George Washington Didn't Say That!

Publius' Forum ^ | 05/14/06 | warner todd huston

[Mobile Vulgus]

George Washington Didn’t Say That

Some of you who follow American History might have heard at one time or another that George Washington warned his countrymen of “entangling foreign alliances” in his farewell address given as he prepared to retire from his second presidential term. You may have heard that he issued a neo-isolationist concept about how the USA should treat its foreign policy ideas.

Here is a relevant section of Washington’s farewell address:

“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. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”

Unfortunately, too many view Washington’s warning of foreign entanglements incorrectly. Though it is a very common misconception, Washington was absolutely not saying we should never have anything to do with other nations or that we should forever steer clear of “foreign entanglements”. Washington was not proposing an isolationist policy.

Instead, Washington was worried about the pervasive split between Americans backing England and those standing up for France that had appeared in the US during Washington’s last term in office. This split was causing heavy fractionalization on the American political scene, and faction was one of the chief bugaboos in American political philosophy at the time. It should be remembered that during Washington’s terms the Party system had yet to be created and it was hoped by the Founders that a political system free of Parties could be sustained as a permanent American convention.

Washington meant only to steer clear of European alliances and entanglements only for as long as it took to get the USA consolidated and strong and to strengthen the Federal Union in the face of superior European power.

In a letter to Gouverneur Morris on Dec. 22, 1795, Washington mentioned how he envisioned that the USA would be strong enough to hold its own about 20 years after the country’s birth, that, until that time, he wanted his country to be left alone and clear of European meddling so that the USA’s position would be unassailable.

So, while much of the advice about foreign policy is sound, Washington’s warning was one of the immediate future not one of a permanent nature.

It should also be remembered that the US was fully involved in trade negotiations with every European nation at the time Washington issued his farewell address, so even as he was warning about foreign entanglements, the country was already so entangled.

A clear and concise monograph on this subject can be seen in the book, “To the Farewell Address”, by Felix Gilbert. (1961 Princeton Press)

Lastly, just on a point of clarification, the Farewell Address was initially drafted by Madison, with revisions by both Washington and Hamilton.

-By Warner Todd Huston

[Tailgunner Joe]

What about the Zimmerman Telegram and the Lusitania?

[PhilipFreneau]

"I have already intimated to you the danger of Parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on Geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally . . . It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another."
-- George Washington, Farewell Address

[LexBaird]

If we minded our own business during WWI, Hitler and WWII wouldn't have happened.

Oh, nonsense. Did you forget about that little thing called the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere? WWI wasn't a world war. WWII was, and HItler wasn't as much a direct threat to us as Tojo was.

Japanese expansion was in part enabled because of the inability of the European powers to maintain colonial presense following WWI. How much worse would that have been, had France and GB withdrawn totally from Asia following a defeat by the Central powers? If a revived Ottoman empire still straddled the M.E.?

[jordan8]

Poorly argued. For a start no one says Wahington said "we should never have anything to do with other nations", that's a straw man. Here is the relevant section of Washington's speech, he doesn't sound too gung ho:

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it 7 It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. 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. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils 7 Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

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. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

[Age of Reason]

Japanese expansion was in part enabled because of the inability of the European powers to maintain colonial presense following WWI.

Japanese aggression was inspired and equipped after America foolishly and greedily forced Japan to trade with us in the 1850's.

Had we left them alone, they might still be using bows and arrows.

[Paul Ross]

I particularly find compelling this portion of George Washington's Farewell Address...which stresses the INTERNAL HAZARD to our Representative Republic posed by foreign entanglements:

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils 7 Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

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.

These have proven to be absolutely accurate insights. They remain as acutely prescient today as then.

As we have seen with Communist China [constantly threatening to nuke us, or have its governmental interference in trade excused or pretended to be non-existent], Saudia Arabia, the U.A.E., and the supposedly U.S.-serving International Organizations respectively...there are huge possibilities (and the realities ) for corruption, subversion, and outright co-option of U.S. politics and governmental policies by antagonists and adversaries to our nation...and not just our policies or interests...

Those who are confused...will fail to recognize either true national interest or even the concept of nationhood anymore...and automatically reject these observations by the Father of Our Country...or attempt to put a revisionist spin on what he said or meant.

I think it provides a very valuable litmus test of "affiliation" ..and hence loyalty today. It was a testiment of solid nationalist doctrine that withstood the tests of time, and has only been abandoned by the self-styled elitist "Know-Betters" in the last 60 years to our peril.

[Paul Ross]

I agree, your historicity is much more sound, and is supported here.

The Farewell Address

Introduction

«back | home

---

Introduction | Transcription | Original | Editorial Apparatus | Related Documents

When Washington early in 1796 determined to retire in March, 1797, he revived the idea of issuing a valedictory address to the American people. He reverted to Madison's draft of 1792, and wove it into the structure of a new address he was preparing. This new holograph manuscript of Washington is called Washington's first draft. After it was finished, he had a conversation with Alexander Hamilton in Philadelphia, showed him this first draft and asked him to redress it. This Hamilton agreed to do. The first thing that Hamilton did then, was to make a digest of it, called Abstract of points to form an address, as a syllabus for his own use in making a new draft of the Farewell Address, and leaving Washington's holograph first draft untouched. In the correspondence that passed between the President and Hamilton during ensuing months, the form that the address was to take was altered. Washington had suggested to Hamilton, that if he were to form it anew, it would of course "assume such a shape" as Hamilton was "disposed to give it," but always "predicated upon the Sentiments" which Washington had furnished.

It was here that Hamilton began a major draft. If followed his Abstract of Points closely. But as the result of correspondence between them, and the passing of the major draft back and forth, that draft became in process "considerably amended," and so was endorsed by Hamilton: "Original Draft. Copy considerably amended." It is therefore always referred to as Hamilton's major draft.

Now, after Hamilton had sent this major draft to Washington, he told him he was preparing another draft for incorporating, meaning thereby, that if Washington was determined to use his own first draft and wished to redress it by Hamilton's structure and additions, he could do so by availing himself of the draft for incorporating in which case Hamilton's major draft would be discarded. But Hamilton thought the major draft the better. Washington agreed with him, though he said it was too long. Washington began the preparation in his own hand of a manuscript for the printer. This is called Washington's final manuscript.

In its preparation he availed himself of all the drafts that had come into his hands, but principally Madison's draft and Hamilton's major draft; and he made changes of his own in the process of revision to the very end before its publication. Throughout the preparation Washington's ideas or "sentiments," as he liked to call them, were preserved. Hamilton knew, as Madison had before him, that whatever he might do in reshaping, rewriting, or forming anew a draft, the results should be "predicated upon the Sentiments" which Washington had indicated. This central fact was adhered to. Hamilton was solicitous to be governed by it. He had recognized that Washington would be the final judge, and considered his own part in the undertaking as an affectionate act, without putting upon it the least suspicion of restraint. He was magnanimous to Washington, when he wrote: "Whichever you prefer, if there be any part you wish to transfer from one to another--any part to be changed--or if there be any material idea in your own draft which has happened to be omitted and which you wish introduced--in short if ther be anything further in the matter in which I can be of any [service], I will with great pleasure obey your commands." And it was precisely this freedom, as has been shown, that Washington pursued in preparing his own final manuscript for publication. In the last analysis, Washington was his own editor; and what he published to the world as a Farewell Address, was in its final form in content what he had chosen to make it by processes of adoption and adaptation. By this procedure every idea became his own without equivocation."

Note: Washington's Farewell Address was printed by David C. Claypoole's American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia), on 19 September 1796. Neither the proof sheet that Claypoole made for Washington's examination nor the copy that Claypoole worked from in making the proof sheet has been found. The New York Public Library owns Washington's final manuscript of the Farewell Address as well the drafts made by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton and a number of letters relating to the preparation of those drafts. In 1935 the Library published Victor Hugo Paltsits' Washington's Farewell Address: In Facsimile, with Transliterations of all the Drafts of Washington, Madison, & Hamilton, Together with their Correspondence and Other Supporting Documents, and the digitized facsimiles of Washington's final manuscript of the Farewell Address were made from that book with the Library's permission. Copies of the book may be obtained from the Library's Publications Department. The brief introduction above is taken from the preface of Paltsits' edition.«back | home

---

Introduction | Transcription | Original | Editorial Apparatus | Related Documents

[Paul Ross]

Yes that is a key observation that those cretins in CATO would do well to reflect on.

Washington has lucidly made clear that even absent that drastic result, there is an invidious influence to be wary of:

"As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils?"

[LexBaird]

Yeah, good example of what isolationism brings to a nation's development. Isolationist Japan stagnated in the middle ages for four hundred years. Then, Japan went from a feudal backwater to defeating the Russian navy in fifty years.

But whether it was the Americans or the Victorian Brits who opened Japan, they were far overdue to break out. Now suppose there had been no British, Russian, or French colonial interests in the Pacific, following a defeat by the Central powers. Would you have preferred an unopposed expansionist military superpower exploding across the whole Pacific rim?

But, of course, isolationists such as yourself would have never purchased Alaska, occupied and absorbed Hawaii, expanded to the West Coast, made the Louisiana Purchase or opened the Ohio Territories. Your narrow readings would have us huddled within our original thirteen borders for fear of "entanglements".

Newsflash, Age. We all live on a very small globe, where you can reach any other spot within a day and bomb any other spot within minutes with an ICBM. An outbreak of flu in Asia is in Toronto the next day, not in three years. A commodity price jump around the world effects the NYSE in seconds. Entanglements are upon us, whether you want them or not. Hiding your head in the sand just leaves your ass exposed for a good kicking.

[Age of Reason]

Isolationist Japan stagnated in the middle ages for four hundred years. Then, Japan went from a feudal backwater to defeating the Russian navy in fifty years.

That's just what I mean: my greedy Western forebears just had to make a few dollars by giving primatives modern technology with which to make trouble.

But whether it was the Americans or the Victorian Brits who opened Japan, they were far overdue to break out. Now suppose there had been no British, Russian, or French colonial interests in the Pacific, following a defeat by the Central powers. Would you have preferred an unopposed expansionist military superpower exploding across the whole Pacific rim?

With spears, bows and arrows, and rowboats--they would have been welcome to conquer what they can.

And now, with just about the entire world turned-on to modern Western technology, Americans will begin to lose one freedom after another as world population skyrockets from modern medical care, and as competition for resources reaches a fever pitch.

We are losing our freedoms because of this and before the end of this century, I firmly believe nation states will no longer exist, and every aspect of our lives will be regulated to the nth degree.

[LexBaird]

That's just what I mean: my greedy Western forebears just had to make a few dollars by giving primatives modern technology with which to make trouble.

With spears, bows and arrows, and rowboats--they would have been welcome to conquer what they can.

What condescending arrogance. The Japanese were hardly "primitives". The only reason they were mired in the feudal age was because a military dictatorship dynasty had forced it on them through isolationism on pain of death. If it had not been for your "greedy western forebearers", you would be squatting in a peat bog with your children dying of diphtheria.

And now, with just about the entire world turned-on to modern Western technology, Americans will begin to lose one freedom after another as world population skyrockets from modern medical care, and as competition for resources reaches a fever pitch.

What you really seem to mean is that, having climbed to a technological height on the backs of your greedy ancestors, you want to pull up the ladder lest you have to compete with the hoi palloi.

We are losing our freedoms because of this and before the end of this century, I firmly believe nation states will no longer exist, and every aspect of our lives will be regulated to the nth degree.

If you want to see regulation to the nth degree, look at rabidly isolationist states like North Korea. Free markets do not function under totalitarianism.

[Paul Ross]

Entanglements are upon us, whether you want them or not.

Only if you allow them to.

Hiding your head in the sand just leaves your ass exposed for a good kicking.

Actually, it is the Globalist Kown-It-All BusyBodies who exposes our country...and the innocents who never signed up for this ride... to a good ass-kicking from one end of the planet to the other.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Nice post!

[LexBaird]

Only if you allow them to.

How are you gonna stop them? Ban international trade and travel? Forbid our citizens to venture beyond our borders? Suppress any inventions discovered here from being used there, and vice versa? Shut down the Internet?

Even if you did these things, how long before an expansionist outsider who hadn't crippled their trade outstrips us and imposes its will? You can't hide from the rest of the world, nor stand aloof. It will not let you. Washington had the luxury of an ocean crossed by sailboats to protect his right flank from the world, and a nearly uninhabited Continent on his left. Today, both can be crossed at lightspeed. And you can't stop it.

[colorado tanker]

The context in which Washington spoke is critical to understanding his argument.

The U.S. was small in population and militarily weak. At the same time, we were even then a trading nation, very important to our economy.

The British and French were in the middle of the Napoleonic Wars, the latest round in centuries of warfare between the two.

The Federalists and Democrats were fighting viciously over their pro-Brit and pro-French views.

Washington saw steering clear of the European war and maintaining commerce with both sides as a vital U.S. interest. He also hated the bitter partisanship that was emerging and argued for American unity. The last thing the new republic needed was to be closed out of the market of either Britain or the Continent, or even worse, be dragged into an expensive war. We didn't need to pick a centuries-long feud like Britain and France had.

During the Revolution he had no problem with "foreign entanglements" in the form of Dutch money and a French military alliance. I doubt very much that he would be an isolationist today under very different circumstances, especially when internationalism fosters the very commerce that Washington understood then, and still is, a foundation for American prosperity.

The postscript is that the pro-French Democrats eventually got is into a war with Britain, the War of 1812, a war so stupid that no-one could even come up with a name for it.

[Paul Ross]

How are you gonna stop them?

It's called National Defense, maybe you've heard of it?

Ban international trade and travel?

Why? Just don't let the tail wag the dog, don't let foreign traders get our knickers in a twist. Their emergencies don't constitute ours.

Forbid our citizens to venture beyond our borders?

Not at all. But its all at their own risk. We won't rescue their sorry butts if they lose all their wallets to Chinese or Venezuelan pick-pockets. I.e., their capital investments abroad, are all at-risk. They will be on notice that we won't back them up if they put their money where they shouldn't have invested it. No more OPIC subsidies for companies relocating abroad. What a perversion of tax-payer resources.

Suppress any inventions discovered here from being used there, and vice versa?

I can only assume from this screed that you oppose enforcement of our intellectual property laws that protect our inventions, trademarks and writings. Admit it. You do. Such opposition by you is definitively unamerican.

Shut down the Internet?

Man, what are you smoking? Why shut down our invention? One that we paid for and basically own?

Even if you did these things, how long before an expansionist outsider who hadn't crippled their trade outstrips us and imposes its will?

Who precisely have you got in mind? China cripples its trade far more than anyone else on the planet.

You can't hide from the rest of the world, nor stand aloof.

Who says we will be hiding. Ever hear of "Walking softly, but carrying a big stick?"

It will not let you.

Yeah? Sounds very threatening. Gee. I thought you believed in Shangri-La. Now your tune is changing. Guess we conservatives were right all along. It's a dangerous world. It always was.

Washington had the luxury of an ocean crossed by sailboats to protect his right flank from the world, and a nearly uninhabited Continent on his left.

So? We still have a near-uninhabited Northern friend. And the border with the South would an almost trivial exercise in securing if we were serious. 99% of it is an uninhabited Desert.

Today, both can be crossed at lightspeed.

Telecommunications and ideas are no threat to the U.S. Invasions of culturally unassimilables, forward deployments of sleeper cells and WMDs on our own soil, and economic predations by foreign governments are the threat...and they don't happen at lightspeed. They travel at footspeed for the former...and container ships for the latter.

And you can't stop it.

Yes you can. It's called regulation of trade and commerce and immigration...and its called Rule of Law. I'm sure you regard these as quaint ideas. I don't.

[billbears]

Isolationism is NOT what Washington wanted!

Why of course not!! I remember reading his words well, advocating mucking about in European affairs when it was none of our business, helping to make the world worse off for at least another 8 decades, all in the name of 'spreading democracy'...

Washington would have given Wilson a damn medal wouldn't he?

[Paul Ross]

The context in which Washington spoke is critical to understanding his argument.

Actually, the context is not controlling on the enduring wisdom of the philosophy. One that transcends time and space.

Your implicit argument that it is dated philosophy is in fact errant. And George Washington certainly did exploit foreign help when useful. And pledged that we should abide by what deals we had then and subsqeuently made pursuant that help.

But he said that "let us stop here." He was advocating for a restraint that would admirably serve the Republic if pursued. He recognized the hazard to our form of government to unrestrained entanglements. That special interests would overwhelm and crush domestic voices and hence override our national interests... making our own government a servant of the foreign. Still true to today.

E.g., China, Saudia Arabia, UAE, the U.N. and WTO etc.

[LexBaird]

Ahh, so you ARE for international entanglements. You simply believe that the U.S. can dictate the terms at will, and all others will oblige us. You may be correct in the very, very short term; we're pretty powerful right now. Victoria's England thought the same thing, and thought it would last forever.

I can only assume from this screed that you oppose enforcement of our intellectual property laws that protect our inventions, trademarks and writings. Admit it. You do. Such opposition by you is definitively unamerican.

Don't be ludicrous. What you are to infer from this "screed" is that knowledge is fungible. You can't recork the genie and you can't unring a bell. You cannot rely on the U.S. retaining control of knowledge in the public arena, so basing our assumed superior position on our knowledge base is a house on sand. Patented ideas in the hands of a foreign power last a nanosecond longer than it takes to reverse engineer them. Age of Reason seemed to think we could maintain superiority over the "primitives" be leaving them mired in ignorance. That is an impossibility in an internet linked world or one that has international trade.

Telecommunications and ideas are no threat to the U.S. Invasions of culturally unassimilables, forward deployments of sleeper cells and WMDs on our own soil, and economic predations by foreign governments are the threat...and they don't happen at lightspeed. They travel at footspeed for the former...and container ships for the latter.

Uh huh. Look up EMP sometime and imagine what it would to to the NYSE. Say, just outside the 12 mile limit.

Yes you can. It's called regulation of trade and commerce and immigration...and its called Rule of Law. I'm sure you regard these as quaint ideas. I don't.

I think they are great ideas. Now explain how you can have them, let alone enforce them, without dealing with foreign powers. The trouble doesn't come from dealing with foreign powers to decide trade regulations, etc. It comes from letting them get away with cheating on the agreements.

Let's say China decided to churn out a few billion copies of Windows Vista and sell them in India. Exactly how were you planning on forcing China to honor US patents, since you have ruled out the US government aiding US citizens abroad? What "big stick" do you have that doesn't violate your strictures not to get involved in other nation's business?

[Paul Ross]

Ahh, so you ARE for international entanglements.

Not hardly.

You simply believe that the U.S. can dictate the terms at will, and all others will oblige us. You may be correct in the very, very short term; we're pretty powerful right now.

We can control access to our markets 100%. We can control our own tax policies 100%. We can recast both and there is not a thing that the globalists can do to stop us if we as a People decide to do it.

Victoria's England thought the same thing, and thought it would last forever.

Wrong. England went whole-hog for Free Trade...and thought their economic supremacy would last forever. The Free Traders were proven definitively wrong. Free Trade destroyed their advantages. Some telling observations therein:

"The decline of England has always been a favorite for this kind of analysis. As the prominent commercial lawyer and judge Lord Penzance warned in 1886, "The advance of other nations into those regions of manufacture in which we used to stand either alone or supreme, should make us alive to the possible future. Where we used to find customers, we now find rivals....prudence demands a dispassionate inquiry into the course we are pursuing, in place of a blind adhesion to a discredited theory." The "discredited theory" to which Lord Penzance was referring is "free trade." England had adopted this doctrine when it had a substantial lead in the Industrial Revolution and wanted to open foreign markets for its exports. But as conditions changed, its leaders clung to policies that no longer fit world affairs.

British historian D.C.M. Platt [Finance, Trade and Politics in British Foreign Policy 1815-1914, Oxford University, 1968] has argued that the leaders of Victorian England were so devoted to "free trade" that they were willing to sacrifice their direct interests to this intellectual ideal. Another British historian, Keith Robbins [The Eclipse of a Great Power: Modern Britain 1870-1975, Longman, 1983] has written, "To a few contemporaries, this devotion was perverse. It seemed obvious that the world was not following Britain's Free Trade example. Germany introduced a measure of protection in 1879, France in 1882 and the United States in 1883 and 1900....But there was no British retaliation."

The failure to adapt in a dynamic world is a central weakness of thinking bound by ideology; i.e., the belief that some doctrine is so perfect that it fits all times and places. Such blind faith can lead people to reject another idea they know will work, because it does not fit their misplaced "values."

Empirically, these are just unassailable facts. I further commend to your attention Kicking Away the Ladder: The “Real” History of Free Trade by Ha-Joon Chang (Prof. Econ, Oxford University). Now on to your other points.

As I said:
I can only assume from this screed that you oppose enforcement of our intellectual property laws that protect our inventions, trademarks and writings. Admit it. You do. Such opposition by you is definitively unamerican.
You said:
Don't be ludicrous. What you are to infer from this "screed" is that knowledge is fungible. You can't recork the genie and you can't unring a bell. You cannot rely on the U.S. retaining control of knowledge in the public arena, so basing our assumed superior position on our knowledge base is a house on sand. Patented ideas in the hands of a foreign power last a nanosecond longer than it takes to reverse engineer them.

So I was right to surmise your position, not ludicrous at all. You don't believe in enforcing our intellectual property. And, hence, you don't believe in our country or its future...because you don't believe in our Constitutional Rights to protect our Intellectual property, or the right to control our own market access or regulate trade.

Age of Reason seemed to think we could maintain superiority over the "primitives" be leaving them mired in ignorance. That is an impossibility in an internet linked world or one that has international trade.

No trade that violates our laws protecting our own Intellectual Property needs be permitted. Especially if a nation wants access to the U.S. market. The Big Enchilada. Not China. The U.S.

I said:
Telecommunications and ideas are no threat to the U.S. Invasions of culturally unassimilables, forward deployments of sleeper cells and WMDs on our own soil, and economic predations by foreign governments are the threat...and they don't happen at lightspeed. They travel at footspeed for the former...and container ships for the latter.
You said:
Uh huh. Look up EMP sometime and imagine what it would to to the NYSE. Say, just outside the 12 mile limit.

Yes. But your example is precisely the thing I have been warning about since day one on Free Republic. And it supports my positions on trade structures, not yours. It's A Bona Fide MILITARY threat. One that we need to be spending dollars on hardening for. With SDI. With nodal-hardening of infrastructure. Of creating and restoring critical U.S.-industrial-capacity to rebuild and replace quickly damaged infrastructure. U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (R-Az) has been repeatedly urging the Administration to spend a measley $15 billion to encourage and coordinate the hardening that needs to happen. And it appears to be falling on deaf ears. Homeland Security doesn't want to do anything about it. [Gee, where have we heard that before...? ]

So. Got any more examples of threats you want to venture that in fact fail to support the advantages of Globalism?

I said:
Yes you can. It's called regulation of trade and commerce and immigration...and its called Rule of Law. I'm sure you regard these as quaint ideas. I don't.
You said:
I think they are great ideas. Now explain how you can have them, let alone enforce them, without dealing with foreign powers.

Who said you don't "deal" with foreign powers? It's really simple. It's called Bilateral Trade Policy. No more multilateralism where the U.S. national self interest and sovereignty are abdicated to third parties and foreign control.

The trouble doesn't come from dealing with foreign powers to decide trade regulations, etc. It comes from letting them get away with cheating on the agreements.

Which they can do with WTO blessing currently. And are.

Let's say China decided to churn out a few billion copies of Windows Vista and sell them in India. Exactly how were you planning on forcing China to honor US patents, since you have ruled out the US government aiding US citizens abroad? What "big stick" do you have that doesn't violate your strictures not to get involved in other nation's business?

Simple. Revoke MFN status to both nations. They would both be instantly subject to the automatic imposition of 50% import tariffs, and restrictions on U.S. citizens FDI in those countries. Or if really necessaary....outright Ban BOTH violators. Ban both China and India from selling anything into our markets...and you would see some changes...especially by our own companies which have been the only real engines of both countries growth.

See, that wasn't so complicated. It won't be easy or without pain. But it wasn't complicated.