promoting the unwanted, redheaded stepchild that is individual liberty

Posts Tagged ‘foreign policy’

Liberals ‘Losing Hope’

In protest, war and peace on April 20, 2010 at 9:04 pm

“Obamas message of hope and change, so exciting a year ago, now rings hollow for those of us hoping he would usher in an era of peace.” — Medea Benjamin, Cofounder, CODEPINK

I was beginning to lose faith in the anti-war left and those that pride themselves progressive. But just as conservatives and libertarians became abhorred with George W. Bush’s and the neo-cons’ unique brand of conservatism, so it seems many on the left are beginning to see through Obama’s liberal facade.

Liberals are losing hope — and gaining insight.

In fact, Losing-Hope.org is a website entirely dedicated to reviewing and criticizing the Obama administrations’ empty promise for “change” and pressuring the president to make good. It was created by the women of CODEPINK and boasts a list of liberal supporters.

The website’s homepage meets visitors with a letter addressed to the president titled Losing Hope, Taking Action. The letter asks Obama to “stand up to corporate interests” and bemoans the failed foreign policies of the previous administration being continued by the current:

“In 2008, I was one of millions united for hope and change. As 2010 dawns, change looks to me like more of the same.  Instead of peace, we got more war.  Instead of healthcare reform, we have an industry win that requires Americans to buy health insurance without any real cost controls.”

It’s encouraging to see those on the left waking up to the failed promise that is Barack Obama. Hopefully, they will not repeat the mistake of their conservative counterparts and forget the painful truth their own party has revealed to them.

Advertisements

America’s foreign policy; promoting ‘Peace on Earth?’

In foreign policy, war and peace on December 10, 2009 at 5:05 am

The holiday season is upon us once again. The time of year where everyone runs around with Merry Christmas on their lips and tidings of comfort and joy. The time of year when all Americans, not just Charlie Brown, ponder the true meaning of Christmas. It’s a peaceful time of year — or, at least it’s supposed to be.

This is the irony that is America. A self-declared peaceful nation, where 80 percent of the population professes to be Christian. Whether or not American is a Christian nation is debatable. Whether or not it is a peaceful nation is not debatable.

With troops in 70 percent of the world’s countries and current conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, the United States seems to be in a perpetual state of war — never satisfied with the extent of its empire. However, the American people, unlike their government, appear to be growing weary of the violence.

A recent poll shows a slim majority of Americans support the troop surge in Afghanistan and 49 percent of Americans now say the United States should “mind its own business in the world.” And, in hopes of stemming that tide of violence and war, they went to the polls on Nov. 4, 2008 and voted for Barack Obama. Hoping he was the “anti-Bush” as Reginald Dale, senior fellow for the European program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, puts it. But alas, President Obama turned out to be just a more charming version of President Bush.

Not only has President Obama not withdrawn troops as promised, he’s instead escalated the wars, sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan and increasing drone attacks in Pakistan. And today, as President Obama receives the Nobel Peace Prize, he will give a speech on America’s desire to seek peace “in a world where sometimes to won’t be able to avoid a war,” said Jon Favreau, Obama’s chief speechwriter. Surely Mother Teresa is rolling over in her grave.

To be sure, there are those that argue that by waging wars and overthrowing other nation’s tyrannical regimes, America is promoting peace in the world. After all, it’s our duty as leader of the free world to promote democracy; even if it’s at the end of a gun. Such a concept is not only incorrect, it’s completely illogical.

How can one promote peace through violence? How can one decrease pain and suffering through waging war? How can one force democracy and freedom on a people?

But such is the rational of the American government.

Perhaps it was the Vietnam war, perhaps it was Nixon, but the American people seem to be waking up to the reality that America’s foreign policy is costly. Unlike their blindly patriotic predecessors, today’s generation questions its government’s intent for going to war — and with good reason.

Americans in favor of non-interventionist foreign policy

In foreign policy, war and peace on December 5, 2009 at 7:22 am

It took 9/11 and two resulting wars for Americans to realize the merits of a non-interventionist foreign policy. A poll released Thursday by The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed 49 percent of Americans think America should “mind its own business internationally.”

The poll has been conducted every four years since 1964 in collaboration with the Council on Foreign Relations and is part of the project, “America’s Place in The World.” According to the Examiner, the results are an all time high:

“For the first time in more than 40 years of polling, a plurality (49%) says the United States should let other countries get along the best they can on their own and not interfere in their affairs.”

According to the Examiner, just 30 percent of Americans thought the same in Dec. 2002 and only 18 percent of Americans supported such and “isolationist approach” in 1964.

Interestingly, the American public is not in agreement with CFR members. While 50 percent of CFR members think troop levels should be increased in Afghanistan, only 32 percent of Americans feels the same. And 40 percent of Americans say troop levels should be decreased in Afghanistan compared to only 24 percent of CFR members.

The results released by the center are exciting. Perhaps Americans are finally realizing that playing world cop is not only immoral, It’s costly. Such a stance is not isolationist, it’s non-interventionist. And it’s common sense.