Replies

. . . you join with the Wilsonians in mislabeling it.

No. I did not mislabel Washington’s views on foreign entanglements. I made claims about how they were perceived prior to World War II.

You make a mistake to suppose Washington, with the same diligent drafting assistance from Hamilton, would make the same speech today. He would not.

Washington nor Jefferson ever advocated isolationism.

By that, I take it to mean you do not believe Washington advocated building a high wall around the United States and thereafter cut off all contact with the outside world. Okay. I’ll agree.

Here you appear to link Washington and Jefferson, implying they held the same view on foreign affairs. They did not. They only agreed a foreign policy was unavoidable. They differed on what that foreign policy should be.

The debate is not between isolationism and non-isolationism; it is between maximizing our independence of action and allowing other interests to marginalize it. That is a very different thing.

Then a different President and a different speech should have been chosen.

Under the Washington/Jefferson foreign policy, America is free to pursue her interests and her people's interest in every corner of the earth. That is not the issue in this debate.

Between Washington and Bush there is no possible debate. Those speeches were given for entirely different historical reasons.

Harmless Teddy Bear in #18 comes closest to catching the historical context of Washington’s Farewell Address:

You also have to remember that we were just getting started. In Washington's opinion we were not ready to play with the big boys and likely would get creamed if we did. We were building something new and strange. Something that even we were not sure would work.

The speech needs to be read for what it is. Nothing more. Washington counseled the country to become first a nation of Americans. He carefully laid out what he believed was necessary for the people of 1796 to do to accomplish that coming together as Americans. The speech was not meant to be a checklist for us in 2005.

You offer a lot of rationalizations. But read Washington's remarks in the debate. They are framed for the ages. They are deliberately not specific for his time. They do not even address any of his contemporary issues, as such.

As for Washington and Jefferson having a different foreign policy? Jefferson was Washington's First Secretary of State. They both favored avoiding foreign entanglements. They both favored a policy of independence through strength, and dealing fairly with all peoples.

The illusion of a difference grows out of Jefferson's early sympathy for the French Revolution--before he recoiled in horror over where it went. But sympathy for a foreign revolution is not the same thing as advocating that we stir up foreign revolutions. Washington was heartsick over what happened in France, to people who had helped him win our independence. But these emotional differences did not amount to a difference in long term policy.

I would love to see the Shah restored in Iran--I mean his family, I know he is dead--but for the United States, today, to announce that they mean to change the Iranian Government, is not the way for that to happen--not if such a new Government would have a chance to last; and not if we are to regain our reputation for honorable dealings with all peoples.

On the other hand, when Chile under the Marxist Democracy seized billions of dollars worth of American property, we were fully justified in supporting Pinochet. There we were "punishing the first insult," as Jefferson recommended.

There is nothing in the traditional policy that I have urged--in effect--by letting General Washington explain it--which restricts us from acting firmly in our interest. It is a policy for the ages, readily adaptable to every situation.

William Flax