Replies

Take a look at some of Woodrow Wilson's old speeches (especially during his campaign for the League of Nations) and compare them with Hanson's articles and the parallels will become apparent. Both indulge in purple and flowery prose on the need for the U.S. to bring democracy to the entire world.

In my view, such a universalistic doctrine is dangerous. It speads us thin, detracts from our national defense, and opens the door to more conflicts. It was wrong in 1919 and it is wrong now. This type of universalism on a consistent scale is also impossible and I think even Hanson knows this (though he doesn't acknowledge it). I would have more respect for Hanson if he applied his universalistic doctrine across-the-board and supported sending troops to such hell holes as Zimbabwee, the Congo, and the Sudan....but he doesn't. For this reason, his universalism is mere rhetoric.

Most freepers used to share my skepticism of this kind of universalistic doctrine back when they sensibly opposed Clinton's Kosovo war which was based on the *same* universalistic princples Hanson advocates in his articles..