Posted on 04/18/2006 6:43:27 AM PDT by NotchJohnson
Friday's lead story in America's largest newspaper must have made for sober reading at AEI and the Council on Foreign Relations, the twin dorms that house the Wilsonian wings of our national parties.
Americans, it appears, have had a bellyful of interventionism and globaloney. Reporters Susan Page and David Jackson merit quoting at length:
"In a USA Today/Gallup Poll, nearly half of those surveyed said the United States 'should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along as best they can on their own.' ...
"The leave-us-alone mood is apparent not only in the proportion of Americans, 64 percent, who want all or some of the U.S. troops in Iraq to come home now. It's also reflected in concern about illegal immigration -- eight of 10 said it was 'out of control' -- and in the furious public reaction to reports last month that a Dubai-owned firm was poised to take over cargo operations at ports in six states.
"Attitudes have soured toward trade, as well. Two-thirds said increased trade with other countries mostly hurts U.S. workers. By 50 percent-39 percent, respondents also said it mostly hurts American companies."
What do the polls mean? Bush and The Wall Street Journal may say America is trudging backward to the dark days of "isolationism and protectionism," of "Fordney-McCumber and Smoot-Hawley that gave us the Hoovervilles, Hitler and World War II."
But the truth is less dramatic.
What the polls are saying is that America, having tasted the fruits of Bush's foreign, immigration and trade policies, rejects them. Why? All three, of dubious conservative parentage, have failed.
Three in five Americans now believe the Iraq war -- whether we invaded to oust Saddam, strip him of WMD, turn Iraq into Vermont or establish our "benevolent global hegemony" -- was and is not worth the cost in blood and money.
They are saying that a NAFTA-GATT trade policy that results in $800 billion trade deficits and the loss of 3 million manufacturing jobs -- one in every six in just five years -- should be jettisoned.
When they read of China growing at 10 percent a year, as factories close in the United States and GM and Ford, once the two greatest companies on earth, are lingering outside bankruptcy court, they think we can do better. And, we can.
They are not saying they dislike foreigners. But they are saying a government that cannot stop an invasion across our Mexican border that has left 11 million to 20 million intruders in our country, stomping around under foreign flags and demanding the benefits of U.S. citizens, is a failed regime that needs to be replaced. After all, what does it profit us if we save Anbar province but lose Arizona?
What the polls are saying is that neoconservatism has failed and we wish to be rid of it, that Davos Republicanism has failed and we wish to be rid of it, that the open-borders immigration policy of The Wall Street Journal is idiotic and we wish to be rid of it.
This is not only understandable, there would be something wrong with Americans if they did not seek to regurgitate the fruit of such failed policies. Yet, when one looks at the large Republican field of presidential hopefuls shaping up, not one has broken with, and all seem to stand behind, George W. Bush. None so more than John McCain.
And what do the Democrats offers? Taxes, censure, amnesty, Cynthia McKinney and a four-year rerun of "The Clintons."
In 1964, Barry Goldwater and his 110-proof conservatism were repudiated in the largest landslide since FDR's stomping of Alf Landon, who carried only Maine and Vermont.
But by 1968, Great Society liberalism had been tried and had transparently failed. The no-win war in Vietnam and the urban riots bespoke a failed philosophy and policy. Today in 2006, it is neoconservatism and Wall Street Journal Republicanism that have failed as badly as had Great Society liberalism by 1968.
Where Bush has remained faithful to a Reaganite philosophy, on taxes and judges, the country has remained with him. But where he listened to the globalists and the Vulcans, who altered the liturgy and diluted the dogma, he lost the country.
Fred Barnes has written darkly of a "paleo moment" in America.
But paleoconservatism is simply the faith of our fathers before we built that shelter for the neocon homeless booted out of their own house by the McGovernites, who appear, in retrospect, to have been more savvy than we thought.
What does the old-time conservatism stand for? Limited government. Balanced budgets. A defense second to none. Secure borders. A trade policy that puts America and Americans first. And a foreign policy that keeps us out of wars that are not America's wars.
Unfortunately, when the USA Today/Gallup poll shows Americans are looking for precisely such authentic conservatism, neither party is offering it. The children were right. The system doesn't work.
I say I have to agree with everything written here and I would think most conservatives would too. That said, Iraq is a war that is our war. Afghanistan was our war and any other Middle East country we need to stomp is our war. This war against the Islamic terrorists is our war and really only our war. Its nice to have allies to help but if they all left we would still need to be fighting this war, and Iraq is our business.
We have interests in the Middle East, mainly due to oil but thats a big friggin interest and it must be protected, hence Gulf War 1.
We still have to be loyal friends, but not everyone can be our friend. England Australia Italy and certain eastern bloc nations along with Israel are friends worth defending.
That is not a response to what I wrote. I said the War on Terrorism is America's War. Do you agree or disagree?
There are obviously plenty Rhinos in our ranks. They usually are the ones that see "put America first" as "to h_ll with the rest of the world." Hmm come to think of it "to h_ll with Iran" sounds good to me! Oh, but wait, if we say "put America first" that means "damn Australia, England, Italy and Israel" as well. Gosh, we better not put America first lest the whole world sets out forces to invade America! Come on people.
Please tell me honestly how many of you like the United Nations as a whole or even some members of NATO?
I guess you folks that don't like what Pat said will not like this one either...
"We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." -- Theodore Roosevelt 1907 speaking about immigrants
I'm talking about a new irresponsible attitude among certain persons with WH influence, which suggests that (a) war can solve every problem without creating new ones, and (b) these wars will be quick and painless.
Let's be honest, all of us who supported the Iraq Invasion - that's most here on FR, plus most in the White House - were led down the garden path a bit in thinking that the Iraqi people would hail the troops as liberators, and that forces would be out of Iraq in 2-3 years. It's obvious to all now that US troops will probably have to stay in Iraq for the next 50 years, to keep the peace there.
We're all re-learning the lessons that the old British commanders had to learn: the Middle East is an endless minefield - very easy to get into, a lot harder to get out of.
You're right - a traitor is someone who betrays his own country.
FDR merely condemned the countries of Eastern Europe to slavery and oppression, so I can't properly call him a traitor.
He was a creep.
I don't think I could answer that to your satisfaction...A war on terrorism should be every country's war...But there is no war on terrorism...Granted, we are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan...We are nation building...
We are trying to build muzlim democracies...The War on Terrorism is something our gov't and mass media have come up with...
We can't have a war on terrorism and support the same terrorists at the same time...
I seem to remember this was the state of affairs after World War I.
I also seem to remember it didn't work out that well.
If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe?
Actually, Hitler declared war on the USA a few days after Pearl Harbor.
And he only declared war on the US, after the Japanese convinced Hitler, that in return, Japan would attack Russia to take pressure of the Nazis. Of course, Japan never did.
But war with Hitler was inevitable one way or another.
Kosovo?
Why do you consider Israel a terrorist nation???
Roosevelt could've laid down the law in Tehran, told Stalin to keep his dogs off Eastern Europe, or else there would be conflict between Russia and the US - in other words, actually live up to the brave "liberate the oppressed peoples of Europe" rhetoric he was spouting.
Instead, Roosevelt hugged Joe.
I have close friends who went through the Eastern European Holocaust - it doesn't get as many movies made about it or articles written about it, but it was every bit as horrific.
Don't look for any sympathy for FDR from this poster.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.