Wilsonian Internationalism Reborn
There is a toxin coruscating through the international body politic that resembles Woodrow Wilson’s commitment to a world order based on global government. Among contemporary Wilsonians like Anne Marie Slaughter and Harold Koh of the State Department, there is a belief that international law and a web of common enforcement mechanisms will enhance order and stability in a world fraught with chaos and violence.
As was the case with Wilson’s naïve conception of the League of Nations as a body that can maintain international stability, the present-day Wilsonians hold out the hope that global linkages will inspire cooperation and rational decision-making among nations. Presumably national interest, even sovereignty, will be subordinated to international councils.
Aligned with this Wilsonian conception is a declinist perception: a belief that the United States must shift from its hegemonic global role to a member of the international institutions designed to promote world order. Presumably a less robust economy than the U.S. has generally experienced and fatigue with the unilateral maintenance of global equilibrium have been the catalysts for this transition.
But in every essential way, this conception is faulty.
To cite one example, the Security Council at the United Nations invariably frustrates directions in American foreign policy. Whether it is “sanctions with teeth” directed at Iran’s nuclear program or issues related to Taiwanese security, Russian and Chinese vetoes militate against the realization of U.S. interests. Moreover, even though the United States provides 22 percent of the expenditures at the United Nations, it is isolated by voting blocs such as the 57 Muslim nations, the European Union, and the non-aligned nations (usually aligned against the U.S.).
It is also the case that the traction gained by Muslim extremists represents a new and insidious challenge to the very existence of Western civilization. It seems obvious that a religion with imperial goals that denies individual rights and recognition of other faiths is in inevitable conflict with the presumptive principles of the West.
It is not only the Wilsonian global vision these people are seeking to impose. While Wilson was so blithely creating the appeasement and ineffective bureaucratic chaos that would eventually lead to the rise of both Fascism and Socialism outwardly, at the same time he was leading the front of creating the absolute iron wall of imperial socialism inside this own country.
We are already seeing the rise of the same ghouls today. The creation of enraged so-called “patriotic groups” like ACORN and OFA that seek to “organize” the people and “encourage” an almost worship of government leaders – these groups led by avowed socialists who follow the same truncheon-carrying enlightenment that was so much a favored tactic of the Nazi’s and the Bolsheviks.
Anyone who crosses the administration is now being accused of “Sedition” – how long until similar acts as those foisted on America (and the history of them has been so promoted by our media – Nixon should have been so good at covering things up!!) as those under Wilson are proposed and accepted by Congress or the bureaucracy? In excess of 100,000 Americans were imprisoned by Wilson – amazing that the media is so enamored with our treatment of Islamist murderers but so ignores a historical war crime against our own people for protesting tyranny.
Mark my words – the arrogance of the cabal that makes up this evil regime in Washington knows no more bounds than did the traitors that made up Wilson’s regime – especially the President himself…both of them.
No one ever taught these folks that less is more.
Such naivety rests not with the Wilsonians, but with the author. Despite his allusions to the contrary, those he criticizes do not “hold out the hope that global linkages will inspire cooperation and rational decision-making among nations.” Rather the contrary.
Those of us who believe “that international law and a web of common enforcement mechanisms will enhance order and stability” place no faith in an inspirational sense of cooperation or rationalism – thus the insistence on binding economic agreements and reservation-free treaties, designed to diminish any potential gains which aggressive or destabilizing policies might provide otherwise.
The Wilsonians of the 20s and 30s may have been idealistic, but their post-WWII-t0-today descendants have become utterly realpolitik in applying its precepts. As E.B. White, editor of the New Yorker, wrote: “Government is the thing. Law is the thing. Not brotherhood, not international cooperation, not security councils that can stop war only by waging it… Where does security lie, anyway — security against the thief, a bad man, the murderer? In brotherly love? Not at all. It lies in government.”
Tony Fleming
Washington, DC
“Government is the thing. Law is the thing. Not brotherhood, not international cooperation, not security councils that can stop war only by waging it… Where does security lie, anyway — security against the thief, a bad man, the murderer? In brotherly love? Not at all. It lies in government.”
Security lies in government? So, Tony, when the thief, the bad man, the murderer breaks into your home in the middle of the night do you then rely on the police to arrive in time to stop him from robbing you blind and murdering you?
If so, I pity you, for you and your family will be dead.
A free man does not rely on government — a serf relies on his master to protect him.
A free man relies upon himself knowing it is his duty to protect himself, his property and his family.
So too it is with nations. A free nation does not rely on treaties and organizations to protect its security. Nor does a free nation cede it’s sovereignty to other governments and organizations.
A free nation stands strong understanding something Appius Claudius put into words more than two milenia ago “If you would have peace, be thou then prepared for war.”
Government is not the solution to the problems of this nation. Government _is_ the problem, Tony, along with people who believe it’s a solution.
Patrick
You’re showing your idiocy from not having read the original article and understanding my rebuttal of it. The author suggested that Wilsonians were a bunch of peaceniks who believed in compassion and inspiration. In contrast, we are in fact ones who believe in harsh laws and payback by creating binding agreements. But instead of grasping the arguments of either of us, you begin spouting talking point that have nothing to do with the argument. Grow up, learn to reason and debate and pay attention.
I see sir, because I do not agree with you I’m an idiot incapable of understanding your point? Interesting sir. Would you care to point to precisely when in history binding agreements have ever been more than scraps of paper? Perhaps it was in WWI when the Germans had a treaty with Belgium? Of course the Germans attacked Belgium and the German Chancellor noted that the treaty was nothing but a scrap of paper.
Any agreement can be ignored if there is no force backing it up.
You, sir, are the one who needs to grow up. Read history, and understand it sir, no nation which cedes it’s sovereignty long survives.
I see that you equate paper agreements and enforceability to be equivalent.
There’s all sorts of law, at every level, that are never enforced, and for various reasons. Usually, the laws and agreements are made for show (i.e., media brownie points).
Without going into a long dissertation, you rebutted NOTHING, and only demonstrated your gullibility and naivete.
What is so sad about Wilsonian internationalism is that there never seems to be a plan “B” when all of these endless negotiations fail. For example, take Iran. The European Union and the United States have talked, either directly or through the United Nations, to Iran about their nuclear program for about nine years now. And what has it gotten us?
Iran, despite hollow threats from the United Nations, continues its nuclear program and will probably have a bomb in a few months. After that event happens, then what? Does the international community just shrug its shoulders, like it did after North Korea obtained nuclear weapons?
I’ve got new for you, friends. If Iran gets the bomb, Saudi Arabia will undoubtedly want some sort of neclear device as well. They have the money and, with a nuclear-armed Iran not far from them, the incentive to get one, too. How long do you think it will be before Saudi Arabia gets a nuclear device either from the United States or, worse, from North Korea? A nuclear-armed Iran will destabilize the entire Middle East and could even lead to an outright war between Iran and Israel.
So how’s all that Wilsonian internationalism working out for you now? Like I said, there is no plan “B” with the Wilsonians, just like there was no plan B when the dictatorships in the 1930s started invading other countries. But don’t worry, I’m sure somebody will lodge a protest at the United Nations. I’m sure that will make Iran and other countries like it shake in their sandles.
The Wilsonians remind me of that Woody Allen movie, “Bananas.” As some South American troops are dragging Woody Allen away to a firing squad, Allen says, “Of course you know, this means an angry letter to the New York Times!” Perhaps when Iran finally gets a nuclear bomb, the West will reply by writing a nasty letter to the New York Times as well.
Wilsonians put ideology over reality. Wilson himself existed in a fantasy world where the people of the world would eventually throw off their old allegiances and embrace his new world order. His 14 Points to bring peace after WWI were unrealistic and even unenforceable. He embarrassed himself and the United States in his campaign for the League of Nations and the 14 Points and he set the world on the road to WWII. Despite liberal propaganda to the contrary, Henry Cabot Lodge was right to stand against Wilson and his fantasy.
Modern Wilsonians are just as divorced from reality as Wilson. They support international efforts that never work. In taking the international cooperation route, they give veto power over our foreign policy to our enemies. There solution is always more of the same.
The problem with the League of Nations and the United Nations is that we let too many people join. How can be expect an organization whose membership is dominated by dictators and thugs to ever work in the interst of their fellow nations? No matter how much Mr. Obama bows and licks the boots of these thugs, they will never support American interests and goals. If they ever do, it will be because American goal and interests have become evil and thuggish.
Those of us that attend or grew up in evangelical churches can tell you exactly where all this “internationalism” is headed: a one world government. The Bible contains a lot of prophecies about this end. In order for that to happen, the US has to suffer a loss of power and influence, for there can never be a world government with a strong United States in existence. Obama, Soros and their crew of merry wreckers are doing a superb job of eliminating US hegemony. Their insane spending spree, creation of massive new “entitlements”, further takeover of finance, amnesty for illegals, cap and trade, card check; all these actions will do absolutely nothing to improve things for America, but rather hasten our destruction. Obama is not merely another misguided liberal. He knows, or at least his sponsors know, exactly what they are doing. Total power is the goal. They will let nothing stand in their way. That includes the Constitution and the will of the American people. They are in a feeding frenzy, and each new victory adds chum to the water and increase their lust of power.
This November is our last chance to peacefully derail the train. If the progressives and power mad elitists are not removed from office, it will be too late. Of course, removing them from office will only delay the eventuality. These people will not go quietly into the night. They have been laboring ceaselessly for decades; Gramsci’s “long march” through the institutions. Had they waited one more generation, it would been a pushover, with the complete stranglehold the Left holds on education and entertainment.
In the Old Testament, God’s chosen, the Jews were a fickle people (as are we all). When they followed God’s law, and listened to His appointed leaders, their nation prospered. When they turned to evil, they suffered. When they repented, and returned to God, He honored that, and blessed them once again.
Like the Jews of old, America has turned its back on God. We worship ourselves and material things. Morals are laughed at. Millions are slaughtered in the name of fictitious “rights”. Wrong is right and right is wrong. We deny God’s people and turn our back on Israel.
Voting is not enough. Protesting is not enough. Writing to Congress is not enough. Organizing is not enough. To stop this, or at least delay this, America must do what the ancient Israelites did: turn back to God. We need to get back into our churches and beg God for His forgiveness. There needs to be a revival in the United States, becoming a Godly nation once again. Then, and only then, can the forces of Satan be turned aside.
I agree 100%. But, most of the CFR needs to be tried for treason first, and get rid of the central bank.
Ass backward as usual. We must repent first, then arrest the wicked and deliver them to justice.
very interesting that this is being published at pajamas media, a site that is home to many people who enthusiatically embraced the Wilsonian internationalism of George W. Bush and his neocon advisors. bush 43 was our most liberal president since lbj.
I haven’t seen much in the way of Wilsonian idealism in the Obama administration to date. Wilson wanted all peoples to enjoy self-determination in nations that belonged to them. Their own nations, not as provinces, buffer states, or client states of powerful and aggressive empires. I don’t see Wilson’s 14 points involved in Obama’s peace initiatives towards Iran, Russian, and North Korea, or towards Israel, Afghanistan, and Iraq. What I do see is a lot of cut-our-losses estimation and cost-avoidance diplomacy in the best imitation of the Baldwin & Chamberlain ministries, with appeasement towards enemies, and hostility directed at allies and friends warning of impending danger.
Response to Markus @7:
Not all conservatives embraced the neo-Wilsonianism of George Bush and many of his advisers. His second inaugural address scared me completely. His Wilsonian rhetoric and committment to global programs shocked many conservatives and they did provide some sharp criticism of those policies.
Neo-Wisonianism is like a banner that is waved to justify our presence. It obviously has no signficance in itself. Let’s face it. We are the policemen of the world or there are no policemen. That would make it just as hard to transact international business as it would if at home there were no police force. Since it now appears that the police are now trying to win the hearts and minds of the people, the; people will die laughing.
Neo-Wilsonianism or even Wilsonianism is not the same thing as being the policeman of the world. Wilson wanted to remake the world in our image not to simply speak softly and carry a big stick.
The plain historical fact is that there is no such thing as “Wilsonian” anything. He was a poisonous nonentity and a creature of Jekyll Island no less than the Fed itself. “Colonel” House aka Phil Dru Administrator is the power behind the throne and the true author of the never-accidental manipulations whose second coming we are now all living through. Like Dracula in those silly old 1970s films, international socialism, ie the mechanism whereby a serf class in perpetual slavery will be created to serve the international and largely apolitical and certainly immoral power elite, will just keep returning in “sequels” until we cancel it forever. And the longer we leave it, and the longer we foist lies like Wilson or any president since Kennedy, had any vision of their own rather than being a puppet of “socialist” elites- the higher the eventual cost will be. Sure as night follows day.
I had a bit of trouble with the first sentence. North of the border the word “coruscating” means to give off or reflect light in a sparkly way. It has a different meaning in Poughkeepsie I guess. Otherwise I agree with the thrust of the article that internationalists are prominent in the present US government. Wilsonians – who knows? Internationalists have been around in various forms for a long time. They even have their own song called “The Internationale”, downloadable from the web in over 40 languages.
Regardless of these international people, most nations compete with each other to further their own national interest. Why wouldn’t they? Internationalism is just one more example of saying up is down; or that everyone should act in ways that are contrary to basic human nature. The Euro is an example of internationalism which has unnecessarily robbed its 15 member countries of the freedom to set their own currency policies in their own best interests.
Internationalism is one more idea that sounds great in theory but sucks in practice. It has a certain cachet; a certain snobby intellectual pretension that fits well with ennobling emotions expressed by the bien pensant at their painful dinner parties.
Wilson wanted to make the world safe for the “democracy” of big banks, oil cartels, and the munitions barons who caused World War I by their own greed. He mistakenly thought peace could co-exist with a corporate power structure based on greed. Hitler and Bush knew the truth; perpetual war and genocide are the only way the corporate plutocracy can survive. If the power structure can not distract the workers by manufacturing enemies, the workers will eventually rise up against it. This is the essence of Wilsonian naivete.
However, there can be permanent and enduring peace if a society based on compassion and not greed is established. If America started by providing her people the rights to food, health care, housing and jobs and stops terrorizing nations such as Cuba that do these things, we will be on the road to peace.
I saw an excellent documentary on Wilson in Europe after the Great War (Military Channel?) and all of the political wheeling and dealing that was taking place as the allies essentially decided what to do with the peoples of the world. They truly believed they could have “peace in our time” even though even then they were laying the groundwork for WWII, the Cold War, and the end of colonialism that ushered in decades of conflict all over the world. If you really want to understand idealism gone wrong, that’s one of the best places to begin.