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.

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.

If you had bothered to read the post you quote in the context of the whole thread, you might discover that it was a comment "in kind" to Paul Ross.

Frankly, it was not "in kind". Your response simply was lame.

He is the one who advocates leaving individual citizens to be abandoned by the US Govt.

Quite the contrary. I believe that, in the future, nations we have no bilateral trade reciprocity with...puts the "individual" whether they be real OR corporate "on notice" that they are "on their own"...and have to accept that risk accordingly...or not. It's up to them. But the U.S. will neither subsidize nor guarantee globalism. At all. Anymore.

when dealing with foreign markets, but believes a 50% punitive tariff on all goods coming out of a particular country is the solution when a corporation gets in trouble.

Note, he apparently doesn't think that corporations or Nations...such as ours...are comprised of "individuals." Or that these are the only entities involved in international trade. Last I looked, a lot of "individuals" or "partnerships" engage in such trade.

Note also how this implies that LexBaird doesn't seem to believe we...as the People of the United States...have the right to ever tariff any nasty countries that need to be specially treated..., countries that just might be military threats, countries that are already engaged in predatory practices damaging to America, its People and our interests as a whole...

The quote is pulled from a question to him (which he has declined to answer), as to why he wants protection for corporations, but not flesh and blood citizens.

False. You were answered. But of course, I see you need it repeated. There is no such distinction.

The phrasing was a mirroring of the hyperbolic language he used to address me.

Really? Sounds to me like your notion of hyperbolic...is out of the norm. When you are confronted with logical dissent...in your imaginary world it appears to be hyperbolic. But when you go hyperbolic...for real...that is merely "mirroring" the one who busted you? If you were doing so...no one but you seems to have been aware of it Lex. And frankly, you failed to put the [ /sarcasm ] flag out for us supposedly unwashed benighted ignorants. . You said it. And you made it clear that you backed it. You weren't making a satirical point. You were making an argumentative attack from a leftist posture.

And if anyone ELSE has noted this...he did it to escape being busted on the U.S. Constitution. Repeat: He launched his tirade precisely when he was trying to escape his constitutional misinterpretation. Which he still has not even acknowledged.

This is how he runs swiftly for the Tall Grass. I.e., change the subject as fast as you can. Make the one who spots the Constitutional Sleight-of-hand the Issue. And assert all sorts of wild aspersions in the process.

Let's examine the list of dirt he tried to dump here (this may not be an exhaustive list, but it is representative):

Juvenile. Dishonest. Sweeping judgments. Out of context. Hyperbolic.

That subtlely was apparently missed by both Paul and yourself.

Guess we did. No flies on you.

See, Paul, this is what is called a "strawman argument". It seems to be the only type you know.

My true position: slapping a 50% punitive tariff on all trade, across the board, between the U.S. and a foreign nation would be incredibly damaging to the economy. We had better have some way of filling that gap, or the cure will be worse than the disease. We need to explore some middle ground.

Paul's strawman characterization, which he then attacks: "LexBaird doesn't seem to believe we...as the People of the United States...have the right to ever tariff any nasty countries that need to be specially treated..., countries that just might be military threats, countries that are already engaged in predatory practices damaging to America, its People and our interests as a whole..." At this point, the audience is supposed to leap to their feet and salute the flag you have wrapped yourself in, as sole Arbiter of All America Stands For.

Since my brand of subtlety seems to go past you, here it is in plain english. You're full of crap.

My true position: slapping a 50% punitive tariff on all trade, across the board, between the U.S. and a foreign nation would be incredibly damaging to the economy.

As if the carnage wreaked on our own society by the enemy nation's predations aren't 'incredibly damaging'?

Save us from all such self-appointed Apostles of "balance". You consistently fail to recognize that things are out of balance now, and by removal of MFN status the automatic, legally-prescribed tariff neutralizes and corrects for the predatory nation's attack...and can be calibrated as suits the People... It is called protective for a reason. It protects the nation. That is not to say totally painlessly, but clearly, it is vital. It is the better, least painful way to go overall. E.g., it is the least interfering approach for government to protect the country and its people. And that is only one factor that should be addressed. The other is the tax code. It should be shifted to a consumption based approach, ending the punitive taxes on production, investments, capital gains and savings.

We had better have some way of filling that gap, or the cure will be worse than the disease. We need to explore some middle ground.

Filling the gap? Spare us from the Apostles of the Gap-Fillers!

This need not be rocket-science, despite your attempt to overly-complicate what is straighforward. It's an easy principle: Called having American-based manufactures.

By restoring the robust and deep core of U.S. manufactures to a preferred place vis-a-vis China, we would see major economic enhancements to the U.S. economy...which has been suffering seriously. The Chinese have been been cherry-picking manufacturing for many reasons...not the least that it has the most 'kick' of any sector... Meanwhile, the loss of said sectors may account for the 'inexplicable' doldrums the U.S. had despite hyper-intense monetary stimiulation policy..."jobless recoveries" etc.

Chart Source: U.S. Department of Commerce

Manufacturing’s use of intermediate goods and services in its production process means that it generates substantial economic activity at the intermediate level. This is called the multiplier effect, and it turns out that manufacturing’s multiplier effect is stronger than other sectors.
Specifically, every $1 of a manufacturing product sold to a final user generates an additional $1.43 of intermediate economic output, more than half in sectors outside manufacturing. Manufacturing’s multiplier effect is greater than any other sector and far greater than that of the service sector, which generates only 71 cents of intermediate activity for $1 of final sales—half of the additional intermediate output generated by $1 of manufacturing final sales.

Now onto Lex's last scintillating ad hominem attacks wherein he refuses to come to grips with his CONSTITUTIONAL MISINTERPRETATION as noted...and still unanswered...up above.

Paul's strawman characterization,

Note, this is Lex's reiterated dodge, where a reasonable surmise made by anyone debating his overt statements and contentions...is not a "strawman" as he states...but just that. A surmise. If you don't like it, Lex, you needs to stop admitting to the foundational assumptions of the surmises, and then calling it a strawman. They may be mistaken, but so far, I am not at all convinced you do not adhere to any of those surmises.

which he then attacks: "LexBaird doesn't seem to believe we...as the People of the United States...have the right to ever tariff any nasty countries that need to be specially treated..., countries that just might be military threats, countries that are already engaged in predatory practices damaging to America, its People and our interests as a whole..."

That's what I said, and I note you don't refute it. Do we? Or don't we? I surmised you don't believe such because you don't ever either accept it , or in the self-same breath saying "we need to explore a middle ground." Rooooight. Don't answer. Equivocate.

At this point, the audience is supposed to leap to their feet and salute the flag you have wrapped yourself in, as sole Arbiter of All America Stands For.

Well, I never claimed to be "Sole Arbiter." So you can do better? You haven't so far.

Since my brand of subtlety seems to go past you, here it is in plain english. You're full of crap.

Oh, that's really edifying, that's really persuasive. That's the kind of argument we would find made in the Federalist Papers... Not! Frankly, your smear just defines you.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.