Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
There’s been a lot of debate on the forums recently about foreign policy and just how much we should be involved violently in affairs around the world. We seem to have basically two sides to the issue around here:
The interventionists: Interventionists generally want to preemptively use force against other nations in a way that seems best to the interests of the U.S., and/or to spread democracy. They also are usually for protectionist trade measures such as uneven tariffs and trade agreements or lengthy embargos. There are different flavors of course but for this post I'm concerned with forceful interventionism.
The non-interventionists: Non-interventionists generally want to have a strong defense but would not like to involve themselves violently in the affairs of other nations unless faced by a true imminent threat or attack. They also favor true free trade and diplomacy as a means to an end over the use of force.
A third type of foreign policy that is being incorrectly bandied about around here is isolationism which is akin to an ostrich with his head in the sand. Interestingly, both interventionism and non-interventionism share some points with isolationism. Non-interventionists share the isolationists desire to stay away from using preemptive force against other nations. Interventionists usually share the isolationist view of protectionist trade measures. Therefore, either interventionists or on-interventionists could be disingenuously described as isolationists.
The key argument being used to defend either foreign policy around here has been it makes us safer.
Interventionists argue that if not for our military bases around the world we wouldn’t be able to react fast enough to a threat. They argue that we must preemptively attack other countries when they may soon pose a threat to us. In short, they believe in using force with the seeming best interest of the U.S in mind, whether or not we are under an imminent threat or attack.
Non-interventionists believe that it’s in our best interest to have a peaceful, lead by example, type of influence around the world. They argue that interventionism has made us less safe by causing other peoples to dislike us for messing around in their affairs and having bases on their soil. In short, they believe that free trade is a great incentive for nations to get along with one another and meddling only creates an atmosphere of distrust and even hatred.
Since we, as a nation, have been practicing interventionism; arguably since just before our entry in to WWI, there is a long track record of us getting into trouble because of some of our actions. This is unfortunate for interventionists because they really have no way to prove their case in –and this is a key distinction- the modern world. If an interventionist says that we saved X amount of people by doing A, a non-interventionist can merely say that less people would have died if we would have stayed out of it. The only way an interventionist could decisively prove that interventionism is the best policy to keep us safe is to try non-interventionism for a number of decades and compare. Even then, it would be difficult as the new “modern world” may have entirely different patterns of engagement. Conversely, if non-interventionism had been the policy for the last hundred years, it would be a trial of interventionism that may prove the case.
So, we really can’t use safety as an argument to decide which policy is better because both foreign policy advocates desire to be safe and believe their policy is best to that end. Therefore, the score remains:
Interventionists = 0
Non-interventionists = 0
Now there is the legal argument based on the laws of our nation. What powers of foreign policy does our Constitution allow us as a nation? With the preamble the Constitution starts:
Now we move on to powers of Congress in Article 1 Section 8 where in the preamble we have:
And here are the key, enumerated powers of congress having to do with the military:
So clearly, congress has the power to provide for the common Defence and the enumerations state how they may provide for it. It appears, by my reading of it, that they have the power to use either type foreign policy being discussed.
Article 2 has the powers of the President:
Here it is clear that the President is Commander in Chief of the U.S. armed forces when they are called into service. The most simplistic reading would provide that since he has no power to call them into service except under imminent threat or attack, which is necessary and always assumed as seen in some of the earliest writings, it must be congress who votes to intervene. However; this has been changed by various Supreme Court opinions and the war powers resolution of 1973.
So, with originalist interpretation one could argue that although interventionism was possible through the congress, it was much harder and took longer to get the authorization. I believe this was intentional and is fairly clear that it was meant to limit interventions. It would be hard for a constitutionalist or strict constructionist to disagree. Without the broad executive power, ceded by the congress to the President and the executive branch, we would not be capable of anywhere near the amount of interventions via the CIA and other agencies. The congress itself would have to vote to forcibly intervene in the affairs of other nations.
Because our nation seems to legally have the power to intervene forcefully but it has been made too easy/blown out of proportion and we had founders on either side of the issue I make the score:
Interventionists = 1/2
Non-interventionists= 1/2
But what if we go back into some of the theories on which our country was based? Among other writings, a clue may be garnered from the Declaration of Independence:
First, in the eyes of the writers, we have certain unalienable rights and that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As a side note, it was debated whether or not “property” should have been included instead of “the pursuit of happiness” but in any case these are seen as the unalienable sovereign rights of man. It’s also abundantly clear that this did not just apply to our citizens, but all of mankind.
Continuing:
It is clear here that the writers believed that governments are to be given power derived from the people to use in securing those people’s rights but what powers can be derived from the people? The answer is that government can only derive from them that which the people posses. All other powers may be unjust powers or usurpations. As a person, one has the right to his life, his liberty, and his property but has no right to another’s. If a person has no right to initiate violence towards another, a group of people has no collective right to such; nor does government.
An example would be that in a gated community they may decide to hire a security guard to protect their property from thieves but they may not give that guard the power to go into a neighbor’s house to steal his property or otherwise abuse another’s rights. Also, since rights apply to all of mankind, I may not use the power vested in the guards of my gated community to preemptively attack the one across the street to take their parking spaces.
I believe this last deliberation is the key issue that decides that non-interventionism is superior to interventionism. We haven’t the right to meddle. Although you may have a vicious dog, I may not preemptively decide to go onto your property and kill it because it may attack me some day. If you have some resources that I do not, I cannot take them because I feel it makes me more secure. It goes without saying that I couldn’t invent a “neighborhood war on phone sex” and tap your phone line.
Therefore I make the final score:
Interventionists = FAIL
Non-interventionists = WIN
Although some interventionist measures may not violate rights, it’s clear that violent interventionism does. If one adheres to the concept that all rights must be respected, one cannot be in favor of forceful interventionism. To me it is clear that to advocate both is utter and blatant cognitive dissonance.
The interventionists: Interventionists generally want to preemptively use force against other nations in a way that seems best to the interests of the U.S., and/or to spread democracy. They also are usually for protectionist trade measures such as uneven tariffs and trade agreements or lengthy embargos. There are different flavors of course but for this post I'm concerned with forceful interventionism.
The non-interventionists: Non-interventionists generally want to have a strong defense but would not like to involve themselves violently in the affairs of other nations unless faced by a true imminent threat or attack. They also favor true free trade and diplomacy as a means to an end over the use of force.
A third type of foreign policy that is being incorrectly bandied about around here is isolationism which is akin to an ostrich with his head in the sand. Interestingly, both interventionism and non-interventionism share some points with isolationism. Non-interventionists share the isolationists desire to stay away from using preemptive force against other nations. Interventionists usually share the isolationist view of protectionist trade measures. Therefore, either interventionists or on-interventionists could be disingenuously described as isolationists.
The key argument being used to defend either foreign policy around here has been it makes us safer.
Interventionists argue that if not for our military bases around the world we wouldn’t be able to react fast enough to a threat. They argue that we must preemptively attack other countries when they may soon pose a threat to us. In short, they believe in using force with the seeming best interest of the U.S in mind, whether or not we are under an imminent threat or attack.
Non-interventionists believe that it’s in our best interest to have a peaceful, lead by example, type of influence around the world. They argue that interventionism has made us less safe by causing other peoples to dislike us for messing around in their affairs and having bases on their soil. In short, they believe that free trade is a great incentive for nations to get along with one another and meddling only creates an atmosphere of distrust and even hatred.
Since we, as a nation, have been practicing interventionism; arguably since just before our entry in to WWI, there is a long track record of us getting into trouble because of some of our actions. This is unfortunate for interventionists because they really have no way to prove their case in –and this is a key distinction- the modern world. If an interventionist says that we saved X amount of people by doing A, a non-interventionist can merely say that less people would have died if we would have stayed out of it. The only way an interventionist could decisively prove that interventionism is the best policy to keep us safe is to try non-interventionism for a number of decades and compare. Even then, it would be difficult as the new “modern world” may have entirely different patterns of engagement. Conversely, if non-interventionism had been the policy for the last hundred years, it would be a trial of interventionism that may prove the case.
So, we really can’t use safety as an argument to decide which policy is better because both foreign policy advocates desire to be safe and believe their policy is best to that end. Therefore, the score remains:
Interventionists = 0
Non-interventionists = 0
Now there is the legal argument based on the laws of our nation. What powers of foreign policy does our Constitution allow us as a nation? With the preamble the Constitution starts:
.
Now we move on to powers of Congress in Article 1 Section 8 where in the preamble we have:
And here are the key, enumerated powers of congress having to do with the military:
So clearly, congress has the power to provide for the common Defence and the enumerations state how they may provide for it. It appears, by my reading of it, that they have the power to use either type foreign policy being discussed.
Article 2 has the powers of the President:
Here it is clear that the President is Commander in Chief of the U.S. armed forces when they are called into service. The most simplistic reading would provide that since he has no power to call them into service except under imminent threat or attack, which is necessary and always assumed as seen in some of the earliest writings, it must be congress who votes to intervene. However; this has been changed by various Supreme Court opinions and the war powers resolution of 1973.
So, with originalist interpretation one could argue that although interventionism was possible through the congress, it was much harder and took longer to get the authorization. I believe this was intentional and is fairly clear that it was meant to limit interventions. It would be hard for a constitutionalist or strict constructionist to disagree. Without the broad executive power, ceded by the congress to the President and the executive branch, we would not be capable of anywhere near the amount of interventions via the CIA and other agencies. The congress itself would have to vote to forcibly intervene in the affairs of other nations.
Because our nation seems to legally have the power to intervene forcefully but it has been made too easy/blown out of proportion and we had founders on either side of the issue I make the score:
Interventionists = 1/2
Non-interventionists= 1/2
But what if we go back into some of the theories on which our country was based? Among other writings, a clue may be garnered from the Declaration of Independence:
First, in the eyes of the writers, we have certain unalienable rights and that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As a side note, it was debated whether or not “property” should have been included instead of “the pursuit of happiness” but in any case these are seen as the unalienable sovereign rights of man. It’s also abundantly clear that this did not just apply to our citizens, but all of mankind.
Continuing:
It is clear here that the writers believed that governments are to be given power derived from the people to use in securing those people’s rights but what powers can be derived from the people? The answer is that government can only derive from them that which the people posses. All other powers may be unjust powers or usurpations. As a person, one has the right to his life, his liberty, and his property but has no right to another’s. If a person has no right to initiate violence towards another, a group of people has no collective right to such; nor does government.
An example would be that in a gated community they may decide to hire a security guard to protect their property from thieves but they may not give that guard the power to go into a neighbor’s house to steal his property or otherwise abuse another’s rights. Also, since rights apply to all of mankind, I may not use the power vested in the guards of my gated community to preemptively attack the one across the street to take their parking spaces.
I believe this last deliberation is the key issue that decides that non-interventionism is superior to interventionism. We haven’t the right to meddle. Although you may have a vicious dog, I may not preemptively decide to go onto your property and kill it because it may attack me some day. If you have some resources that I do not, I cannot take them because I feel it makes me more secure. It goes without saying that I couldn’t invent a “neighborhood war on phone sex” and tap your phone line.
Therefore I make the final score:
Interventionists = FAIL
Non-interventionists = WIN
Although some interventionist measures may not violate rights, it’s clear that violent interventionism does. If one adheres to the concept that all rights must be respected, one cannot be in favor of forceful interventionism. To me it is clear that to advocate both is utter and blatant cognitive dissonance.
Last edited:
Instead, I'm going on about what I think. Hearsay is inadmissible right? :lol:
