"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
U.S. Constitution, Article VI
Somehow, we have a Congress that gave an oath to the Koch brothers and made sure they passed the religious anti-tax test of Grover Norquist.
Every year the Senate has a public reading of George Washington’s “Farewell Address” and the next day they ignore what he wrote. Maybe many of them stayed away during the reading or slept through it.
"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? 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 an habitual hatred, or an 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."
Who has the U.S. become beholden to either as a friend or as an enemy: Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, North Korea, Cuba .
Showing posts with label Cuba. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cuba. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 06, 2017
Saturday, January 07, 2017
Quote of the day: corporation interest in strong dollar
"The reason that our government doesn’t intervene to push down the value of the dollar is that powerful U.S. transnational corporations like Wal-Mart prefer a strong dollar because it makes imports and overseas labor cheaper for them.”
“Will Trump outdo Obama in handling US-China: No: Even before taking office, Trump has made a mess”
- Mark Weisbrot, Duluth News Tribune, 2016-01-07
The “other side” is “Yes: His policies will protect our allies, economy, citizens from Chinese bullying”
- Pete Hoekstra
Why does so much writing, politics, and whatever have to be either/or? There are so many more considerations than “either side” puts forth.
In support of Weisbrot, I’d cite “You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.” Also, Republicans have turned the Constitution upside down so many times; in this case they have replaced Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states to commerce having the power to regulate Congress!!
I wonder if any other democratic nation has as many “pariah” states as the United States: Cuba, North Korea, and Iran. Yet we support many broken or rigid states far worse than Iran.
“Will Trump outdo Obama in handling US-China: No: Even before taking office, Trump has made a mess”
- Mark Weisbrot, Duluth News Tribune, 2016-01-07
The “other side” is “Yes: His policies will protect our allies, economy, citizens from Chinese bullying”
- Pete Hoekstra
Why does so much writing, politics, and whatever have to be either/or? There are so many more considerations than “either side” puts forth.
In support of Weisbrot, I’d cite “You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.” Also, Republicans have turned the Constitution upside down so many times; in this case they have replaced Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states to commerce having the power to regulate Congress!!
I wonder if any other democratic nation has as many “pariah” states as the United States: Cuba, North Korea, and Iran. Yet we support many broken or rigid states far worse than Iran.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Foreign policy foreign to Founders
What would George Washington think of the foreign relations of our Presidents for the last 100 years? Or even two hundred years?
Consider what George Washington wrote in his “Farewell Address”:
“Hence likewise they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”
Poor George probably spun in his grave when Madeleine Albright said, “What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?”
“…the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party … 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.”
How often does the influence of Israel hamper U.S. policy in the Middle East? Sometimes the Democrats and Republicans both work overtime to show how great their support of Israel is.
“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.”
Japan and Vietnam have forgiven the U.S. for the damage done to them. I wonder when the U.S. will get around to forgiving Cuba and Iran for the minor damage done to it.
“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.”
I wonder if George Washington would appreciate being called “the leader of the free world”?
“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?”
George Washington really would really disapprove of the hundreds of U.S. bases around the world.
“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 respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”
Would George Washington approve of the U.S. staying in NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union?
“But if I may even flatter myself that [these counsels] may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good, that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism—this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated.”
Unfortunately, faction arose strongly shortly after Washington left office – Jefferson and Adams became strong political opponents. Fortunately, they did become friends later in life.
Both Jefferson and Madison waged war on the Barbary Pirates who demanded tribute to not attack U.S. ships in the Mediterranean and ransom for captured sailors. These were wars with limited objectives that ended with treaties favorable to the United States.
On the other hand Madison’s war with Great Britain was called just that by those opposed to it – “Mr. Madison’s War”. The opposition was particularly strong in New England where many merchants continued to trade with Britain.
One of the first major expansions of U.S. influence was the Monroe Doctrine to curb any influence by European powers over the newly independent countries of Latin America.
“The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.”
How often did the U.S. interfere with “the free and independent condition” of these countries? George Washington’s “foreign intrigue” certainly was practiced in Latin America by many of his successors.
The very faction that Washington warned against, one section of the country against another, led to the Civil War.
And on and on it went, war after war. Some required U.S. involvement; many didn’t. Some of the latter were called “wars of choice” by critics.
Those who signed the Constitution and promoted it knew that circumstances and the Constitution would change, but would they approve of all the changes?
Consider what George Washington wrote in his “Farewell Address”:
“Hence likewise they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”
Poor George probably spun in his grave when Madeleine Albright said, “What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?”
“…the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party … 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.”
How often does the influence of Israel hamper U.S. policy in the Middle East? Sometimes the Democrats and Republicans both work overtime to show how great their support of Israel is.
“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.”
Japan and Vietnam have forgiven the U.S. for the damage done to them. I wonder when the U.S. will get around to forgiving Cuba and Iran for the minor damage done to it.
“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.”
I wonder if George Washington would appreciate being called “the leader of the free world”?
“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?”
George Washington really would really disapprove of the hundreds of U.S. bases around the world.
“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 respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”
Would George Washington approve of the U.S. staying in NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union?
“But if I may even flatter myself that [these counsels] may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good, that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism—this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated.”
Unfortunately, faction arose strongly shortly after Washington left office – Jefferson and Adams became strong political opponents. Fortunately, they did become friends later in life.
Both Jefferson and Madison waged war on the Barbary Pirates who demanded tribute to not attack U.S. ships in the Mediterranean and ransom for captured sailors. These were wars with limited objectives that ended with treaties favorable to the United States.
On the other hand Madison’s war with Great Britain was called just that by those opposed to it – “Mr. Madison’s War”. The opposition was particularly strong in New England where many merchants continued to trade with Britain.
One of the first major expansions of U.S. influence was the Monroe Doctrine to curb any influence by European powers over the newly independent countries of Latin America.
“The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.”
How often did the U.S. interfere with “the free and independent condition” of these countries? George Washington’s “foreign intrigue” certainly was practiced in Latin America by many of his successors.
The very faction that Washington warned against, one section of the country against another, led to the Civil War.
And on and on it went, war after war. Some required U.S. involvement; many didn’t. Some of the latter were called “wars of choice” by critics.
Those who signed the Constitution and promoted it knew that circumstances and the Constitution would change, but would they approve of all the changes?
Thursday, November 28, 2013
Are we on the cusp of peace or of war?
President Rouhani of Iran is working to make life more open for Iranians and to build more bridges to the West. See "Not for Prime Time: Music Video with Iran's President" and "Iran Invites Inspectors to Nuclear Site".
On the other hand, China has declared certain air space as requiring permission for others to enter. The U.S., Korea, and Japan felt compelled to enter that air space. Now China is sending fighter jets into that space. See "China Sends Jets into 'Air Defense' Zone After Flights by Japan and Korea".
We have one situation slightly defused and another situation ignited. The first can bring about more peace, and the second can put war a lot closer than most of us want. Will we have a Kennedy and a Khrushchev to resolve the latter?
On the other hand, China has declared certain air space as requiring permission for others to enter. The U.S., Korea, and Japan felt compelled to enter that air space. Now China is sending fighter jets into that space. See "China Sends Jets into 'Air Defense' Zone After Flights by Japan and Korea".
We have one situation slightly defused and another situation ignited. The first can bring about more peace, and the second can put war a lot closer than most of us want. Will we have a Kennedy and a Khrushchev to resolve the latter?
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Quote of the day: foreign policy tantrums
"Unfortunately, U.S. policy towards Cuba resembles a 50-year tantrum, rather than a coherent plan for encouraging a transition to democracy. "The Castros, Cuba, and America: On the road towards capitalism", The Economist, 2012-03-24, reprinted in the Star Tribune, 2012-03-27
I am always amazed as to how long the U.S. government holds grudges; these put it in the same play pen as North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran. I suppose internal U.S. politics has more to do with this silliness than practical diplomacy. I hope it doesn't take another Nixon to take the initiative like he did with China.
I've been wondering lately why the U.S. doesn't say to Iran, "We are sorry that we overthrew Mossadegh and supported the Shah. Now would you apologize for the taking over of our embassy?" Oh, but I forgot internal U.S. politics!
I am always amazed as to how long the U.S. government holds grudges; these put it in the same play pen as North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran. I suppose internal U.S. politics has more to do with this silliness than practical diplomacy. I hope it doesn't take another Nixon to take the initiative like he did with China.
I've been wondering lately why the U.S. doesn't say to Iran, "We are sorry that we overthrew Mossadegh and supported the Shah. Now would you apologize for the taking over of our embassy?" Oh, but I forgot internal U.S. politics!
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Iran, Berlin Wall, and Snapping Fingers
An old bromide raised its head on the comments in today's Lede of the New York Times; see comment at 8:06 a.m. by nymarty. Ronald Reagan said "Tear down that wall, Mr. Gorbachev!" and the Berlin Wall came down! Except the wall came down ten months after Ronald Reagan left office. It's like the hippy snapping his fingers on the park bench to keep the tigers away. Since there are no tigers nearby he assumes snapping his fingers is working.
The Reaganites ignore that the Soviet Union was changing under Gorbachev's leadership and it was probably not because of Western Armaments. It was probably because of Western ideas that Gorbachev saw how bankrupt the Soviet system was. The East German government was already being marginalized within the Warsaw Pact. The xenophobia of the East German government only prolonged the agony.
nymarty wrote that Obama said too little too late. Obama can only say so much without increasing the xenophobia of the Iranian government. It has already lashed out at the English, French, and German governments for their statements. And words are just that, words! What can any U.S. President do about Iran? Stop oil shipments? What a ruckus the increase in gas prices will cause in the U.S. Invade Iran? Remember, the people with the guns are mostly supporters of the Iranian government. But even those in the Iranian army and police who don't support the current government are going to be very hostile against any foreign invader.
What is interesting about nymarty's comments is that he goes on to say that JFK spoke out against Castro's Cuba and that Churchill and Roosevelt spoke out against Hitler. Castro's Cuba is still there and it took nearly seven years of war to defeat Hitler.
What is most ironic about nymarty's comment is that he ends with "The Mullahs want the bomb and nothing our president can say will stop them from getting it." In other words, Obama is wrong for not saying enough, but no matter what he says it won't mean anything.
My view is that Obama is choosing his words carefully to support the people of Iran while not giving the Iranian government an excuse for claiming "foreign interference" in "Iran's internal affairs", a well-known cop-out for corrupt governments everywhere.
The Reaganites ignore that the Soviet Union was changing under Gorbachev's leadership and it was probably not because of Western Armaments. It was probably because of Western ideas that Gorbachev saw how bankrupt the Soviet system was. The East German government was already being marginalized within the Warsaw Pact. The xenophobia of the East German government only prolonged the agony.
nymarty wrote that Obama said too little too late. Obama can only say so much without increasing the xenophobia of the Iranian government. It has already lashed out at the English, French, and German governments for their statements. And words are just that, words! What can any U.S. President do about Iran? Stop oil shipments? What a ruckus the increase in gas prices will cause in the U.S. Invade Iran? Remember, the people with the guns are mostly supporters of the Iranian government. But even those in the Iranian army and police who don't support the current government are going to be very hostile against any foreign invader.
What is interesting about nymarty's comments is that he goes on to say that JFK spoke out against Castro's Cuba and that Churchill and Roosevelt spoke out against Hitler. Castro's Cuba is still there and it took nearly seven years of war to defeat Hitler.
What is most ironic about nymarty's comment is that he ends with "The Mullahs want the bomb and nothing our president can say will stop them from getting it." In other words, Obama is wrong for not saying enough, but no matter what he says it won't mean anything.
My view is that Obama is choosing his words carefully to support the people of Iran while not giving the Iranian government an excuse for claiming "foreign interference" in "Iran's internal affairs", a well-known cop-out for corrupt governments everywhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)