Departures: A Personal Apology for an Activist Foreign Policy
|
Does the SEO company you're considering have references and testimonials from their clients? Can you contact the people providing testimonials to ask about their experiences using the seo Company? Considering each of these aspects before selecting an SEO company will help you choose a reputable company that will give you the results you need. |
|
As rewarding and fun as it no doubt is to wage the battle for liberty at home (and it is—the delightful Melinda has already inspired me with tales of front-line work against statist evil in Western Pennsylvania and elsewhere; and I admire the evident passion that all of you express here in your writings), one must be careful in so doing not to neglect the battle for liberty abroad.
Some of you in this wonderfully conservative milieu might question my emphasis on freedom in distant lands. Since I remember my former life as a quasi-isolationist libertarian before fully giving myself over to the foreign-policy “establishment” by matriculating at Georgetown, I sympathize with this skeptical instinct, and recall John Quincy Adams' famous declaration that
"America...has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings," which concludes with the oft-quoted “she 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.”
How, then, can a conservative or libertarian reasonably presume to contradict this clear statement, one so imbued with the founding ideals of our Union?
First, I submit that, in the modern context (a world vastly diminished in size by advances in transportation, communications, and trade—and a Union vastly increased in size by nearly two centuries of expansion in every field of its endeavors), the leaders of these United States must fulfill their sworn duty to protect our nation from threats to its security and its economic prosperity--threats of a like that Adams could not have imagined, and threats which require a military and diplomatic response that cannot be confined to the narrow geographic boundaries of the 49th Parallel, the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the Rio Grande. Although space here does not permit a fuller treatment of this notion, it suffices to say that democratic countries that share our ideals are far less likely to endanger our security than their authoritarian counterparts—and are far more likely to promote our national interests as well.
Second, and perhaps more controversially, I argue that there is a moral obligation incumbent upon all of us, as individuals and as Americans, to share the benefits of our material prosperity and historical experience with the peoples of those nations striving to secure their own free futures. Since I went to secular humanist Georgetown and not to Grove City, I am not accustomed to phrasing this imperative in religious terms, but its meaning should be clear to all of us: those who enjoy the blessings of Providence (in this case, a free(-ish) market and a free(-ish) political system) have a responsibility to share them with those who do not. I wish to make clear that I do not advocate the “Americanization” of the globe; although the Left has profaned and corrupted the term, the essence of “cultural diversity” is indeed worth treasuring. Yet, as a historian; as a traveler; and as someone who has from time to time glanced at a newspaper, I can state with absolute certainty that not all cultures are equally valuable, equally prosperous, equally admirable, or equally just. In our world, good exists, and evil exists. We as Americans—primarily as individuals, but also as a nation in Congress assembled—must do what is right, and seek to defeat the latter.
The latter is precisely what the namesake of this forum did in his most lasting accomplishment: the victory against the Evil Empire. I am choosing very carefully here to say "Evil Empire" rather than "Communism," because I fear that with the disappearance of Soviet ideology as a political force, most Americans have neglected the real threat that the imperialist ambitions of the current Russian regime pose to the freedoms of peoples all across Eurasia—and, perhaps, all across the world.
Though I recognize that there are countless threats to freedom in the contemporary world, I focus on Europe and Eurasia out of personal, professional, and academic interest. Most recently and most particularly, I have devoted myself to Ukraine. Recently, I was fortunate to parlay a business trip to Belgium for an unrelated matter into the chance of a lifetime—to witness, and then contribute to, a great and surprising triumph of democracy. In the future, I look forward to presenting you with my analysis of the Orange Revolution (as well as its Rose counterpart), while in more appropriate fora I will be even more pleased to detail my personal experiences “on the ground” in Kyiv. I welcome any comments you have on this essay, and as part of that “resident foreign-policy specialist” role to which Melinda has appointed me, I am happy to discuss any questions or issues of an IR nature that you might wish to raise.
Some of you in this wonderfully conservative milieu might question my emphasis on freedom in distant lands. Since I remember my former life as a quasi-isolationist libertarian before fully giving myself over to the foreign-policy “establishment” by matriculating at Georgetown, I sympathize with this skeptical instinct, and recall John Quincy Adams' famous declaration that
"America...has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings," which concludes with the oft-quoted “she 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.”
How, then, can a conservative or libertarian reasonably presume to contradict this clear statement, one so imbued with the founding ideals of our Union?
First, I submit that, in the modern context (a world vastly diminished in size by advances in transportation, communications, and trade—and a Union vastly increased in size by nearly two centuries of expansion in every field of its endeavors), the leaders of these United States must fulfill their sworn duty to protect our nation from threats to its security and its economic prosperity--threats of a like that Adams could not have imagined, and threats which require a military and diplomatic response that cannot be confined to the narrow geographic boundaries of the 49th Parallel, the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the Rio Grande. Although space here does not permit a fuller treatment of this notion, it suffices to say that democratic countries that share our ideals are far less likely to endanger our security than their authoritarian counterparts—and are far more likely to promote our national interests as well.
Second, and perhaps more controversially, I argue that there is a moral obligation incumbent upon all of us, as individuals and as Americans, to share the benefits of our material prosperity and historical experience with the peoples of those nations striving to secure their own free futures. Since I went to secular humanist Georgetown and not to Grove City, I am not accustomed to phrasing this imperative in religious terms, but its meaning should be clear to all of us: those who enjoy the blessings of Providence (in this case, a free(-ish) market and a free(-ish) political system) have a responsibility to share them with those who do not. I wish to make clear that I do not advocate the “Americanization” of the globe; although the Left has profaned and corrupted the term, the essence of “cultural diversity” is indeed worth treasuring. Yet, as a historian; as a traveler; and as someone who has from time to time glanced at a newspaper, I can state with absolute certainty that not all cultures are equally valuable, equally prosperous, equally admirable, or equally just. In our world, good exists, and evil exists. We as Americans—primarily as individuals, but also as a nation in Congress assembled—must do what is right, and seek to defeat the latter.
The latter is precisely what the namesake of this forum did in his most lasting accomplishment: the victory against the Evil Empire. I am choosing very carefully here to say "Evil Empire" rather than "Communism," because I fear that with the disappearance of Soviet ideology as a political force, most Americans have neglected the real threat that the imperialist ambitions of the current Russian regime pose to the freedoms of peoples all across Eurasia—and, perhaps, all across the world.
Though I recognize that there are countless threats to freedom in the contemporary world, I focus on Europe and Eurasia out of personal, professional, and academic interest. Most recently and most particularly, I have devoted myself to Ukraine. Recently, I was fortunate to parlay a business trip to Belgium for an unrelated matter into the chance of a lifetime—to witness, and then contribute to, a great and surprising triumph of democracy. In the future, I look forward to presenting you with my analysis of the Orange Revolution (as well as its Rose counterpart), while in more appropriate fora I will be even more pleased to detail my personal experiences “on the ground” in Kyiv. I welcome any comments you have on this essay, and as part of that “resident foreign-policy specialist” role to which Melinda has appointed me, I am happy to discuss any questions or issues of an IR nature that you might wish to raise.
<< Home