Foreign Policy

Late last year I wrote a blog in which I spoke about the need for the United States to have an interventionist foreign policy (see “Big Brother America” October 2007). I talked about how some countries in this world posses very deadly weapons that if misused could cause terrible havoc in their region. I also spoke of such implications like the domino effect and mutually assured destruction and the need for a type of instrument to step in and stabilize seemingly unstable and dangerous problems.

Towards the end of the December, with the winter break, I was able to catch up on the elections and research some of the candidates. It was then I found an interesting candidate-Ron Paul. What was interesting about this man was that he was a Libertarian running for the Republican nomination. His message was in the interpretation of the constitution, something that was quite the deal maker for me. One of the notable points in his policy was his view on foreign policy. He was for non-interventionism. At first this contrasted extremely with what I felt the role of the U.S. should be but, like all good humans, I didn’t dismiss him without listening to his reasons. His views stem from the constitution and the founding fathers. According to Ron Paul the founding fathers wanted a non-interventionist foreign policy. Now I give much credit to the founding fathers, they were very, very smart people to whom we owe everything that we find in this country, so my interest grew more. Ron Paul believed that the federal government should run with strict adherence to the constitution, a plausible argument, and that if it does not explicitly state within the constitution that the federal government has those powers then those powers belong to the state under Amendment 10. So through all this I was sitting there and saying boy this guy makes sense. Now Ron Paul is not anti-war, he believes there are reasons when we should go to war and that is through constitutional powers. The constitution states that the country should only go to war when A. our national security is threatened and B. with a declaration of War by congress (House and Senate).

So I stand corrected. Sure one could make the argument for the need for a type of instrument or strong power to step in when things get out of line in this world but the reason not to go is even stronger. The founding fathers were very intelligent people, much smarter than I. They understood public policy and government at levels so intimately that they devised a document for governance, the constitution, that still holds a country together 200 years later. Having a non-interventionist foreign policy is economical. We can save tax payers trillions, focus on our country and our citizens first, strengthening domestic programs that can help struggling Americans and return more money back to the states so that they may address the needs of their people without having to fight other states for federal money (pork barreling). Having a non-interventionist foreign policy is safer. By avoiding entangling alliance, getting our nose out of other countries businesses, and not bullying the UN we can improve our relations with other countries.

“Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.”
Thomas Jefferson
Inaugural Address 1801