AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM


AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM: GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE,FOR THE PEOPLE -- ECONOMIC FREEDOM BASED ON FREE MARKET INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURISM -- WEALTH CREATION AS A SOURCE OF GREAT GOOD FOR THE DISADVANTAGED -- IMMIGRANTS PROVIDING UNPARALELLED ETHNIC, RELIGIOUS, RACIAL DIVERSITY -- OUR MILITARY PROVIDING AND PROTECTING WORLDWIDE INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.


Sunday, March 17, 2024

Why Leftism Fails: A Historical Study, Part One

"As we look back in history, we find incontrovertible evidence that success is at the end of a long, hard road called industry, frugality, self-discipline, sacrifice, virtue.  And failure comes to those who get lazy, covetous, licentious, and wasteful.  It happens almost without exception.  And if we want the United States to continue to succeed—or to “re-succeed”—we must go back and once again study history, apply those qualities that lead to triumph, and shun those traits that produce disaster.

Leftism fails on this very point.  There is nothing sacred to the Left.  Everything is to be challenged, and everything that does not meet the test of Leftist “reason” or “logic” must be rejected.  No tradition, no virtue, no quality is above suspicion; it is to be accepted or denied wholly or in part as Leftists’ personal judgment dictates.  “Progress” is his watchword, but that too often means digression from that which has proven to be enduring, good, and successful."

Town Hall  - Mark Lewis

Leftism fails for a lot of reasons and I can’t go into all of them without writing an encyclopedia.  But I can establish the most important.  I would like to begin this series by sharing with you a passage from historian Will Durant in his book Our Oriental Heritage, regarding the fall of the Persian empire in the 4th century B.C.:

“It is in the nature of an empire to disintegrate soon, for the energy that created it disappears from those who inherit it, at the very time that its subject peoples are gathering strength to fight for their lost liberty.  Nor is it natural that nations diverse in language, religion, morals, and traditions should long remain united; there is nothing organic in such a union, and compulsion must repeatedly be applied to maintain the artificial bond.  In its two hundred years of empire Persia did nothing to lessen this heterogeneity, these centrifugal forces; she was content to rule a mob of nations, and never thought of making them into a state.”

Success does not happen by accident.   There are reasons why people succeed— collectively and individually.  The principles are the same.  Those nations, and individuals, who possess certain qualities and characteristics will, nearly always, be rewarded positively for their efforts; those who lack those qualities will almost surely fail.  History teaches this repeatedly and it is no surprise to wise, knowledgeable historians when a nation, or an individual, rises, and then collapses.  They will have walked time-proven paths.  Let’s examine Durant’s historical analysis.  

“It is in the nature of an empire to disintegrate soon, for the energy that created it disappears from those who inherit it, at the very time that its subject peoples are gathering strength to fight for their lost liberty.” Empires, nations—and individuals—“rise” because of a strength of character and determination that is lacking in other peoples.  As we study the past, we can see that people who are industrious, frugal, self-disciplined, sacrificial, and virtuous will nearly always succeed; people who are lazy, shiftless, self-absorbed, pleasure-loving, and wasteful will (eventually) fail.  What happened in Persia has happened often in history—a strong people, determined, disciplined, and industrious, built a great empire.  They weren’t perfect, far from it; no people are.  They committed gross crimes and abuses, but still, they never would have gotten where they did if they hadn’t had some decisive attributes that drove them above and beyond their peers.  You’ve heard of the Persians; you probably haven’t heard of the Girgashites.  Why did Persia prosper and grow mighty while the Girgashites were consigned to the garbage bin of tribal anonymity?  Persia had something that the Girgashites lacked.  And while resources help, there have been a lot of peoples who were blessed with excessively wealthy geography but failed miserably to do anything with it (e.g., American Indians).  Greatness lies in character, not in dirt.  This is almost axiomatic. 

 And yet, Persia collapsed.  Why?  “The energy that created it disappears from those who inherit it.”  In the beginning, the individual—or a nation—works hard.  In a nation, a collective mentality, a “zeitgeist,” is created, and that is crucial.  Success is simpler to illustrate in an individual.  A man sacrifices, he builds, he sweats, he saves, he practices those virtues that produce a successful business.  And succeed he does.  He becomes prosperous, having been rewarded for his efforts.  But unless he continues practicing the same attributes that led him to glory, he will soon see his glory crumble.  Too often, an individual—and a nation—becomes rich from the hard labor of those who have gone before.  But, when a nation produces abundance, it wants to enjoy it.  So, what happens?  The people get lazy, indulgent, careless, selfish, and then begin to make excuses for their failures, always blaming others.  Finally, somebody with a hungrier mouth, usually, but not always, barbarians, arrive and conquer (or destroys) what was built.  How many once-successful businesses have folded because those who inherited them did not continue to execute with the same diligence their forerunners had?  The fat, lazy, undisciplined, and pleasure-oriented will always be defeated by those who are leaner, hungrier, and who want it more.  Individually and nationally.

America grew strong because her people were strong.  We became the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth because our forefathers worked hard, were frugal, strong, industrious, virtuous people who sacrificed so that they and their families might prosper.  Yes, they made mistakes, of course, and they didn’t always practice perfect Judeo-Christian morality; not in the least.  But they weren’t lazy and shiftless, either.  If they had been, the United States would be a third-rate banana republic right now—in other words, the kind of nation Joe Biden and the Democrats are working overtime to create. 

So let me reiterate.  As we look back in history, we find incontrovertible evidence that success is at the end of a long, hard road called industry, frugality, self-discipline, sacrifice, virtue.  And failure comes to those who get lazy, covetous, licentious, and wasteful.  It happens almost without exception.  And if we want the United States to continue to succeed—or to “re-succeed”—we must go back and once again study history, apply those qualities that lead to triumph, and shun those traits that produce disaster.

Leftism fails on this very point.  There is nothing sacred to the Left.  Everything is to be challenged, and everything that does not meet the test of Leftist “reason” or “logic” must be rejected.  No tradition, no virtue, no quality is above suspicion; it is to be accepted or denied wholly or in part as Leftists’ personal judgment dictates.  “Progress” is his watchword, but that too often means digression from that which has proven to be enduring, good, and successful.

It happened to Persia, among others.  The wise recognize it is happening today in America.  Ultimate degeneration—and for the exact same reasons.


Sunday, March 10, 2024

Biden May Have had a dose of Adderall Before His Speech

 A psychiatrist told the Washington Times that he believes Biden may have been medicated for his address, citing speculation that the president usually exhibits signs of dementia due to his regular episodes of aggression toward reporters and inability to remember critical things. 

Dr. Carol Lieberman, a forensic psychiatrist based in Beverly Hills, California, told the outlet that Biden may have been given a stimulant to keep him alert and focused. Throughout his address, the president often shouted words and moved his hands at a more rapid rate than he normally does. 

“If you look at how Joe Biden usually is — slow and stumbling — compared to how he was during the State of the Union — fiery and angry — these are signs that are typical for someone taking Adderall or any amphetamine,” she said.

Per the Washington Times, Biden showed signs that his “unusually energetic performance” was not of his nature. 

“Dr. Lieberman, who has not personally examined the president, said the signs of potential pharmaceutical use go beyond how Mr. Biden spoke during the nearly 90-minute speech, but also in his mannerisms.

For example, Mr. Biden typically rests his hands on the podium while delivering a speech from the teleprompter. During the State of the Union, he frequently gestured and moved with his hands at a rapid rate, she said.

Mr. Biden, 81, often raced through his remarks with the speed of an auctioneer, loudly shouting his words despite having a microphone in front of him.

Speed and volume of speech can be a sign of using Adderall or another amphetamine.



Saturday, March 9, 2024

Trump's Response to Biden's State of the Democrat's 2024 Campaign Speech

Editor's note: A positive, straightforward message to all Americans aimed at ending America's cultural and political divide.  

#1 We will rebuild the greatest economy in American history.

#2 We will ensure fair trade for the American worker.

#3 We will unleash America to achieve energy dominance.

#4 We will close the border, build the wall and restore American sovereignty.

#5 We will launch the war on drug cartels and stop crime in America.

#6 We will embrace patriotism and reject globalism.

#7 We will care for veterans and protect parents' rights.

#8 We will end censorship, reclaim free speech, and defend the First Amendment.

#9 We will restore free, honest and fair elections and stop election interference.

Screamin' Joe - Divider in Chief a.k.a. Old Yeller - His State of the Democrat 2024 Election Campaign speech.

 Editor's note: Granted that the biased media/talking heads view Biden's speech quite differently depending on their political affiliation, but no one disputes the fact that this was not a State of the Union speech. It was a vitriolic, hateful, doom and gloom, loud rant focused on creating further division in an already divided country. All Americans, regardless of their political persuasion, should be concerned that we have a President, incapable and unwilling of acting as a unifying leader of all law-abiding citizens, one who calls out millions of citizens who disagree with his policies as a 'domestic threat to our Democracy'.  While there is merit to the view that Trump is also divisive, he is not our Nation's Commander in Chief. 

Town Hall Matt Vespa

Was this the State of the Union or the Democratic National Convention? President Joe Biden’s speech was marinated in division, rancor, and guff. He picked fights with congressional Republicans who mostly sat idle as this dementia-ridden head of state rattled off a vision of America that doesn’t exist. The address started with a January 6 lecture, where everyone knew this would devolve into an hour of insanity.

Some noted that the address would be grounded in telling Americans they were idiots—we were right. Biden embodied a ‘we know best’ attitude, telling struggling Americans whose wallets get torched when they pay the electric bill or go to the grocery store that their eyes are deceiving them. Joe wants to declare war on gun owners, touted Obamacare, which wasn’t his accomplishment, and outright lied about Republicans wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare—the AARP has pro-Trump ads on this, Joe. They’ve been running since 2016

On border security, the president remains blind that his reversal of critical Trump executive orders is what caused us to lose operational control. Biden called the stalled border security package conservative because it provided more funds for judges and agents—all of which would have helped ferry people in instead of keeping people out and deporting them, which needs to happen. It also contained a pathway to citizenship for unvetted Afghan refugees and provided legal status to the children on H-1B visas, who lose their deportation protections around age 21. It was also a Ukraine bill, Joe. Of the $117 billion, only around $20 billion was for border security. 

Biden did have a lofty goal for prescription drugs and taking on the pharmaceutical companies, including capping drug prices. There was a lengthy government spending list, but Biden repeated the lie that no one making under $400,000 would see their taxes go up. As Katie will cover in the morning, Biden, like Obama, took a swipe at the Supreme Court over abortion, which occupied a healthy portion of his address. Biden knows he can’t lose single, college-educated, and chardonnay-guzzling suburbanite women. 

On foreign policy, The president even had the gall to say that the world is safer than it was four years ago, placing a lot of blame on Donald Trump, though he didn’t mention him by name. It was an angry, partisan speech that some observers hit two birds with one stone. It was meant to dissuade any intraparty coup toward possibly replacing Biden at the convention later this year. And it served red meat to the far left faction, which has been drifting away from Biden. 

Suppose it sounded like a speech to the Democratic Party base. In that case, that’s because it was—these people see the polling: Biden is struggling with blacks, Hispanics, young voters, Muslim Americans, and labor unions. The labor union brass might like Biden, but the rank-and-file are decidedly unenthused. 

The president still stumbled, slurred his words, and got lost at multiple points, but I’ll say this: if whatever cocktail his doctors injected into him to keep him half-awake is tweaked, Biden could maybe hold his own with Trump. Remember, all Joe must do is not short-circuit a la Mitch McConnell on live television. 

Abortion, destroying the rich, open borders, grabbing guns, and everything terrible is all Trump’s fault—that’s the Cliff Notes version of Biden’s address. 

It was part revving up the liberal base, but also soaked in indignation toward those who Biden feels should be giving him more credit for his failure of a presidency. Eighty-six percent think he’s too old, while 61 percent of Americans think he doesn’t deserve a second term. 

Will this address have legs? Probably not, and all it takes for all this supposed goodwill to evaporate is for Biden to have another senior moment, where everyone is reminded that he can’t and hasn’t been able to do the job. Biden has been on vacation for 40 percent of his presidency.


Friday, February 23, 2024

Blue Laws For Red Citizens - Five Court Cases - Unapologetically Left Wing or Associated With Liberaal Causes

Victor Davis Hanson

One state prosecutor and one civilian plaintiff have already won huge fines and damages from former President Donald Trump that may, with legal costs, exceed $500 million.

Trump awaits further civil and criminal liability in three other federal, state, and local indictments.

There are eerie commonalities in all these five court cases involving plaintiff E. Jean Carroll, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, New York Attorney General Letitia James, federal special counsel Jack Smith, and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

One, they are either unapologetically left-wing or associated with liberal causes. They filed their legal writs in big-city, left-wing America -- Atlanta, New York, Washington -- where liberal judges and jury pools predominate in a manner not characteristic of the country at large.

Two, they are overtly political. Bragg, James, and Willis have either campaigned for office or raised campaign funds by promising to get or even destroy Trump.

Left-wing billionaire Reid Hoffman funded Carroll's suit.

Smith sued to rush his court schedule in hopes of putting Trump on trial before the November election.

Three, there would not be any of these cases had Trump not run for the presidency or not been a conservative.

Carroll's suit bypassed statute of limitation restrictions by prompting the intervention of a left-wing New York legislator. He passed a special bill, allowing a one-year window to waive the statute of limitations for sexual assault claims from decades past.

Until Trump, no New York prosecutor like James had ever filed a civil suit against a business for allegedly overvaluing real estate assets to obtain loans that bank auditors approved and were paid back in full, on time, and with sizable interest profits to the lending institutions.

Bragg bootstrapped a Trump private non-disclosure agreement into a federal campaign violation in a desperate effort to find something on Trump.

Smith is also charging Trump with insurrectionary activity. But Trump had never been so charged with insurrection, much less convicted of it.

Willis strained to find a way to criminalize Trump's complaints about his loss of Georgia in the 2020 national election. She finally came up with a racketeering charge, usually more applicable to mafiosi and drug cartels.

Fourth, in all these cases, the charges could have been equally applicable to fellow left-wing public figures and officials.

President Joe Biden, like Trump, was accused of sexual assault decades earlier by former staffer Tara Reade. Yet Reade was torn apart by the media and the left for inconsistencies in her memory. By contrast, the wildly inconsistent and amnesiac Carroll won $83 million from Trump.

Smith created the precedent of charging Trump for unlawfully removing classified files to his private residence.

ut the government simultaneously did not charge Biden for similar offenses. Yet Biden had removed files not for two years but for more than 30. He stored them not in one location but several.

His rickety garage was a mess, not a secure family compound like Trump's estate. Moreover, Biden did so while a senator and vice president, without any presidential authority to declassify almost any presidential document he wished.

Biden never came forward to report the crime for over 30 years -- until Trump was charged. Indeed, he was caught on tape six years ago, admitting to his ghostwriter that he possessed classified files but never reported it.

Bragg might have noticed that both Hillary Clinton (fined $113,000) and Barack Obama (fined $350,000) broke campaign financing laws. Neither was subject to federal criminal charges by local prosecutors.

An array of left-wing celebrities, politicians, 2004 House Members, former Senator Barbara Boxer, D-CA, and failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams have all recently challenged elections. They sought either to delay or redo ballot counting or, on the federal level, to sidetrack electors to ignore popular votes in their respective states.

These lawfare cases are part of other efforts that were highly partisan and without merit. Recall the Trump "Russian collusion" hoax and the "Russian disinformation" laptop farce.

In another first, some blue states are suing to take Trump's name off the ballot for "insurrection," a crime for which he has never been charged.

Total up the deaths, damage, and length of the summer 2020 Antifa/BLM riots. Then, compare the tally to the one-day January 6 riot.

The former proved far more lethal, long-lasting, and destructive. Yet very few of the 14,000 arrested rioters in 2020 were ever prosecuted, much less convicted.

By contrast, the Biden administration sought to jail hundreds for crimes allegedly committed on January 6, such as "illegal parading."

We are entering a dangerous era in America.

Ideology and party affiliations increasingly determine guilt and punishment. Opponents are first targeted, and then laws are twisted and redefined to convict them.

The left is waging law fare with the implicit message to political opponents: either keep quiet or suffer the consequences.



Friday, January 5, 2024

Must See - J6: True Time Line Documentary to Get the Unbiased Truth About J6

Link to Documentary 

open. Ink

Right click on above link - select "Open Hyperlink"

Summary - Wendi Mahoney 

The goal of this film was not to editorialize but to chronologically recount the significant events of the day as they unfolded. Viewers will also see events in synchrony throughout the film. The creators also wanted to highlight the circumstances of the protestors who lost their lives. The Jan. 6 deaths have either been minimized, manipulated, misunderstood, or entirely overlooked by our government, the judicial system, and the mainstream media.

J6: A True Timeline gives the audience a never-before-seen timestamped blueprint for the events of January 6, 2021, as they unfolded in real time. No other film to date fills the gaps or tells the story chronologically the way this film does. The film is also different from anything produced to date because a small group of protestors, some who are J6 defendants, have been the ones to collect hours of footage to help contextualize the events of the day. The film was funded and produced entirely through small donations and tens of thousands of volunteer man hours. The hope is that the film will provoke all Americans to be more curious about the true timeline of January 6.

The Creator and Producer for the documentary is AJ Fischer of InvestigateJ6. AJ is a J6 defendant who knows more than most about what transpired on the West side of the Capitol; circumstances that led to the declared riot and Capitol building entry. In January 2023, Fischer began to make the film a reality. He lined up funding for the project and hired professional producer Jason Rink to help. Rink is the Executive Producer for the project. Paul Escandon is both director and editor.

Fischer's Less Lethal timeline was featured in an article written by Journalist Wendi Strauch Mahoney with UncoverDC. Fischer was both witness to and a victim of police brutality on Jan. 6. He has researched police actions extensively, comparing J6 with the way other D.C. protests were handled and adjudicated:

"As both witness and victim, I observed firsthand that the attacks by police with munitions and physical violence were often unprovoked and at times deeply disturbing. I later learned about required police procedure and the DC First Amendment Assemblies Act by watching congressional hearings on previous questionable police actions while clearing protests- specifically the clearing of the protests in Lafayette Square outside the White House on Memorial Day weekend. Given what I have learned about the statutes and other court cases, and the police actions I witnessed-it is likely the police violated the law."

"I then followed the facts, reviewed evidence from hundreds of J6 trials, as well as evidence from bodycam footage, radio communications, and police officer testimony. It became definitively clear the police disregarded protestor safety and well-established DC protest crowd clearing laws, said Fischer. "Law enforcement failed to give proper, required warnings prior to launching munitions. In some cases, police are heard admitting they were hurting and inciting innocent people."

"It became even more clear that there have been disparities between the way Congress investigated these illegal police actions when BLM protestors were involved," Fischer continued. "Those same illegal police actions have been ignored or buried when J6 protestors were targeted by police. In fact, the objective observer will tell you the J6 Select Committee ignored the facts to push a certain political narrative."

"J6 A True Timeline is a result of hours of investigation into the facts of J6. The purpose of this film is to set the record straight without favor to one side or another. January 6 is a dark day in American history, but not in the way it has been portrayed. The American people deserve the whole, uncut truth of what transpired minute by minute. In reality, J6 was a complex human event; one where a peaceful, joyous morning of First Amendment assembly became a riot for reasons that are much more nuanced than most want you to believe."

The seeds of this documentary were planted as far back as January 2021, with Dave Sumrall and Daniel Goodwyn of StopHate.com, who provided much of the research for the film. Goodwyn, the archival producer of J6 A True Timeline, played a major role in researching and archiving media. Sumrall was J6 A True Timeline's consulting producer, helping with production and key research.

According to J6 A True Timeline Executive Producer, Jason Rink,

"The small group of collaborators have collected one of the largest repositories of J6 footage in private hands. When the government continued to drag its feet on the release of footage, this group decided to take matters into their own hands. They went about the task of laying out every angle of body cam footage, security footage and footage filmed by citizens, and compiled it in a timeline using metadata and timecode. The result is a view of January 6 from almost every angle, simultaneously, providing a much different story than previously known. Over the past year the filmmakers worked to edit the footage into a concise but accurate documentary which allows people to see the events of the day as they unfolded."

The creators hope the film will provoke all Americans to ask questions based on what they see and hear.

  • How did these protestors die and why?

  • How is the government misrepresenting "restricted area" to convict Americans?

  • How many protestors really knew they were entering restricted areas on the Capitol grounds?

  • Do Americans know the flexible fencing was placed on the Capitol grounds for the purpose of constructing the inaugural stage?

  • Do Americans know the Capitol police were told prior to Jan. 6 not to use munitions on the crowds.

  • Why was there so much chaos? Why did people riot?

  • Were the police prepared to handle the crowds that day? Why didn't the police arrest individuals before the violence escalated?

  • What really happened at the "tunnel" on Jan. 6. and how did Roseanne Boyland die?

  • Why did Officer Byrd shoot Ashli Babbitt when she was flanked from behind by Metro police?

  • What were the communications between Mayor Bowser, members of Congress, Chief Sund, and Yogananda Pittman?

  • Why are police heard saying they were "set up?"

  • Why does former Capitol Police officer Tarik Johnson continue to say that former Assistant Chief of USCP Intelligence Yogananda Pittman is largely responsible for the chaos on Jan. 6, not former President Donald J. Trump

These and many other questions remain unanswered and should provoke Americans to think more critically about why the day unfolded the way it did.

The goal of this film was not to editorialize but to chronologically recount the significant events of the day as they unfolded. Viewers will also see events in synchrony throughout the film. The creators also wanted to highlight the circumstances of the protestors who lost their lives. The Jan. 6 deaths have either been minimized, manipulated, misunderstood, or entirely overlooked by our government, the judicial system, and the mainstream media.

The mainstream media and our government have shown almost zero interest in truthful, unbiased reporting of Jan. 6, to the detriment of so many. Sumrall says that he and the other creators "have brought more evidence to light than the government or media ever did." He has personally testified on behalf of Jers even while under threat of imprisonment. He, like many J6 defendants, has also been visited multiple times at his home where he has been interrogated by the FBI. He and others have invested thousands of dollars in expenses for research, travel, publicity, and awareness on behalf of J6 defendants, many of whom have already been sentenced to years in Federal prison.

Daniel Goodwyn, J6 A True Timeline archival producer, has worked tirelessly to document the events of the day. His and Sumrall's work will be featured on Open.Ink in hopes of preserving their years of dedication to getting the truth of J6 to the American public. Goodwyn worked behind the scenes over a period of three years compiling original information, data, and footage for the StopHate website. Goodwyn is on the autistic spectrum. His superpower is his ability to research and collate massive amounts of data accurately. Goodwyn's work is one of the main reasons such a large collection of video and audio has been compiled in the first place.

As with so many J6 defendants, Goodwyn was targeted unfairly by the Department of Justice. Goodwyn walked in an open door in the Capitol for under 40 seconds and walked back out. He never stole, broke, or touched a single object in the Capitol nor did he hurt anyone. For that, the government wanted 20-plus years in federal prison. He was sentenced to 60 days in federal prison but his jail time was applied to some of his prison sentence. Still on supervised release, Goodwyn is not able to move freely. He is also regularly submitted to drug testing.

Fischer, also a defendant who has lost everything and who also potentially faces years in federal prison, speaks to why this film needed to be made. He is the defendant whose UncoverDC news story went viral because his infant son was placed on the Quiet Skies suspected terrorist watchlist:

"The idea for the film was simple. Those of us with our own unique perspective as eyewitnesses, investigators and as observers of the trials and the congressional j6 committee knew that the American public had been purposefully misled about the timeline of events on January 6th."

"A narrative was created that pieced together events throughout the day to manufacture an explanation for the day that placed the blame directly at Trump's feet that was not based in fact at all. It was clear that they cherry-picked footage and evidence to explain the story they wanted to tell and lay the groundwork for the prosecution and removal of President Trump from presidential contention."

"We knew that the peaceful protest outside the Capitol was incited into a riot long before a single protestor entered the building," Fischer continues. "We knew there was more to the 4 protester deaths than had been previously told. And we knew the American people knew none of these things."

While not involved in the production or content of the film, Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips, made it possible to showcase the film on Open.Ink as a part of its J6 Collection. Open.Ink will feature other historical collections that have been heavily censored by the mainstream media and the American government. The idea is to preserve important historical events in perpetuity. The creators of the film will continue to investigate J6 to help with legal defense and to ensure the American public knows the truth about January 6.


Saturday, December 30, 2023

Monroe Doctrine - Bluprint for Returning to a Realistic Strategy That Can Preserve American Liberty

 A very important read:

This month marks the 200th anniversary of the Monroe Doctrine. If celebration (or even acknowledgment) seems muted, that may be because policymakers and the public know little about the principles and grand strategy underlying the doctrine.

Few likely understand the doctrine because its meaning has been distorted throughout American history, especially in the Progressive Era by Theodore Roosevelt’s corollary. Some see it, for better or worse, as the beginning of America’s commitment to maintaining an international order by arms and diplomacy. But this is incorrect.

The Monroe Doctrine’s Origins

President James Monroe articulated what later became known as the Monroe Doctrine in his seventh annual message to Congress on Dec. 2, 1823. Its topic was the collapse of the Spanish Empire and the subsequent rise of independent nations in Latin America. Henry Clay and other leading statesmen saw this as an opportunity to push American-style republicanism abroad.

President Monroe and Secretary of State John Quincy Adams took a more cautious stance. Monroe declared a policy of neutrality in the wars between Spain and the newly independent republics of Latin America.

He also promised not to interfere with existing European colonies or the affairs of the Old World, warning that any European attempt to reassert control over those republics would be treated “as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.” The Western Hemisphere would be off limits to any European nation that wished to maintain amicable relations with the United States.

Monroe was not promising to wage war on behalf of the new Latin American nations or republicanism. The Monroe Doctrine was rooted in two fundamental principles, one moral, the other strategic.

The Moral Principle of National Self-Rule

The first was the moral principle of national sovereignty. Monroe believed the right of a nation to govern itself was an axiom of the law of nations. He speaks of the “just principles” on which the United States recognized the independence of new Latin American republics, who elevated themselves to an equal status with the other powers of the Earth. By recognizing this equal status, nations can maintain peaceful relations with one another: “It is by rendering justice to other nations that we may expect it from them. It is by our ability to resent injuries and redress wrongs that we may avoid them.”

Nations can expect peace if they are willing to respect the citizens, territory, and commerce of other nations and are prepared to defend their own. Echoing the Declaration of Independence, Monroe wished that the Greeks, who were fighting a war of independence against the Ottomans, “would succeed in their contest and resume their equal station among the nations of the world.”

Yet kind words are all Monroe was willing to offer the Greek revolutionaries. It is up to each nation to secure sovereignty for itself. Monroe declares that “only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced [do] we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense.”

America will not serve as the policeman of the world, nor as the guarantor of a community of nations. Monroe had no intention of imposing our form of government on any other part of the world, but only to protect Americans’ life, liberty, commerce, and sovereignty.

The strategic principle at the heart of the Monroe Doctrine is that a great power has an interest in keeping other great powers out of its immediate neighborhood. Different regions of the globe have unique strategic interests and concerns.

President Monroe warned the Europeans that “any attempt … to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere” would be considered “dangerous to our peace and safety.” Monroe’s hemispheric thinking animated westward settlement: Americans were eager to reach the Pacific to close off the continent to future European colonies.

An American Principle Since the Founding

President Monroe was articulating a preexisting American grand strategy. As secretary of state, Quincy Adams had already expressed the administration’s commitment to restraint and neutrality in his famous address of July 4, 1821.

Adams praised the young American nation for having “abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings… [America] goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

America cannot intervene on behalf of foreign causes, even just ones, because the “fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.” Republican government requires restraint abroad. One that goes abroad in search of monsters to destroy would soon find a new monster at home: imperial government.

Adams’s exhortation for restraint and detachment from foreign wars followed President Washington’s advice in his Farewell Address. The first president similarly warned Americans to steer clear of permanent alliances and avoid permanent attachment or animosity toward any nation, which could obscure our true interests and make us unwitting servants of foreign governments.

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible,” Washington said.

A False Justification for Nation-Building

The strategic principle embedded in the Monroe Doctrine can be traced back to the beginning of the nation. Arguing in favor of a firm constitutional union backed by a powerful navy in Federalist No. 11, Alexander Hamilton outlined what could be called a proto-Monroe Doctrine. He writes: “The world may politically, as well as geographically, be divided into four parts each having a distinct set of interests.”

Europe, he goes on to say, has successfully extended its power over the other three parts — Asia, Africa, and the Americas — and could continue to do so if left unchecked. Hamilton’s solution was not to wage preemptive war or impose sanctions against Europe, but to create “one great American system” — a union of states powerful enough to control the Atlantic seaboard and counter European economic and political influence in the hemisphere.

How, then, did the Monroe Doctrine come to be interpreted as a justification for nation-building and intervention abroad? As Walter McDougall argued, 1898 marked the decisive turning point with the Spanish-American War. The United States embarked on a moral crusade to end the Spanish colonial government in Cuba and assumed imperial ambitions by the end of the war.

With the acquisition of the Philippines and other Spanish colonies, America for the first time governed territory that was never intended to gain statehood. Progressive imperialists like Sen. Albert Beveridge claimed the principles of consent and national sovereignty in the Declaration of Independence applied only to civilized nations, and that we have a moral duty to “administer government among savage and senile peoples” for their own good.

Today’s interventionists may not speak of savage peoples, but modern nation-building follows the spirit of early Progressive imperialism in assuming that the founding principle of national sovereignty is outdated.

The Roosevelt Corollary

Amid the Progressive transformation of foreign and domestic policy, President Theodore Roosevelt issued his 1904 corollary to the Monroe Doctrine in his fourth annual message to Congress. Roosevelt claimed the right “to the exercise of an international police power” over Latin American nations that failed to uphold the standards of civilization. Although the president claimed we can better promote “the general uplifting of mankind” by tending to our own affairs, he also spoke of rare, extreme cases “in which we could interfere by force of arms as we interfered to put a stop to intolerable conditions in Cuba.”

While Roosevelt’s message contains some elements of moderation and restraint, it is wrong to call it a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. “Transformation” would be a more accurate term. Roosevelt stripped the doctrine of its moral core — the right of national sovereignty — and created a new right for the United States to interfere in the domestic politics of other nations. Once a republic assumes the right to impose upon other nations its own standard of civilization, it no longer has a moral safeguard to prevent its slide into empire.

The Roosevelt Corollary cemented the interventionist turn in American foreign policy. It is a short walk from Roosevelt’s assertion to Woodrow Wilson’s quixotic call to make the world “safe for democracy” through armed intervention in the First World War. From there, it is another short walk to George H.W. Bush’s commitment to use American firepower “to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order” and to his son’s promise “to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”

Lessons From the Monroe Doctrine

What lessons can we learn from the Monroe Doctrine today? Some have called for invoking the doctrine to counter the threat of Chinese influence in the Western Hemisphere. No doubt, there are good reasons to keep powerful rivals out of our backyard, and the Monroe Doctrine does speak to the strategic need to maintain our sphere of influence.

However, the more relevant lesson from the Monroe Doctrine is the need to return to the moral principle of national sovereignty. Once American policymakers lost sight of this principle, they lost sight of the limits of intervention.

Wilson’s war to make the world safe for democracy paved the way for an even bloodier world war. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives and failed to build liberal democracies in the Middle East. Interventions in the Libyan and Syrian civil wars created a protracted migrant crisis and, once again, failed to deliver on their humanitarian promises. The billions of dollars of American armaments sent to Ukraine have only prolonged a brutal war between two Eastern European oligarchies and driven Russia further into China’s arms.

The moralistic internationalism that has animated much of the last 125 years of American foreign policy has also opened the door to foreign influence. From the British government’s Bryce Report in 1915 to Nayirah Al-Sabah’s phony testimony of Kuwaiti babies being ripped from incubators in the lead-up to the Gulf War, foreign governments have fabricated atrocities to drag America by its heartstrings into costly wars. Reasserting national sovereignty as a moral principle and detachment from foreign conflicts as a strategic imperative are the necessary preconditions to a sensible foreign policy.

America First Foreign Policy

The ultimate aim of the Monroe Doctrine was to secure the conditions for liberty in our own nation. Intervention abroad sets the stage for imperial politics at home.

As Angelo Codevilla noted, the national security state acts as a praetorian guard, subverting the will of elected officials (and, by extension, the people), whenever it believes its preferences are threatened. Protracted engagement overseas feeds the budgets and political capital of unaccountable agencies and bureaucrats.

The CIA has spied on the Senate Intelligence Committee out of fear of civilian oversight. Unelected officials such as Miles Taylor in the Department of Homeland Security and Jim Jeffrey in the State Department have covertly disrupted presidential policies that conflicted with their policy preferences. Quincy Adams warned our governing principles could change from liberty to force, and the escalating use of surveillanceinfiltration, and repression against opponents of the Biden administration prove him right.

Some will undoubtedly argue the Monroe Doctrine is outdated in a globalized age. Yet the oceans that insulated America from her great power rivals in the 19th century continue to do so today. Our fleets and nuclear umbrella deter peer competitors from threatening our soil. Whatever risks may come with returning to the restrained geopolitics of the Monroe Doctrine are outweighed by the proven consequences of going abroad in search of monsters to destroy.