Replies

"The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.

Yes, the phony free traders...i.e., "Foreign Intersts"... and the communist/globalists in our own Fifth Column have indeed led us astray, and we have inherited a hell of a mess.

The 'habitual fondness' is the category that erstwhile allies like Israel and other beneficiaries of American military equipment at U.S. taxpayer expense represent.

"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."

You oppose the commercial relations, whereas Washington and I see them as the best path to lasting peace. I don't presume, perhaps as you do, that the Chinese government can forever keep the lid on its people's liberty, particularly as they get a taste of ours.

I will grant you that the unwise executive order letting Israel have access to the candy store, so to speak, has proven unwise. But, I see you ignore the relevant points of George Washington, as applied to China, still. You make this amazing claim:

I don't presume, perhaps as you do, that the Chinese government can forever keep the lid on its people's liberty, particularly as they get a taste of ours.

They can...and will... if we don't help those people. The Soviet Union did not fall of its own accord. They were pushed. It's internal dissidents were enabled by a policy of CONFRONTATION by the U.S.

President Ronald Reagan operated a broad multi-faceted four-point attack on the Soviets.

Military (countering at strategic and tactical technology and deployment levels. And Marxist geopolitical insurgencies in our Hemisphere...and in the Middle East neutralized).
Economic (isolation of Soviets from all mature Western advanced and new technology, and Western capital sources, as well as oil and energy resources, from their grasp).
Political. (Renewed and fresh alliances both military and economic...Thatcher, NATO, etc.)
Idealogical/Spiritual/Moral. (The beacon of liberty...hope was held high. The enemy was properly named as evil, and his deeds held to account. And those of like understanding embraced. Dissidents, religious and civil. The Pope, etc.)

Nothing similar is in place today to topple the Chinese Communist Party. Have you read Constantine Menge's new book? The hope that the Chinese Communist party will soften just out of trade, of its own accord, is vanity. And the hope that the people of China will someday successfully revolt has been disappointed. Again and again. The degree of error by the West (most explicitly, GHWB) during the Tiannamen Square disaster has still not been properly appreciated by most conservatives yet.

You preach indefinite waiting. To what end? It took 70 years of slavery in Russia before Ronald Reagan came along to help them. The Maoists and successors have been in power now for over 50+ years. Don't assume if we let the PRC become a military/economic super power that it will become benign...or any less communist-minded. That flies in the face of actual history. Mark Steyn previously noted this same disconnect by the apologists.

Deng Xiouping: "What does it matter if you call the cat black or white. So long as it catches mice."

You oppose the commercial relations, whereas Washington and I see them as the best path to lasting peace

Who says I oppose commercial relations? However, they need to be used to topple the communists. Not us. And you mistakenly assume again that George Washington is in your camp. I am in his. George Washington, in fact, was a firm believer in and advocate for protective tariffs...to promote U.S. manufactures and independence from foreign sources. Alexander Hamilton was his architect for them.