The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Gottfried Archive
Where Is the Peace Party?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A columnist for my local paper is looking for a “peace candidate” who has no desire to build other peoples’ nations for them and who would be willing to reassess our “military intervention throughout the world.” She reaches the conclusion, however tentatively, that instead of having so many of our troops bogged down thousands of miles from our shores, “we could have strategically targeted every one of al-Qaida’s leaders. And we could have skipped everything else in between and just done that.”

The U.S. has carried out a missionary foreign policy in recent decades under presidents from both national parties. Enough is enough, even for those of us who wouldn’t go quite as far as my friend Ron Paul, who seems not to recognize that we do have enemies abroad and that their hostility is not exclusively our fault. But Paul is in no way responsible for Republican derailments. Ever since the Reagan administration, Republican foreign policy has been increasingly under the control of hysterical visionaries, who want to convert the world, if necessary by force, to the current American democratic model.

In the 1980s these advisors and journalists proclaimed the need for a “global democratic revolution” and with the arrival of George W. Bush in the presidency they got their way. It was these shapers of Republican foreign policy who pushed us into prolonged efforts at nation-building in Iraq. They also manufactured Bush’s ineptly delivered speeches about bringing human rights to every soul on this planet; and they drove their eager pupil into monetizing an expensive invasion and occupation, which resulted in creating the highest government debt in our history. (The American people are right to believe that Bush did as much as Obama to bring about our present runaway debts.)

Obama now has these yappers going after him; and even when he intervened in Libya to push out the Kaddafi regime, they were complaining, with their friends John Bolton and John McCain, that Obama wasn’t making enough of a military commitment (this with two other wars going on); and besides the Dems weren’t getting tough enough with Russia, Syria, Iran, the Palestinians and every other government the neocons want us to shake up in the next ten seconds. Although hardly a fan of this administration, I sometimes wince with discomfort listening to the usual suspects scolding Obama for being “weak on human rights.” It is even more painful watching GOP candidates pledging their support as “Christians” for the construction of further Israeli settlements on the West Bank. In return for trying to curry favor with the neocon media and a relative handful of American Jewish voters, these hacks are surrendering any possibility they may have of being peace negotiators in the Middle East.


Because of such disinformation, rank-and-file Republicans believe that running a vast welfare state as an army is a “conservative” policy. Moreover, since Republicans are by definition “conservatives,” or so I am astonished to hear, anything the party advocates must be “conservative.” And wars that are fought to make the rest of the world look like our society are all patriotic. After all, aren’t we sending young people to Asia to have their heads blown off?

It might surprise these party loyalists to learn that for decades the Democrats condemned the GOP as an isolationist party. It is not the Right, but the liberal internationalists in the center and on the left, who pushed for military intervention abroad. The American Right has generally not been militaristic, and it was the neoconservative takeover of the GOP and the conservative movement in the 1980s which produced the present state of affairs.

In the 1940s and even later Republicans criticized any proposal to plunge young men and American earnings into foreign wars. Although some Republican Congressmen were blind to the extent of the threats represented by Nazi and Soviet tyranny, Republicans understandably wanted to avoid a repetition of the fiasco of World War I. Then Americans had been pushed by a pro-British government into a European bloodbath that ended in a vindictive peace. (A sincere American attempt to negotiate a peace could have avoided this and the rise of brutal dictatorships in Germany and Russia.)

Significantly, it is the example of this intervention and the Democratic president who arranged for it, the global democratic idealist Woodrow Wilson, whom the neoconservatives celebrate as the architect of their foreign policy. Now Republicans have totally turned their backs on the tradition of being the party of peace. They talk about restoring fiscal sanity while planning to make perpetual war. Indeed it seems impossible for Republicans to admit that Bush was a disastrous president, who left us in protracted war and dangerously indebted. Where is the “peace candidate”? I’ll give him my vote as well.

(Republished from The American Conservative by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy, Ideology • Tags: Republicans 
Hide 10 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I very much doubt that Woodrwo Wilson would approve of the endless Israeli occupation of the West Bank.

  2. tz says:

    I don’t think Ron Paul thinks we don’t have enemies abroad, only that magnifying the threat and engaging in unjust and preemptive wars is stupid. If we were minding our own business and yet someone attacked us I’m quite sure there would be a declaration of war and scorched earth instead of yet another war of attrition and nation building. Meanwhile, if you remember the Pollard case and the Liberty, I have to ask who is our enemy and who is our ally and how ought we to react to each?

  3. Wilson was a KKK sympathizer. Probably wouldn’t take the side of Jews I suppose.

  4. Where is our peace candidate? Buried in Tel Aviv. We’re not ending our wars until the Likud party says we can. Which won’t happen until we’re completely bankrupt and there are no more of our unemployed young men and women to be maimed and killed. Then we’ll be of no further use to the Likudniks and they’ll let us go.

  5. MattSwartz says: • Website

    This is a good diagnosis. When we can no longer speak of a single “foreign policy establishment” that stretches on from one administration to the next, we’ll know that the patient is on it’s way to recovery.

  6. Noah says:

    @ Bill Pearlman

    President Wilson was actually quite fond of Jews. He appointed the first Jewish Supreme Court justice, Louis Brandeis. Felix Frankfurter, later appointed to the High Court, was a close advisor. Both Brandeis and Frankfurter were active in the Zionist movement, and persuaded Wilson to accept the Balfour Declaration. His views on negroes were separate from, and irrelevant to, his views on Jews.

    @ James Canning

    I think your hypothetical hinges on whether Wilson would have seen the Palestinians as a distinct nation or as indistinguishable from other Arabs. Wilson was a strong supporter of ethnic self-determination, including for Jews, for whom he had no small affection (see above).

  7. Ken Hoop says:

    I’m sure Bill Pearlman also knows many European “extreme right” parties with “neo Nazi” histories are now taking the side of Israel against Islam generally, and whose support is being accepted by the Likudists in particular.

  8. Joan says:

    The “Peace Party”? What would that be.

    A woman like myself, who would’ve marched on Washington during Viet Nam, would’ve done what she did in order to bring home her lover. Peace would’ve been a by-product; it would not have been the prize.

    The problem for my lover and me is not that the government would use my lover as a missionary, to spread the word. The problem for my lover and me is not that *the government* would use my lover…

  9. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Our French President Sarkozy is supporting the idea Palestinians should be allowed to have their own nation without being in favor of Islamists movements. In fact, peace might finally occur in the Middle-East if Israel accepted this idea

  10. Syvie Hubert – – Yes, it does appear that Sarkozy favors independent Palestine ,and even a Palestine as a full member of the UN (even if not in immediate future). With “1967” borders.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Paul Gottfried Comments via RSS