Jingoist vs patriot

This is going to be a relatively short post. I just want to address a phrase that I hear a lot of in political discussions. Sometimes, although very rarely, the phrase is used in what I would consider a legitimate sense. Most of the time, however, it is not. The phrase is, "If you don't like America, then leave!"

On its face, this seems like a fair enough phrase. I can imagine it being used against someone complaining that the United States isn't a communist nation, or a theocracy, or a monarchy, or any of the other things that stand in direct opposition to how our founders define our nation. In fact, if you look at the words, that's what they mean. "If you don't like America." Well, what defines America more than the Constitution and its Bill of Rights that...well, define America?

But people who use this phrase aren't often using against those people are stand against the constitution. Rather, we often hear it used against people standing up for the constitution. We hear it used against people complaining about the TSA,  NDAA 2012, the Patriot Act, the unconstitutional wars. The people who use the phrase in this context, do it under the pretense of being "patriotic." But is it patriotic to allow the government to take away the rights that for so many years defined America? Can you claim to love America, while simultaneously allowing the people in charge to redefine what it means to be American?

Jingoism, when used colloquially, means someone who blindly stands by their government no matter what. That is not patriotism, and it is not what it means to be an American. In order to prove that statement, I only need point out that it is not what the first Americans did. If George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Peyton Randolph, and all of the other men instrumental in our revolution had just said, "Well, I don't like it here, so I'm going to France!" then there would be no America for us to love. Those men made it very clear that when you see the rights that no government has the right to grant nor deny you being taken away, you do something about it.

Of course, I'm not saying that we pick up our muskets and have at it with the powers that be. But being vocal about our objections to their actions, and actively supporting liberty candidates who seek to restore our rights, are not actions that should be met with, "If you don't like America, leave." They are actions which should be met with respect, if not joined in on.

And just in case their actions weren't enough proof, here are some quotes from the founders that show their feelings on the issue:

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? - Thomas Jefferson 

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. - Thomas Jefferson

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. - Thomas Jefferson 

I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! - Patrick Henry

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

Given these quotes, I find it hard to believe anyone would accuse those who seek to defend our constitution when the men and women elected to preserve it refuse to take that responsibility unto themselves of not loving America enough. I say to those people this, it is not I who does not love this country. It is you, who would turn your back on its defining principles rather than stand against those in power who seek to erase them from the minds of the populace. When so many great men gave their very lives for the freedoms they secured for us, it is a sad day when so few are willing to even give pressure to our politicians to restore them.

The case for non-interventionism

I want to talk in this post about all of the people I hear say that libertarian foreign policy is 'scary.' Often these people will point to Pearl Harbor as an example of what non-interventionism leads to. But that is not even remotely true if you look at the actual events leading up to the attack. Yes, the United States held strong non-interventionist or isolationist (two different terms) views during the period when WWII was brewing. But we were not behaving in a very non-interventionist fashion in 1941. We were sending money and war supplies to Britain, France, and China. When Japan tried to block imports to China in an attempt to stop our supplies from reaching them, we initiated an oil embargo against Japan that crippled their war effort. It was during the second Imperial Conference that Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto finally got approval for the attack on Pearl Harbor, but only under the condition that a diplomatic solution was not reached.  Now, Japan certainly gave us no ultimatum that hinted that they were willing to go to war over the issue. And considering that Japan's goals at the time were expansion at the expense of the Chinese people, it's questionable whether any diplomatic solution could have really been reached. But the facts cannot be denied. We were not attacked at Pearl Harbor because we did not intervene. We were attacked because we did. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that we deserved the attack, or any other such nonsense that opponents of non-interventionism usually start accusing its proponents of at this point in the discussion. I'm merely pointing out that you can't blame non-intervention for the attack when in fact the opposite is the case.

Now I want to talk about the other criticism that people want to attack non-interventionists on regarding WWII. The notion that we would stand by and let a holocaust happen. 2012 Libertarian Party candidate for president has stated that he can't imagine any president setting idly by and letting a holocaust happen. I'm a Libertarian, but had I been president in August 1942 when we finally had reliable confirmation of Germany's 'Final Solution' there's no way I would have ignored it. That doesn't mean that an immediate declaration of war and full invasion would have been my first choice either. There's a vast difference between intervening in a holocaust and intervening in every conflict around the world. 

This seems like a good time to talk, very briefly, about the differences between non-interventionism and isolationism. The two are often used interchangeably by opponents of non-interventionism, but they are not the same. Isolationism means that a country does not engage in trade with other countries, they do not have tight diplomatic ties, they may even enforce a ban on immigration all in the name of isolating themselves from the rest of the world. Non-interventionism is not isolationist at all. Under non-interventionism, a country will still have free trade with all nations. Under non-interventionism, a country would still have diplomatic ties with other countries. They just wouldn't have military bases in those countries, or try to police the actions of those countries with military force.  For a real-life example, almost any proponent of non-interventionism would end our trade embargo with Cuba and open ourselves up for more friendly diplomatic ties.

Now let's continue our look at history and how non-interventionism has treated us. For this example, we'll go to the Cuban Missile Crisis. When the United States discovered that there were nuclear missiles dangerously close to our borders in Cuba, there were a few options presented. Some wanted a full on invasion of Cuba, others wanted sanctions or embargoes, or more focused military strike. JFK instead responded initially with a military blockade. Upon hearing of the blockade, Soviet leader Khrushchev call the blockade, "an act of aggression propelling humankind into the abyss of a world nuclear-missile war." Kennedy and Khrushchev ended up solving the issue through secret negotiations. Handling disputes diplomatically is a core tenet of non-interventionism and the exact opposite of our current foreign policy of preemptively striking anyone that we even suspect may be a threat to us. It's that core tenet of non-interventionism that prevented a nuclear war, and our current foreign policy that would have started one.

Let's take a quick look at how intervening has done us no good. Obviously, the Vietnam war is a great example of a war that never should have happened, but it's not the strongest case in recent history that can be made for a more non-interventionist policy. In the 80s, Iraq and Iran were at war. The United States government did not like the new leader of Iran. So we gave weapons, money, and specials forces training to Saddam Hussein's army. Of course, for obvious reasons, this further strained our relations with Iran. But it also put into power a man that we would go to war with twice. The second Iraq war was over weapons of mass destruction that didn't even exist. Thousands of lives were lost for a threat that wasn't there. And rather than learn from that, now our politicians are ready to repeat the same mistake in Iran. The same course of action that would have led to nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

And while we did put Saddam in power and then fight him twice, he's still not the best example of where our interference in the affairs of other nations has came back to bite us. That distinction belongs to our support of Osama Bin Ladin during the nine year war between the Soviets and the Afghans. By interfering in something that really had nothing to do with us, we created the monster that masterminded the most disastrous attack on American soil since the attack on Pearl Harbor that we discussed in the beginning of this post. But the story of Osama Bin Ladin has a second tier to it. Osama's first opposition to us came during the first Iraq war. He was upset that 'infidels' were occupying Saudi Arabia, which is considered a revered holy land in Islam. If we hadn't propped Saddam up in the 80s, would we have even had the war that angered Osama Bin Ladin so much? If we hadn't propped Osama himself up in the 80s, would he have had the resources to attack us? How many horrible people do we have to put into power before we learn that diplomacy and non-intervention is the best way to keep America safe? How long before we finally realize that violence doesn't end violence, it only extends it? 

So I say to all of you that Libertarian foreign policy isn't scary. It's mainstream foreign policy that is scary. But if you want to see non-interventionism in action, just look at most other countries in the world. Canada faces far less threat of terrorist attack than the United States does, and involves their military in the affairs of far less countries than we do. The same can be said most of Europe. Now, correlation does not equal causation. So that fact may just be a coincidence. But, given all of the evidence presented above to the contrary, I think it's more than fair to say that it is not purely coincidence and that we should be learning something from the foreign policies of more peaceful nations.

Ideology as opinion

My first post, located here, was shared by someone on Google+ and one of the comments said that they liked my paragraph about ideology being an opinion. So, partly out of pandering, and partly out of a genuine belief that it is a topic worth exploring further, I want to talk about that a little bit more and explain why it is an important view to take.

I'm sure there are some out there who would argue that I if I don't think that my ideology is 'right' that I'm somehow betraying my belief in that ideology. But that is based on the false premise that me being 'right' means everyone else must be wrong. Say for example there is a fire. I want to throw water on the fire, someone else wants to throw a blanket on it. Who is right? If we argue over whether to throw water or a blanket on this fire, then whatever it is that is burning is going to be nothing but a pile of ashes. However my argument that ideology should be viewed as an opinion goes beyond mere polarization.

Believing that your ideology is right and the other guy is wrong implies that there is no overlap. I can think of no ideology where that is the case. A communist and a libertarian can certainly agree that murder should be illegal. But those two ideologies are most assuredly opposed to one another at face value. During the republican debates, Michelle Bachmann proudly declared that she disagreed with everything Obama said. Does that mean that Bachmann thinks murder should be legal? Obama certainly does not. They agree on that.

So far, I'm still giving examples of polarization. But that is because I am giving the most extreme examples. For every extreme position that an ideology subscribes to, there are thousands of little gray areas. It's within these gray areas that we can work together to effect change. Most people have no problem agreeing with me on that. Michelle Bachmann, her far right buddies, and the (much smaller, or less vocal) far left opposition might be the only ones that do not.

Now I know what you are thinking, "But John, if you talk about the areas where the ideologies agree, then you aren't pointing out why you should be willing to listen to opinions where they don't." But aren't I? I've mentioned in a discussion about healthcare on another site that Singapore has a system which is both more libertarian than ours, and more progressive. It was correctly pointed out that we can't simply transplant Singapore's system into the U.S. and expect it to work. But if we don't discuss that issue openly, then the black view of one ideology and the white view of the other never have the chance to become a workable gray area. We never find a solution where both ideologies can further their goals and our society as a whole benefits.

Almost every single issue has a common ground. It's only by accepting that we either don't have all of the answers, or don't have the answers that everyone can agree on, that we open up our mental palettes beyond monochrome.

Introduction

I first decided to create this blog due to the increasingly rambling nature of my political Google+ posts and, occasionally, my Facebook posts. The original idea was for a Youtube channel, but, well, I'm lazy. Shooting and editing video is way to much like work for me. So here we are in plain old wall of text form.

Deciding on a first topic wasn't particularly hard, at least not in theory. However, when planning out all of the posts, I began to realize that by talking politics nearly exclusively on Google+ and Facebook had shielding me from a lot of the...undesirables. Every time I began working on a post, I felt the need to get sidetracked and explain things for the type of political ignoramus who uses words like 'libtard' and 'repuke'.

I ran into a similar such person right before writing this while reading a story on Yahoo! about Dmitry Medvedev calling for the release of Pussy Riot. For those who don't know, Pussy Riot is a band that was recently imprisoned for a two-year sentence for disrupting a church with anti-Putin speech. Someone commented on the article, "I see communism is alive and well in Russia." Now, I suppose this person might be a troll, but there are a shocking number of people who actually do think that Pussy Riot's unfair treatment is some form of "communism." These are the same people who use the words 'socialism', 'communism', and 'fascism' interchangeably, even though the three words have three different meanings. In the case of communism and fascism, the meanings are not only different, but nearly conflicting.

I ran into another such person a while back on Facebook while commenting on the status update of a mutual acquaintance. The claim was made that the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, exempted congress from its effects. I posted a response linking to the bill on an official .gov website, and citing the page and section that specifically says that congress is NOT exempt from the provisions of the ACA. I was accused of believing, "liberal media lies." Of course, nobody making the claims that I am wrong has ever presented any properly cited evidence to that effect. Rather, they blindly believe whatever FOX news host told them this lie, even when presented with contradictory evidence from the bill itself.

But the right doesn't get to hold the monopoly on my frustrations with talking politics to the greater masses. Just like their counterparts on the opposite end of the spectrum who lack the actual knowledge to discuss a topic beyond calling the other person a 'libtard', there are plenty of people on the left who must result to using words like 'repuke'.

We've reached a point in this country where the majority (at least the vocal majority) of the population is so polarized that the only position they hold on an issue is whatever the opposite of the other guy is. Case in point are the conservatives who invented the individual mandate, first through the Heritage Foundation, and then through Mitt Romney's implementation while governor, turning against the mandate because a democrat decided that he agreed with it. Similarly, liberals who vehemently opposed Bush's signing of the Patriot Act and warfare mentally, now defend Obama for the same.

The refusal to think for oneself makes the discussion of politics with those who don't care to educate themselves and form an opinion based on sound reason and analysis of the facts very difficult. The refusal to understand that our ideologies represent our opinion on a given situation, and that there are multiple ways to solve a problem, make progress in this country by coming to mutually agreeable terms difficult, if not impossible.

The point of this long winded rant is that the posts on this blog will be meant largely for people who realize that Obamacare is not communism. They will be meant for the type of person who can back up their position with reason and, if needed, properly cited references. They will be meant for the type of person who is intelligent enough to realize that their ideology is merely their opinion. That neither the liberals, the conservatives, or the libertarians, are entirely right or entirely wrong. Although some posts may be made with education specifically in mind, I'm not going to sidetrack my posts explaining things that anyone discussing politics should already know.