnic group in America at the time. Most people weren't paying attention; the Germans were. OK. So on the eve of asking Congress to declare war on Germany -- yeah, remember, he ran I'm not going to get us into war -- it was a month later -- I've got to give you the exact date, because this is amazing: 1916, he was running for election. 1917, his inaugural address, March 4, 1917, he said we're going to pursue peace and even though we have been injured by the effects of war, we're not going into war. That was March 4, 1917. April 13, 1917, America goes to war.” (The Glenn Beck Show, March 26 2010)

That certainly sounds like a terrible turn of direction by Wilson. The only problem with this, as in other of Beck’s views of history, is that it is an utterly cursory glance at events without actually considering all that happened. I have therefore decided that my inaugural post should be in providing a more complete timeline of the US’s entrance into WWI. Seeing as this weekend marks the end of reparation payments by Germany for WWI, this is a perfect time.

Woodrow Wilson

First, however, let’s be reminded of a more recent event, against which Wilson’s quick and eager belligerence should be seen:

On September 11th, 2001 the United States was attacked by 19 hijacking terrorists. Of these, 15 were from Saudi Arabia, 2 were from the United Arab Emirates, 1 was Lebanese, and 1 was Egyptian. These men were not the legitimate military of Afghanistan, or of any nation. On October 7th, 2001, a month after the attack, the US launched Operation Enduring Freedom and the war in Afghanistan.

So, a month after the US was attacked we mobilized for war. How could we not? US citizens had been attacked and killed, not because they were on the battlefield or in a war but simply because they went about their lives. And it is the duty of government to defend people from such things. Whether citizens are killed in buildings, in planes, or on ships, the US should respond to foreign threats against its people.

We now join the War to End All Wars, already in progress. All quotes regarding WWI are from the wonderful A World Undone by GJ Meyer available here.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 6th, 1915 the RMS Lusitania was torpedoed, killing American passengers, by a German U-boat which was engaging in unrestricted submarine warfare during WWI. This U-boat was part of the legitimate military of Germany and was the direct responsibility of Germany. The response of the US under Woodrow Wilson was to negotiate a halt to such activity, and on June 5th an order went out from Berlin calling a halt to the torpedoing of passenger liners on sight.

Sure, the US had been attacked, not just by terrorists but by a legitimate foreign power, but still no entry to war.

On November 7th, 1916 Woodrow Wilson won reelection in the US, running on a campaign of “He Kept Us Out of War”, a factual statement. Despite attacks on US citizens, the US maintained neutrality by negotiating an end to unrestricted submarine warfare.

On January 9th, 1917 Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare, taking the calculated decision to risk the US entering the war for the sake of destroying Britain’s blockade. German Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg, who advocated against the unrestricted campaign, later wrote of this decision, “In view of these facts and of the declared readiness of Headquarters to risk war with the United States, I could not advise His Majesty to do other than to accept the opinion of his military advisers.”

Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg

This act of Germany came 2 months after Wilson had campaigned on keeping the US out of war, on a neutrality based on Germany’s agreement on submarine warfare. Germany’s decision was tantamount to declaring the permissibly of attacking and killing US citizens.

On January 31, pursuant to his instructions, Ambassador Bernstorff of Germany announced “the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare to U.S. secretary of state Robert Lansing, expressed his regret at having to do so, and withdrew.”

On February 2 Wilson met with his cabinet, “found that its members were almost unanimously in favor of going to war, and replied that he still had hopes of staying out, of acting as a peacemaker.” Thus, despite Germany’s clearly breaking its agreement with the US and putting US ships and citizens under threat of attack, Wilson refused to enter war. After winning reelection on keeping the US out of war, and now already secure with a second term, Wilson maintained the desire to remain outside the war. Still no sign of Wilson’s hidden belligerence.

 This decision to stay out of war was not without criticism:

    “The situation remained static for nearly three weeks, with Republican leaders of the Senate and former president Theodore Roosevelt calling for war and Wilson remaining silent. The ports of the East Coast became grid-locked with loaded merchant ships, their owners afraid to order them to sea. The rail lines leading into those ports began to back up as well, unable to unload the huge quantities of freight bound for Europe. Farmers and manufacturers, workers and shippers, labor unions and corporations all began to scream as costs rose, perishable goods began to rot, and sales and jobs were jeopardized. Everyone looked to the White House and waited. It began to seem possible, to the astonishment of many and the delight of some, that not even the U-boat campaign was going to persuade Wilson to make war.”

US lives and commerce were under the threat of German attack, and still Wilson’s desire for war was absent. See a list of these attacks here.

 Finally, on February 23 the British provided the US with a copy of the Zimmermann Telegram.  This document was sent by Arthur Zimmermann, head of the German foreign ministry, to the German ambassador in Mexico City, suggesting that if the US enters the war against Germany that Mexico should ally with Germany and attack the US. The telegram read in part:

    “WE MAKE MEXICO A PROPOSAL OF ALLIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: MAKE WAR TOGETHER, MAKE PEACE TOGETHER, GENEROUS FINANCIAL SUPPORT, AND AN UNDERSTANDING ON OUR PART THAT MEXICO IS TO RECONQUER THE LOST TERRITORY IN TEXAS, NEW MEXICO AND ARIZONA. THE SETTLEMENT IN DETAIL IS LEFT TO YOU.“

Zimmermann Telegram

On February 28 the telegram was made public, and still the US under Wilson did not enter the war. Consider the sum of German actions, the breaking of the agreement on submarine warfare, the attacks on US ships, the disruption of US commerce,  and now this. Still the US remained out.

 On March 7th, “the president went into deep seclusion, refusing to see or confer with anyone. On March 12 he emerged to issue an executive order for the arming of American merchant ships, thereby bypassing the LaFollette filibuster. Then he again withdrew, and the days crept past with the world holding its breath. On March 18 three American ships were sunk by U-boats. Two days later Wilson called his cabinet together and again asked its members for their opinion. To a man, they favored war.”

 On April 6th, after approval from both the House and Senate, the US decaled war on Germany.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Putting this record into the historical context of our modern war:

 1 Month after the US was attacked by terrorists the US entered a war with Afghanistan.

 3 Months after the government of Germany announced a resumption of submarine attacks on US ships and citizens the US declared war.

Yet Wilson is now decried as a lying belligerent, who ran for reelection on neutrality and then immediately reversed and declared war. The record instead speaks of a surprising reluctance to go to war, a reluctance almost unimaginable today. It seems to me inconceivable for a President today to allow the US to suffer such attacks, such disruptions to our way of life, for so long.

This is not to defend Wilson as a person, but simply to correct this half-baked notion fostered by Glenn Beck that Wilson was flip-flopping or two-faced in his neutrality and his subsequent declaration of war. I hope that this provides a better understanding of History.

Next post on this topic will be Harding and Coolidge: Daring Duo of Constitutional Dereliction