The Great Debate
Which is it, America? Are we going to be a superpower in foreign policy or are we going to be a superpower in domestic policy? You can't have it both ways because we can't afford to pay trillions of dollars in power projection, foreign aid and wars in far away places and continue to increase the domestic programs for nationalized healthcare, social security and industry bailouts that is now running into the multiple trillions. Is it GW's fault? He is but one among a long line of Presidents, statesmen, Senators and Representatives that have embraced the government-industrial complex that we have come to enjoy in the form of medicare, social security, CAFE standards, EPA, OSHA and a plethora of other federal agencies and policies too numerous to mention here that affect and effect our daily lives. Barack Hussein Obama is but the latest incantation of the government-industrial complex to grace our presence and he may in fact be the apex of this "change" in direction from a foreign policy superpower to a domestic policy superpower.
History has shown what becomes of a nation when this "change" sets in and grabs hold of the populace. Behold the once great nation that was Great Britain. She too was a global superpower who alone stood at the top of the mountain with her overseas commitments to her colonies from South Africa to India to Hong Kong and from Australia to Canada to her Caribbean island jewels. She was the "policeman" of the world keeping would be dictators at bay from Europe to Africa to Asia. But then two world wars and hundreds of billions of dollars later finally made Britain turn inward and reject the role she had played in foreign policy for nearly 300 years. Instead of spending money on soldiers and ships she spent money on the National Health Service and more domestic government spending than she had previously embraced in all of her time as a foreign policy "superpower". Now, after only 60 years or so she too is now bankrupt and can barely afford the services she provides to her people without having to raise more taxes at the expense of her national wealth or what's left of it. Now, her only option in "paying" for these domestic programs is to allow foreigners to work and stay in Great Britain who have no intention of embracing her culture, language and laws. She is now more like Babylon the Great instead of Great Britain.
Is this America's future as well? Have we spent ourselves into oblivion only to have to sacrifice the world role we play as policeman in order to have the domestic goodies that Europe "enjoys"? Is Obama's "change" simply more of the same spending policies of his predecessor but more spending and more borrowing than before? At what price do we pay for this "domestic" course correction in foreign affairs? Obama and the democrats did agree to INCREASE defense spending by 4% from last year however there is much agitation in the media regarding which military programs are going to be axed, scaled down or continued in the wake of the War On Terror...excuse me, the War On Extremism. Apparently, the word "sacrifice" does not apply to the government-industrial complex and as such it continues to grow ever more powerful every day. However, the law of diminishing returns will burst forth at the expense of the fantasies of socialists in Washington in regards to how to pay for their Utopian ideals. If they increase taxation then the economy will shrink thus tax revenue will fall short and borrowing will have to take up the slack. If they cut spending (which they will never do) then all the jobs and businesses that are connected to government (government-industrial complex) such as medical, military, education, social security etc, will suffer thus causing an economic contraction that will precipitate lower tax revenue thus borrowing will have to take up the slack. However, behind both propositions, we can no longer borrow! We have so borrowed ourselves into oblivion that there will come a time where the interest itself let alone the principal will become too great to bare financially and something will have to give.
That something is foreign policy, I predict. If Americans and her politicians have to make a choice and push comes to shove I can almost guarantee that the United States of America will decrease her presence overseas and with her foreign entanglements ie NATO, SEATO, and defense postures with Iraq, Afghanistan, Poland, Central and South America and perhaps even go so far as absolving our responsibility as the policeman of the world becoming more of a Sweden than a Great Britain as we are today. Some will see this as good thing as they believe the United States is singularly too powerful as it is and should be made weaker and more subservient to international organizations and her madcap demands. However, the result of foreign policy contraction will be the rise of dictatorships around the world that will ultimately defy the West as well as the loss of our Allies to enemy insurrection such as was experienced during the whole of the 1970's when America retreated, looked the other way and just plain gave up before the evil and ungodly forces of Communist China, Vietnam and Russia. The domestic narcissim of the 1960's gave way to the foreign policy debacle of the 1970's. Thank you liberals! It may not be communist nations today that rise up in our absence but certainly they will in the language of Barack Obama be "extreme" if I may be so bold in the form of a nativist Russia or an Islamic Caliphate.
Behold, the future.
History has shown what becomes of a nation when this "change" sets in and grabs hold of the populace. Behold the once great nation that was Great Britain. She too was a global superpower who alone stood at the top of the mountain with her overseas commitments to her colonies from South Africa to India to Hong Kong and from Australia to Canada to her Caribbean island jewels. She was the "policeman" of the world keeping would be dictators at bay from Europe to Africa to Asia. But then two world wars and hundreds of billions of dollars later finally made Britain turn inward and reject the role she had played in foreign policy for nearly 300 years. Instead of spending money on soldiers and ships she spent money on the National Health Service and more domestic government spending than she had previously embraced in all of her time as a foreign policy "superpower". Now, after only 60 years or so she too is now bankrupt and can barely afford the services she provides to her people without having to raise more taxes at the expense of her national wealth or what's left of it. Now, her only option in "paying" for these domestic programs is to allow foreigners to work and stay in Great Britain who have no intention of embracing her culture, language and laws. She is now more like Babylon the Great instead of Great Britain.
Is this America's future as well? Have we spent ourselves into oblivion only to have to sacrifice the world role we play as policeman in order to have the domestic goodies that Europe "enjoys"? Is Obama's "change" simply more of the same spending policies of his predecessor but more spending and more borrowing than before? At what price do we pay for this "domestic" course correction in foreign affairs? Obama and the democrats did agree to INCREASE defense spending by 4% from last year however there is much agitation in the media regarding which military programs are going to be axed, scaled down or continued in the wake of the War On Terror...excuse me, the War On Extremism. Apparently, the word "sacrifice" does not apply to the government-industrial complex and as such it continues to grow ever more powerful every day. However, the law of diminishing returns will burst forth at the expense of the fantasies of socialists in Washington in regards to how to pay for their Utopian ideals. If they increase taxation then the economy will shrink thus tax revenue will fall short and borrowing will have to take up the slack. If they cut spending (which they will never do) then all the jobs and businesses that are connected to government (government-industrial complex) such as medical, military, education, social security etc, will suffer thus causing an economic contraction that will precipitate lower tax revenue thus borrowing will have to take up the slack. However, behind both propositions, we can no longer borrow! We have so borrowed ourselves into oblivion that there will come a time where the interest itself let alone the principal will become too great to bare financially and something will have to give.
That something is foreign policy, I predict. If Americans and her politicians have to make a choice and push comes to shove I can almost guarantee that the United States of America will decrease her presence overseas and with her foreign entanglements ie NATO, SEATO, and defense postures with Iraq, Afghanistan, Poland, Central and South America and perhaps even go so far as absolving our responsibility as the policeman of the world becoming more of a Sweden than a Great Britain as we are today. Some will see this as good thing as they believe the United States is singularly too powerful as it is and should be made weaker and more subservient to international organizations and her madcap demands. However, the result of foreign policy contraction will be the rise of dictatorships around the world that will ultimately defy the West as well as the loss of our Allies to enemy insurrection such as was experienced during the whole of the 1970's when America retreated, looked the other way and just plain gave up before the evil and ungodly forces of Communist China, Vietnam and Russia. The domestic narcissim of the 1960's gave way to the foreign policy debacle of the 1970's. Thank you liberals! It may not be communist nations today that rise up in our absence but certainly they will in the language of Barack Obama be "extreme" if I may be so bold in the form of a nativist Russia or an Islamic Caliphate.
Behold, the future.
posted by Bruce R. McConnell | 2:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home