“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense,” said young Alice, the Wonderland tourist. “Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary-wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?”
Yes, dear Alice, we can see, because foreign policies come and go like the whimsical worlds of Wonderland. What made great sense yesterday is nonsense today. Consider the last 110 years alone: The rollicking adventurism of Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson’s smarmy chitchat internationalism, the ostrich-style foreign policy of the late twenties and thirties, the war-driven policy of the Roosevelt era, Eisenhower-Kennedy-Johnson Cold War containment, Nixonian realpolitik, Carter’s policy of naïveté, Reagan’s in-your-face summitry, Daddy Bush’s new world order dreaminess, Clintonian judicialism, and Bush idealism. All in their time became nonsense to the policy-minders of succeeding generations.
Actually, there are only two categories of foreign policy: idealism and realism. Lump Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson and his immediate successors, Carter, Clinton and Bush, in the idealism camp. Their tents have different shapes, but they sing Kum Ba Yah around the same campfire every night. FDR and Nixon were forced into realism, and Reagan was there from day one of his presidency.
Obama shows every sign of continuing the idealism that is the foreign policy of Wonderland. The Mad Hatter might as well be Secretary of State. Idealism to Obama takes a different form from that of Bush, but they’ll sit side by side at the tea party. For Bush, idealism was democratizing errant nations. For Obama, idealism will perhaps mean blending the United States into the mishmash of the rest of the planet. At the end of the Obama era one suspects he and Bush, ironically, will have pursued the same foreign policy goal of global idealism. Bush sought to democratize by force, and Obama will seek to talk nations into a democratic zest.
In a fallen world where the fine art of diplomacy is refined deceit, Realpolitik is the best course, even though it was the style of crusty old Nixon and that old smoothie, Reagan.
The biblical worldview places little stock in human-contrived optimism. The Bible is starkly real - patriarchs have temper tantrums, apostles pout at one another, and all have sinned and come short of God’s glory. Wistfulness is not joy; idealism is not truth. Only Kingdom-based hope is valid.
We pray Obama won’t have to find out the hard way that idealism in foreign policy is, as Alice puts it, nonsense.
Principle Based Evaluation: Isn't it time for a real debate about the tension between global pressure and national sovereignty? Such a discussion cannot take place at the tea party in Wonderland. I wonder if we could host it in Boston?
For more information on the author, Wallace Henley, go to: http://wallacehenley.com/
James Phillips
said:
 |
Honest Question It does seem that in every practical sense we are heading towards a global uniformity, however, intrinsic to the US DNA is a rigid independence. Do we really believe the US will lie down and assimilate into the global concept? I have a hard time imagining that it will be an easy fight. And to that end, what are the greatest practical benefits of the US staying independent? We force diversity but drive for uniformity. We are odd. |
Morgan Prospek
said:
 |
Where Will Current Foreign Policy Lead Us? We as a nation have accepted and are functioning in great levels of idealism in our foreign policy. Our leaders say they are working towards globalism and peace internationally. As of yet, however, they have failed to produce results. Trevor Nielson, President of the Global Philanthropy Group, said of our leaders, “They're global in outlook, and like traditional foundations, they're very much about results.” While we can acknowledge their intentions as beneficial, that does not guarantee that their actions follow suit. In response to James, I would say that I agree that we as Americans have become extremely independent in our attitude towards the rest of the world. However, we cannot help that other nations are growing in their economic, military, and political state. Our sense of independence is not going to keep them from fighting for equality. According to Melvin A. Goodman, “We are spending more than the rest of the world on defense, intelligence and homeland security, with few perceptible benefits. The defense and intelligence budgets have more than doubled in the past ten years, and we have no answers for the ethnic conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and no coercive influence over the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea. It is long past time to resort to the far less expensive and far less onerous policy of diplomacy and constructive engagement.” As we begin to slowly lose our resources and other nations begin to grow, I fear America will not be as much of a prominent superpower, no matter how hard we try to fight it. To hear more from Trevor Nielson and the Council on Foreign Relations, visit http://www.cfr.org/publication...olicy.html More from Melvin Goodman can be found at http://www.truthout.org/1105091 |
Jefferson D. Clinton
said:
 |
Reason in Policy and Goals God Would Approve of Can't Help But Be the Path of Righteousness What is wrong with actually adhering to policies God (who is afterall the Prince of Peace and teaches us to turn the other cheek) teaches and using them as a goal. Our foreign policy under Obama has been better than that under Bush, and much of the muck we're in, we can credit to the foolish and devilish policies of Bush. |
Morgan Prospek
said:
|
Response to Mr. Clinton I would agree that one of God's primary attributes is peace. Isaiah said Jesus was to be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6). We are even commanded to live in peace in Romans 12:18: "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” As Mr. Clinton pointed out, God’s Word identifies Him as the Prince of Peace and He does command us to turn the other cheek. This can easily seem like war should be avoided at all costs. “However, if one depends on the Bible as a guidepost for living, it is readily apparent that war is sometimes a necessary option. In fact, just as there are numerous references to peace in the Bible, there are frequent references to God-ordained war”(Jerry Falwell). For example, in Proverbs 20:18, God tells us: "Every purpose is established by counsel: and with good advice make war." We can also look to the book of Judges, where God commanded the Israelites to wage war against the Midianites and the Philistines because they were trying to conquer them. He was calling them to defend themselves. When the purpose of war is to defend the freedoms God created us with, it becomes necessary as those freedoms must be defended, no matter the cost. Today, our nation’s freedom is being protected by means of war. “President Bush declared war in Iraq to defend innocent people. This is a worthy pursuit. In fact, Proverbs 21:15 tells us: ‘It is joy to the just to do judgment: but destruction shall be to the workers of iniquity.’”The attacks on our ground by Al Qaeda since 2001 are real and should not be ignored. They threaten the safety of our nation and our former President, as head of the government at the time, made the right decision in defending and protecting his people. |
Morgan Prospek
said:
|
... I just realized that my hyperlink didn't work. To read Jerry Falwell's article, visit: http://www.wnd.com/news/articl...E_ID=36859 |
