Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Isolationism; Interventionism

I've noticed that Bush and the neocons (real and imagined) are often disparagingly labeled "interventionists," imperialist world-builders with their illegitimate hands in the global pie, disrupting the lives of persons thousands of miles from the United States border. Since the alternative pole is isolationism, why all the criticism of Bush for taking an interest in the world's affairs? I thought the early 20th century pretty much killed the spirit of isolationism and showed it to be an impossible-to-realize goal, and even positively evil when an apathetic country would refuse to aid other nations in their need. Europe sure could have used some interventionism in the 1920s, and the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere grew unchecked because of U.S. indifference.

Since international human rights conventions and the United Nations are predicated in part on the idea that the protection of human rights is irrespective of local sovereignty, and that intervention in domestic affairs is often morally necessary, I am forced to conclude that President Bush is a UN-loving hippie Commie and that liberal naysayers are protectionist, paleocon, egoist bastards and should be ashamed at failing to think globally.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home