Globalism [Ron Paul]

House.Gov ^ | 16 July 2007 | Ron Paul

[BGHater]

The recent defeat of the amnesty bill in the Senate came after outraged Americans made it clear to the political elite that they would not tolerate this legislation, which would further erode our national sovereignty. Similarly, polls increasingly show the unpopularity of the Iraq war, as well as of the Congress that seems incapable of ending it.

Because some people who vocally oppose amnesty are supportive of the war, the ideological connection between support of the war and amnesty is often masked. If there is a single word explaining the reasons why we continue to fight unpopular wars and see legislation like the amnesty bill nearly become law, that word is “globalism.”

The international elite, including many in the political and economic leadership of this country, believe our constitutional republic is antiquated and the loyalty Americans have for our form of government is like a superstition, needing to be done away with. When it benefits elites, they pay lip service to the American way, even while undermining it.

We must remain focused on what ideology underlies the approach being taken by those who see themselves as our ruling-class, and not get distracted by the passions of the moment or the rhetorical devices used to convince us how their plans will be “good for us.” Whether it is managed trade being presented under the rhetoric of “free trade,” or the ideas of “regime change” abroad and “making the world safe for democracy” -- the underlying principle is globalism.

Although different rhetoric is used in each instance, the basic underlying notion behind replacing regimes abroad and allowing foreign people to come to this country illegally is best understood by comprehending this ideal of the globalist elite. In one of his most lucid moments President Bush spoke of the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” Unfortunately, that bigotry is one of the core tenets at the heart of the globalist ideology.

The basic idea is that foreigners cannot manage their own affairs so we have to do it for them. This may require sending troops to far off lands that do not threaten us, and it may also require “welcoming with open arms” people who come here illegally. All along globalists claim a moral high ground, as if our government is responsible for ensuring the general welfare of all people. Yet the consequences are devastating to our own taxpayers, as well as many of those we claim to be helping.

Perhaps the most seriously damaged victim of this approach is our own constitutional republic, because globalism undermines both the republican and democratic traditions of this nation. Not only does it make a mockery of the self-rule upon which our republic is based, it also erodes the very institutions of our republic and replaces them with international institutions that are often incompatible with our way of life.

The defeat of the amnesty bill proves though that there is no infallible logic, or predetermined march of history, that forces globalism on us.

[Puddleglum]

I do not think there is another fiscal conservative on the field this election. Hunter is a social conservative, and he talks conservcative, but he voted for every budget buster Bush sent down the chute.

Rudy and Mc Vain - no chance. Brownback - he seems insincere; Huckabee - no thanks. Romney - he seems to slick.

I need to look at Fred Thompson’s Senate votes, but I have my doubts.

If any Pubbie would just stand up for federal restraint, budget-cutting, states-rights and the Bill of Rights (you know, that thing containing the second amendment), I might give him my ear. Some talk loud to hide their lousy records, though.

I might even vote for a guy who ran on the “do the least harm” platform. For this reason I am gravitating toward Paul, but am keeping an ear open for Fred Thompson and some of the lesser lights. I really need to dig into Huckabee and some of the others I know little about.

Man, we got no Reagan, but we have a lot of neocons who tell everybody to shut up if you threaten to stray from the planatation. That’s the difference between Reagan and the two Bushes in a nutshell, to me.

[Xenalyte]

Not to point out the obvious, but by responding to this thread, you already wasted time on it.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Too much Ron Paul junk on Free Republic right now. It bears ignoring.

LOLOL. Truth hurts, eh?

[Freedom_no_exceptions]

But even then, people like Thomas Jefferson who I don't think was a globalist deployed troops to far off lands that he was convinced "threatened us" and our trade.

Thomas Jefferson deployed troops to far-off lands to fight Islamic pirates who attacked American trading vessels and kidnapped and enslaved the Americans on board. He didn't invade Morocco, Algeria, etc., to attempt to "bring democracy" to them (he'd actually cringe at that term) as a response to a sincle act of terrorism followed by Islamist finger-waving. It's not just the sophistication of weaponry that was different in those times.

[Seeking the truth]

In one of his most lucid moments President Bush

Well, Congressman, that is still one more that you have ever had.

[Optimist]

The basic idea is that foreigners cannot manage their own affairs so we have to do it for them. This may require sending troops to far off lands that do not threaten us,

The false premise that is the base of RP's foreign policy. He asserts that the only reason we engage in foreign countries is to steal their assets or to unnecessarily save them from themselves.

By not defining what he considers a threat to us (or implying that only an imminent or active attack is a threat) he considers there to be no reason to engage anyone outside our borders. He makes no allowance for economic threats, the fact that modern warfare is not conducted the way the Falkland Islands War was, and international allies do exist and support each other. Ignoring what people say because they aren't within your territorial waters is ignorant and can potentially destroy this country.

The US cannot be run as a response to what every other country or crackpot dictator does directly to us. You cannot restrict all actions outside your borders to a declaration of war first -- not every situation rises to that level. OTOH although I do believe that Congress has failed to do so in the past, having failed to properly do so in several instances does not negate the need to become involved internationally.

< DonFlameProofSuit >

[rhombus]

Thomas Jefferson deployed troops to far-off lands to fight Islamic pirates who attacked American trading vessels and kidnapped and enslaved the Americans on board. He didn't invade Morocco, Algeria, etc., to attempt to "bring democracy" to them (he'd actually cringe at that term) as a response to a sincle act of terrorism followed by Islamist finger-waving. It's not just the sophistication of weaponry that was different in those times.

I agree that Jefferson did not want to "bring democracy" to the Islamic pirates. However, there were indeed some land invasions and of course your reference to a single act of terrorism is short sighted as there have been many, many acts of terrorism. Surely you've seen the lists posted on FR. Jefferson also didn't waste time trying to show there was no connection between this pirate and that pirate.

[Paperdoll]

>Yes, hard to find fault with this particular article. Good stuff I’m still for Duncan Hunter right now but this is a decent piece on the situation.<

Few people seem to recognize the threat of globalism, to their peril. I would like to hear what Rep. Hunter has to say about globalism.

[Optimist]

>>> against nation building, and yet that’s exactly what we are doing in several parts of the world (not just Iraq/Afghanistan, but hell our government is working on donating millions to the palestinians alone).

If it was just about nation building we would be in Africa. Why aren’t we? No threat to our national security or economy. (...except of course for Nigerian internet scams)

[SittinYonder]

Too much Ron Paul junk on Free Republic right now

I'm glad that you posted that you're not going to waste time on this thread. Somebody needs to say it!

All this garbage about returning to the principles of the Constitution and maintaining our sovereignty and our form of government has nothing to do with the Republican Party and is a waste on this forum!

Anyone who thinks that we should preserve private property rights for citizens and reduce the size and scope of the federal government is a fruit cake, just like Ron Paul.

We need to stay focused on what's important, like whether or not the clocks are ticking Fred or if anyone is donating to the Fredseum or if there's been an update to the Fredcyclopedia.

I'm with you ... I will not waste time on this thread, so if any of the Ronnettes decide to flame me, tough, I won't read or respond.

As you said, Ron Paul, and what he stands for, bears ignoring.

[rockinqsranch]

“I’m not going to waste my time on this thread.”

You already said that, so why are you posting again?

Ron Paul is correct in his analysis. So you don’t like him, so what. Don’t vote for him.

[rhombus]

Few people seem to recognize the threat of globalism...

That's because it's about as well defined as the boogey man or a hate crime.

[BGHater]

To some extent we are. We are giving them 15 Billion on cash to fight AIDS.

Also, we now have African Command (AFRICOM) which will fight terrorism there, but more so try to limit China’s influence.

[Paperdoll]

The well known goal of globalism is one world government. No borders, no sovereignty, multi-culturalism, and no middle class, all to secure the position of the elite for all time.

That’s about as well as I can define globalism.

[Freedom_no_exceptions]

your reference to a single act of terrorism is short sighted as there have been many, many acts of terrorism. Surely you've seen the lists posted on FR. Jefferson also didn't waste time trying to show there was no connection between this pirate and that pirate.

I agree there were many acts of terrorism -- and I blame prior administrations (primarily Clinton's) for not responding appropriately and possibly preventing 9/11. It is, however, 9/11 to which the "global war on terror" is being fought as a response, as acknowledged by several pro-war commenters on FR. Finally, I'm not a student of the Barbary Wars, but Jefferson clearly did not launch a "global war on piracy" on a promise to attract all of the world's pirates to one place, wipe them out, and bring to the world a pirate-free utopia.

[anglian]

"The basic idea is that foreigners cannot manage their own affairs so we have to do it for them. This may require sending troops to far off lands that do not threaten us, and it may also require “welcoming with open arms” people who come here illegally. All along globalists claim a moral high ground."

********

I would like to examine the theme of “the American Empire.” This is the imaginary imperial ideology that has supposedly driven us to become a hyper-power.

First, let's take a brief look at the origins of American economic, political and military power. Now, I am a patriotic American. I love my country and I am proud of its many accomplishments. But I’d like to suggest that America's status as a superpower has been largely thrust upon us.......

Anti-Americanism And Its Discontents - 25 August 2004, Address by U.S. Ambassador Charles J. Swindells US Embassy Wellington

The impetus for current anti-Americanism dates from the 1980s. Ronald Reagan came along with his unflappable optimism about the future of our nation and the self-destruction of communism. There were those who sympathized with communist ideology. There were those who wanted to impose their own values on their neighbors. And there were those who simply wanted a “Third Way” between America’s so-called savage economic freedoms and Communism’s tyranny. For them, Reagan was a real threat. His decision to deploy cruise missiles in Europe and his call for the Berlin Wall to be torn down were seen as needlessly confrontational. Even noted American intellectuals like Arthur Schlesinger argued that Reagan’s assessment of the Soviet Union’s economic and social weaknesses was wrong.

Of course, Reagan was proved right and the pundits wrong, though so far as I can tell, none of them has ever admitted it.

When communism collapsed. The Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain it represented were torn down, not by an invading army, but by the long-suffering peoples of Eastern Europe. Russians and Chinese soon became more capitalist than most Americans. Fact is, people all over the world now have far more diversity of choice in food, films, travel and lodging, news and entertainment sources, clothing, and other products than they have ever had in recorded history. The alternative to giving you the freedom to choose is having someone else, probably a government bureaucrat like me, choose for you.

Die-hard leftists suddenly faced a challenge. Many responded by creating and then criticizing a straw man America every bit as silly and inaccurate as that created by their ancestors. Criticism of this false image of America has become the cornerstone of current anti-Americanism. I would contend that this criticism is used mainly to attack those outside of the United States who favor liberty, whether economic, cultural or political.

I'd like to add a word here about the supposed predominance of American culture. Culture is based in large measure on shared values. The anti-American gang claims we Americans are forcing our values on the rest of the world through what they call "cultural imperialism." Well, I'm here to tell you that they have got it all wrong. We did not begin as a nation with some unique, homegrown set of values that we are now trying to spread worldwide. Just the opposite!

We began by embracing a universal set of values -- democracy, rule of law, economic liberty, freedom of expression -- that by their very nature appeal to most people on the planet. That is why we have attracted and continue to attract so many immigrants and have benefited from their cultural contributions. How do the anti-Americans deal with the fact that our diverse ethnic make-up makes us more fully representative of the human race than most other nations? Or that we still attract millions of immigrants from all over the world? I'll tell you how -- by completely ignoring it!

It is perhaps useful for the anti-Americans to remind themselves that the U.S. did not start the Great War or World War II, though we did help finish them. We didn’t even start the Vietnam War - we inherited it!

-- Failure of nations to address the security of their own region results in a vacuum that some other power will try to fill;

How should America respond to this?

-- Failure to spend enough on defense to meet security needs will result in increased dependence on someone else and reduced ability to implement an independent foreign policy;

How should America respond to this?

-- Failure to embrace economic liberty, to let people learn from their mistakes on the road to success, to encourage empowerment over dependency, these failures give an edge to competing countries that pursue social justice without trampling on justice for the individual;

How should America respond to this?

While we, too, have failed from time to time, we have done our best to offer our citizens, millions of immigrants, and freedom-loving people in other lands enough liberty to chart their own course in life. We have tried to offer enough hope and practical encouragement to help them weather the inevitable storms they may face. Most importantly, we have offered the freedom to fail and restart the journey as often as is necessary.

If America does not act to address these issues, we are accused of isolationism. If we encourage the international community to address these matters, we are accused of bullying. If we join in coalition with like-minded nations to address these shortcomings, we are accused of unilateralism. To quote the student I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, "It appears that according to international opinion, America should not take up arms unless it is explicitly told to do so."

A related, equally misleading theme is the false dichotomy between the United Nations and the United States - as though we were not a member and strong supporter of the UN. Most would agree that it is hard to find a good example of any undertaking by the United Nations that has made a practical difference in the world without the full support of the United States. Whether it is our funding of one-quarter of the UN's budget, the peacekeepers we provide, or our general support for the concept of collective security, we play a role in all that the UN does.

Who is hurt by anti-Americanism?

John Parker, of the New York Times:

"...the costs of anti-Americanism will be borne not by Americans, but by others…. Cubans, North Koreans, Zimbabweans, and countless others suffer and starve under their respective tyrannies because the democratic world's chattering classes, obsessed with denouncing the United States, can't be bothered with holding their criminal regimes to account.... Indeed, it is not the slightest exaggeration to say that anti-American sentiment has become the biggest single obstacle to human progress. It sustains repressive dictatorships everywhere. The global anti-American elite has massively failed to fulfill the most fundamental responsibility of the intellectual class: to provide dispassionate, truthful analysis that can guide society to make proper decisions."

Look at our involvement in the Balkans, where Europe’s political leaders asked the United States to intervene, even though it was not clear that our interests or security were threatened by the conflict, nor was there much evidence that Europe had done all it could to deal with the problem. In the end, we helped out, though in hindsight, our efforts in the Balkans may have diverted crucial military, intelligence and political capital from counterterrorism just when it might have had the greatest impact in slowing or stopping the rise of al-Qaeda.

The United States does not promise that we will intervene in every conflict or solve every problem.

But we can promise that when we are confronted by the tough choices this world brings, we will not ignore them. We will continue to make the best decisions we can, based on the best information available at the time.

We will continue to do whatever it takes to secure liberty for ourselves and for our future generations. And we will help others achieve those benefits whenever that is what they want and we can make a difference.

Address by U.S. Ambassador Charles J. Swindells August 2004

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0408/S00232.htm

[Paperdoll]

>Perhaps his thoughts on the “let the Central American trucks roam free” would be good, too.<

Yes, Rep. Hunter’s bill to force foreign transport vehicles to abide by the same rules and regulations as domestic transport vehicles is certainly vital to the safety and well being of American drivers and pedestrians. It would also drastically curb drug running and illegal alien smuggling.

[Grunthor]

“Hmm. Makes a hell of a lot of sense. Maybe I’ll have another look at his candidacy. Not that I think he can win but his positions do resonate with a lot of what’s right here on FR.”

Oh he’s right on a lot of issues near and dear to me. It’s where he’s wrong that’ll get you killed.

[Grunthor]

“It bears ignoring.”

Twice as hard as you would ignore something else?