Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Liberal Isolationism ( "Obama's unwisdom" )
humanevents.com ^ | 04/06/2009 | Jed Babbin

Posted on 04/06/2009 5:39:00 AM PDT by kellynla

North Korea’s launch of a three-stage Taepodong-2 missile Saturday night was not to put a “commercial” satellite in orbit. The idea that the Stone-Age communist nation would do anything commercial is oxymoronic. And the missile’s payload didn’t go into orbit: it flew over Japan and fell into the Pacific.

The North Korean launch was another test in its pursuit of military power, a fitting end to a week in which the Obama administration relentlessly pursued the doctrine of liberal isolationism.

Liberal isolationism was invented by Franklin Roosevelt, who took no action to prevent Hitler’s rise. It was further developed by Bill Clinton and, incomprehensibly, perfected by George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice. Clinton negotiated the “Agreed Framework” with North Korea, in which it promised to end development of nuclear weapons in return for U.S. aid. When it became obvious that North Korea had taken the aid and continued its nuclear program, the Clinton administration tut-tutted that the North Korean regime would become more isolated from the “world community.”

Bush and Rice continued negotiating with North Korea in the six-party talks, arranged so that China could sit behind North Korea pretending to pressure it to renounce nuclear weapons and missile proliferation. More “isolation” was threatened against Pyongyang.

They applied the same concept to Iran: its decades-long pursuit of nuclear weapons was often criticized, but no real action was taken to stop it -- only more words about how Iran should fear greater isolation from the world community. By the time Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke to an adoring crowd at Columbia University, Iran’s isolation was so complete it could have purchased a seat on the New York Stock Exchange.

Liberal isolationism shares two things with its conservative counterpart: it isolates America, not its enemies. And it cannot withstand the tests reality imposes.

Barack Obama is now taking the doctrine to its logical conclusion. The president has focused American power inward, taking the reins of the automakers as well as the financial industry. Just as it fired GM CEO Rick Wagoner from his post and told Chrysler it had to merge with Fiat, the Obama administration has told banks bailed out in the “TARP” program that they cannot return the monies they received to free themselves of government control.

Two weeks ago, a Republican senator told me of a large bank in his state that had recovered sufficiently to offer repayment of bailout money to the Treasury Department. And when it tried, the Treasury Department refused the repayment. President Obama is determined to retain and increase his control over the American economy. And apparently just as determined to shrink American influence abroad.

The North Korean launch was accomplished despite the Obama administration’s threats of “strong response” through the U.N. Strong responses by the U.N. are as farcical a concept as “commercial” activities by the North Koreans. There will be no effective UN action against North Korea: China and Russia will prevent that.

Isolation from the world community is America’s, not our enemies.’ There is no “community of nations”: such a community would share values and goals. Of the world’s nations, only a very few share America’s values and goals, and the vast majority share nothing except dreams of military and economic power over each other.

In Europe last week, Obama met with many of the leaders of the G-20 nations, including Russian President Dimitri Medvedev as well as our putative NATO allies. Obama’s approach was neo-Clintonian. He criticized American attitudes toward Europe, saying we had shown arrogance and had been both dismissive and derisive at times. Responding to that, the G-20 nations (fortunately for them) refused Obama’s entreaties for more “stimulus” spending by their governments.

Rebuffing Obama’s insistence that they take over their economies as he is taking over ours, the NATO nations also refused Obama’s request for more troops for Afghanistan. Our war against the Taliban and al-Queda there is isolated: it’s our war, not Europe’s, as they are willing to appease the same threat by ignoring it.

In meetings with Medvedev, Obama reportedly offered to recommence arms limitation talks. His goal is to reduce both nations’ nuclear arsenals and to control “loose nukes”, i.e., those not under the control of the nuclear powers.

But at the same time, Obama sent the message that our proposed missile defense system for Europe is on the table. The Russians are as opposed to it as they are to our homeland missile defenses, and Obama is apparently willing to delay or end both efforts to gain nuclear disarmament. Yesterday, presidential advisor David Axelrod said that Obama will support domestic missile defense only if it is “necessary, cost effective, and if it works.” Instead of a military threat against Iran, Axelrod said a “better answer” would be to “pressure Iran to stand down.”

The Financial Times reports that the Obama administration’s review of our policy toward Iran is considering whether we should accept Iran as a nuclear-armed nation given our inability to talk them out of their nuclear ambition.

But a nuclear-armed Iran is not the same as a nuclear-armed Britain or even a nuclear-armed Russia. Iran is center of Islamic terrorism in the world, its principal perpetrator and sponsor. Its deployment of nuclear weapons is vastly more dangerous to us and all our allies than even a nuclear-armed al-Queda.

The only economic sanction that could affect Iran is to end the sale to it of gasoline and other refined oil products. Europe is the principal seller, and the Europeans have, for years, refused to end the sales. Once again, it is America -- not Iran -- that is strategically isolated. Obama is pursuing a determined course of imposing government on our economy and appeasing the threats posed by nations such as Iran. Republicans -- to their credit -- have begun to take Obama on directly on his economic takeover, but they need to do more. And they need to do the same on his foreign policy.

Obama’s interference in our economy goes farther than Franklin Roosevelt’s. It needs to be reversed. On the economy, Republicans need to craft an agenda as aggressive as Obama’s to the opposite end. There should be a detailed legislative plan to withdraw the government’s interference, a business work-out of sorts.

On Obama’s isolationism, Republicans need to be equally outspoken and present an equally detailed plan to bar Iran’s nuclear ambitions, contain North Korea, and defend America from the missile threat.

In the first volume of his history of World War II, Churchill wrote the first paragraph for the plan Republicans must craft. Writing of the years 1931-1935, in which America endured the Great Depression while ignoring Hitler’s rise,Churchill said:

It is difficult to find a parallel to the unwisdom of the British and weakness of the French Governments, who none the less reflected the opinions of their Parliaments in this disastrous period. Nor can the United States escape the censure of history. Absorbed in their own affairs and all the abounding interests, activities and accidents of a free community, they simply gaped at the vast changes which were taking place in Europe, and imagined they were no concern of theirs.

Obama’s unwisdom is the equal of that of France, Britain and the United States in the early 1930s. Churchill’s are words to live -- or die -- by.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: isolationism; obama
We can only hope & pray to God that we still have a country left to vote this clown out of office in 2012. Chief Justice Roberts, how are you coming with those eligibility lawsuits, Sir?
1 posted on 04/06/2009 5:39:00 AM PDT by kellynla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kellynla

“Two weeks ago, a Republican senator told me of a large bank in his state that had recovered sufficiently to offer repayment of bailout money to the Treasury Department. And when it tried, the Treasury Department refused the repayment. President Obama is determined to retain and increase his control over the American economy. And apparently just as determined to shrink American influence abroad. “

Then we need to find out who this Republican Senator is and why he isn’t bringing charges of treason against the President.

Granted, the impeachment might not pass, but to just sit and quietly gossip is an act of treason itself IMO.

I hope and pray the SCOTUS has waited until now to act on the COLB issue because they wanted to see how well he did or didn’t do.

At some point, it may be our only out. Did God leave us a loophole? Are we brave enough to take it?


2 posted on 04/06/2009 5:47:44 AM PDT by autumnraine (Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose- Kris Kristoferrson VIVA LA REVOLUTION!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Liberal isolationism was invented by Franklin Roosevelt, who took no action to prevent Hitler’s rise.
BULL. I detest FDR but Hitler's 'rise' was NO BUSINESS of the USA - period.

The NAZI party was elected into the government of the failed Weimar Republic. Annnnnnnd at that time it was either the Nazis, or the USSR backed Communist Party who was going to be the winner. And the Deutsche Leute DIDN'T want to be ruled by Communists and in effect the USSR and Stalin.

Writing of the years 1931-1935, in which America endured the Great Depression while ignoring Hitler’s rise,Churchill said:
It is difficult to find a parallel to the unwisdom of the British and weakness of the French Governments, who none the less reflected the opinions of their Parliaments in this disastrous period. Nor can the United States escape the censure of history.

Once again, we 'ignored' Hitler because what was going on in Europe was NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. As to 'the USA and the censure of History', that drunken sot Churchill can rot in hell. And if I was POTUS and some British DRUNK wrote that Hitler was OUR FAULT, and then later, when they got attacked and came begging for help I would have told them to, 'Bugger Off' (how very British of me. /s)

For the entire 20th century Europe was one big ungrateful pain in our butt!

3 posted on 04/06/2009 6:18:54 AM PDT by Condor51 (The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
Once again, we 'ignored' Hitler because what was going on in Europe was NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.

FDR ignored the rise of Hitler, because, fascism was an accepted economic system. It had not acquired the stigma it had after WWII. Wilson and FDR were both fascists. It was none of our business because it was our business. Fascism is, once again, the business of the U,S.

4 posted on 04/06/2009 6:35:12 AM PDT by depressed in 06 (Socialism is the results when Gresham's Law is applied to politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

(lower left hand corner)

5 posted on 04/06/2009 6:51:40 AM PDT by mountn man (The pleasure you get from life, is equal to the attitude you put into it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson