Isolationism

Rand Paul Revives “Nullification” From The Pre Civil War Years

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, obviously planning to run for President in 2016, is throwing down the gauntlet to President Obama, stating that he believes that the President is acting as if he is a King or monarch, and saying that any executive orders that the President issues on guns will be “nullified” by Congress.

There are a number of problems about this assertion by Rand Paul.

By bringing up “nullification”, he is forgetting that the Civil War was fought over precisely that issue, the concept of states rights, that a state could nullify laws or actions of the federal government. And that viewpoint lost the war!

Also, what does Rand Paul think he is going to do, other than “grandstand” to win the support of the extreme right wing in the Republican Party? There is no way that he or the Congress could “nullify” Presidential actions, particularly with a divided Congress and a Democratic controlled Senate.

Of course, Paul or someone else could move to impeach the President, and that could actually happen on totally flimsy grounds in the Republican controlled House of Representatives. But the ability to remove the President is less than zero, as without more than 45 Republicans in the US Senate, and the impossibility of gaining 67 votes for conviction and removal, all that Paul is doing is roaring like a “paper tiger”, making a lot of noise, gaining a lot of publicity, none of it flattering, and only stirring up further polarization and conflict.

Rand Paul, as many realize, is a nightmare, who will plague the Republican race for President in 2016; will never become the nominee of the party; and were he to do so, he would take the party and its future down with him.

Face the facts: Rand Paul is nutty, whacky, loony, and his libertarian and isolationist views will never carry the day in a national election!

Evaluating Woodrow Wilson A Century After His Election To The Presidency, And On His 156th Birthday Commemoration!

Woodrow Wilson, our 28th President, was born on this day in 1856, and was elected President in the four way race of 1912, running against Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Eugene Debs, arguably the most exciting Presidential election in American History.

The President with the least government experience, only two years as Governor of New Jersey; the only earned PH. D. to become President; the first President elected who grew up in the South (Virginia) since the Civil War; the President to face the greatest war crisis since Abraham Lincoln; the President who emphasized the importance of international affairs and the need for an international organization to promote peace; the President who was the culmination of the Progressive reform movements of the early 20th century; and the President who promoted successfully his domestic agenda, and then took on Theodore Roosevelt’s even more advanced progressive ideas and made them his own—this President has also been bitterly attacked by many for his shortcomings in many areas, and particularly has been viciously attacked by right wing conservatives, including Glenn Beck and George Will, who have torn his image to shreds.

Well, the question is whether the attacks on Wilson are fair and just, so that requires a careful examination of the positive and negative aspects of his Presidency.

Let’s start with the negative points that can be made about Wilson, and they are plenty!

1. Wilson was a white supremacist, despite his stellar education, and failed to treat people of African, Asian, and Latin American heritage in a dignified way, whether in the nation or with foreign nations overseas. His treatment of China, Japan, Mexico, Haiti and governments of other nations outside of Europe were treated in an insensitive and unacceptable manner, and he issued an executive order mandating segregation of the races in Washington, DC, and failed to recognize the contributions of soldiers of other than the Caucasian race during World War I. He legitimized and set back mistreatment of African Americans for another thirty years, until progress was made by President Harry Truman after World War II.

2. Wilson, inexplicably, opposed the woman suffrage movement, and had suffragettes arrested for disturbing the peace in their marches on Pennsylvania Avenue near the White House. Theodore Roosevelt had proposed this constitutional change in his 1912 Progressive Party campaign, but Wilson never moved in that direction on his own. Despite his opposition, the 19th Amendment was added at the end of his term in 1920.

3. Wilson had a horrible record on civil liberties in wartime, promoting passage of the Espionage Act, Sedition Act, and numerous other laws violating freedom of speech and press. He displayed total intolerance toward critics, once America was at war, and is regarded as one of the absolutely worst Presidents on the subject of civil liberties overall for his eight years in office.

4. Wilson was intolerant of opposition in Congress, refusing to work with Republicans when events worked against him, and tended to see things in religious terms, with him having God behind him, and often invoking religion in his speeches and comments. So he was seen as manipulative and deceitful in his actions and words that took us to ultimate war in 1917, and refused to negotiate on the Versailles Treaty after the war.

5. Wilson had a supreme, and self righteous ego, and this made him blind to reality much of the time, as when he had a severe paralytic stroke, but refused, along with his second wife, to keep Vice President Thomas Marshall informed, or to consider resigning in 1919-1921 so that the nation would have a President capable of leading the nation in the difficult post war days, when Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer led the Red Scare or Palmer Raids, another massive violation of civil liberties, which helped to spur the creation of the Civil Liberties Union in 1920. The nation was basically leaderless for a period of 18 months, as Wilson slowly recovered and even thought of running for an unprecedented third term despite his poor health.

Now to the positive side of Woodrow Wilson!

1. Wilson was the most successful President in domestic policy achievements up to his time in office, and only surpassed later by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s and Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s. He accomplished all of his original domestic agenda, including legislation that has stood the test of time, despite criticism by conservatives and Republicans over the years, including the Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Clayton Anti Trust Act, as well as the first attempt at so called “free trade”, the lowering of tariff walls on foreign goods.

2. Wilson also accomplished the passage of laws originally promoted by Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, including the temporary end of child labor, protection for some workers on hours, workers compensation, and the protection of the merchant marine workers who are employed on ships offshore. Also, the first real attempt at agricultural aid to farmers to encourage expansion of acreage and the buying of new equipment, was also an idea promoted by TR. Basically, Wilson adopted much of the Populist Party and Progressive Party agenda of earlier times, and brought Progressive reform to its peak in the period before the conservative 1920s.

3. Wilson dealt with a war that was the most massive for America in 50 years, and was skilled enough to keep America out of war for two years and eight months after World War I began in Europe, but his role in the eventual entrance of America is still highly disputed even today, seen by some as dishonest and deceptive, but praised by many others as the best one could have expected.

4. Wilson had a vision of a peaceful post war world, and saw an international organization, the League of Nations, as the most important accomplishment of the Treaty of Versailles, and was stunned by the rejection of the US Senate to any international commitment, with America going into isolation. But his vision came to fruition a generation after his passing, with the establishment of the United Nations, but with many conservatives and Republicans bitterly opposed today in the US involvement in that international organization.

5. Wilson comes across, despite his many faults and shortcomings as worthy, in the minds of most experts, to be rated in the top ten of all Presidents–number 6 in the C Span 2000 poll and number 9 in the 2009 C Span Followup poll, and this despite bitter condemnation by so many right wing sources who only emphasize the evil side of Wilson, and give him no credit for his accomplishments. There is no question, however, that he had an important impact on the growth of Presidential power, the exact reason why the right wing hates his guts.

This blogger and author understands the mixed legacy of Woodrow Wilson, but still sees him as an influential President, who still impacts America a century after his first election to the Presidency!

So Happy Birthday, President Wilson, a man we will hear a lot about as we commemorate the major events of his administration over the next eight years from March 4, 1913, to March 4, 1921!

Jon Huntsman: A Rare, Sane Voice Among Today’s Republicans In Foreign Policy!

Sane Republicans, the small number that seem to exist these days, should mourn that Jon Huntsman, the former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China, who was the only legitimate GOP candidate for President this year, before his withdrawal in January, was one of the few of that party to express the proper thoughts on the Middle East situation that blew up this week, with the death of the US Ambassador to Libya.

Huntsman said this is not the time for someone to be impetuous, to be reacting without all of the facts, or to suggest that foreign aid should be cut, or that we should withdraw from the region of the Middle East altogether!

This was Huntsman’s reaction to Mitt Romney’s impetuosity; to Bill Bennett’s justifying that impetuosity; and to Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s call for a cut in foreign aid and withdrawal from involvement in the controversial area of the Middle East—all signs of just how nuts much of the Republican Party has become!

There are Republicans who are silently, and quietly, whispering privately how crazy the Romney campaign has become, and all that they hear is that Romney and Paul Ryan are accusing the Barack Obama Administration of sympathizing with terrorists and the thugs that attacked the Libyan Consulate and killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others!

The incompetence and recklessness of both Romney and Ryan is literally terrifying, politicizing a national tragedy! And when the former Secretary of Education under George H. W. Bush (Bill Bennett) can double down on what Romney said after the first reports of the attack, and Rand Paul and other crazies can talk about losing all influence in the Middle East by punishing nations for the actions of a few, and even advocate total withdrawal and isolating ourselves, it makes one quiver at the thought of a Republican in the White House!

And when aides to Romney say that if he was in the White House, what happened this week in the Middle East would not have happened, one has to shake his head in disbelief, as if a President or anyone can control what goes on in other nations and prevent mobs or hoodlums from taking action, simply by the image of his presence! How egotistical and arrogant can someone get in the pursuit of becoming President, that his aides have the gall to state such an imbecilic assertion!

This is not the sanity of George H. W. Bush and his foreign policy advisers, or even the statesmanship of Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell!

This is the insanity of people who have no respect for foreign countries, no knowledge of the world, and no understanding of what the use of language can do in relations among nations!

How far the Republican Party has fallen, from an image of being expert in foreign policy, to one of total irresponsibility and looniness, and in so doing, giving the Democratic Party and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton the distinction of being the grown ups in the room!

Mitt Romney has dug a hole for himself that he will be unable to dig himself out of at the last Presidential debate on October 22, devoted solely to foreign policy. We will see the final disintegration of his candidacy on that evening, just 15 days before the election!

A Liberal-Progressive Mount Rushmore And A Conservative Mount Rushmore: Who Would Be On Such Mount Rushmores?

Last Friday, Joe Scarborough and MORNING JOE on MSNBC had distinguished historians assess which Presidents might be on a new, second Mount Rushmore, if such a monument were ever built.

This brought to mind the idea of who might be on a Liberal-Progressive Mount Rushmore, and who would be on a Conservative Mount Rushmore, if such were ever constructed anywhere in America.

This is mostly just interesting scholarly speculation, but here goes my suggestions for such honoring on both sides of the political spectrum.

LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE MOUNT RUSHMORE

Robert La Follette, Sr.–Republican Governor (1900-1906) and Senator (1906-1925) of Wisconsin–Mr. Progressive of the early 20th century and 1924 Progressive Party nominee for President.

George Norris–Republican Congressman (1902-1912) and Senator (1912-1942) of Nebraska–the most creative reform figure and longevity of the first half of the 20th century, a bridge between the Progressive Era of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Hubert H. Humphrey–Democratic Mayor Of Minneapolis (1945-1949), Senator (1949-1964, 1970-1978) of Minnesota, and Vice President of the United States (1965-1969) and Democratic Presidential nominee in 1968, who had the most creative record of promoting reform in the years after World War II throughout the 1960s.

Ted Kennedy–Democratic Senator (1962-2009) of Massachusetts, the fourth longest serving US Senator in American history, and the most creative reformer in the years from the 1970s until his death in 2009.

A possible alternative would be Democratic Senator George McGovern of
South Dakota (1922-2012), who ran for President in 1972, and was a major critic of the Vietnam War, one of the most decent men ever in American politics, serving in the Senate from 1963-1981.

CONSERVATIVE MOUNT RUSHMORE

Arthur Vandenberg–Republican Senator (1928-1951) of Michigan, who opposed the New Deal and was an isolationist in foreign policy through World War II, but then became an internationalist in support of the United Nations and President Harry Truman’s Cold War policy against the Soviet Union after World War II, and potential Presidential candidate twice.

Robert Taft–Republican Senator (1939-1953) of Ohio, son of President and Chief Justice William Howard Taft, promoted the anti labor union Taft-Hartley Act, promoted an isolationist foreign policy, and considered Mr. Conservative by his party, and a potential Presidential candidate numerous times.

Barry Goldwater–Senator (1952-1964, 1968-1986) of Arizona, succeeding Robert Taft as Mr. Conservative, and 1964 Republican nominee for President, becoming the hero of conservatives long term, and having an effect on President Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan–Republican Governor of California (1966-1974), and President of the United States (1981-1989), after a career as a movie actor, influenced by the principles and ideas of Barry Goldwater, who he publicly backed in a famous speech in 1964.

The author welcomes commentary on these selections!

With Ron Paul Having His “Surge” In Iowa, The Investigation Of His Record Begins!

Texas Congressman Ron Paul has been very appealing to libertarians, and was in fact the Presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party in 1988.

Having run as a Republican for President in 2008, the only repeat candidate along with Mitt Romney, Paul is presently first in some Iowa public opinion polls as the Iowa Caucuses of January 3 get closer.

So Paul is having a “surge”, as earlier Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich have had. Only Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman have not had a “surge’ as the search for the non Romney candidate continues.

So now that Ron Paul is being paid more attention, let us look at the facts about a man who has been around a long time, and has taken positions on all kinds of issues, meaning at least some will be seen in a positive light, depending on the person looking at Paul’s record. But there is plenty to be disturbed about!

But face the facts: There is no way that Ron Paul can be the GOP Presidential nominee, and if he looked as if he was going to be, there would be such a ganging up on him by the Republican Party, which despite its claims, is NOT a libertarian, isolationist party as Ron Paul basically is.

What is objectionable about Ron Paul, in no special order?

1. Ron Paul has in the past, in a newsletter he now disavows, but was under his name, stated racist, anti Semitic, and anti gay statements. While he is not the only Republican to make racist or anti gay statements, the fact that he said them in a newsletter many years ago makes him even more objectionable, since it is harder to refute.

2. Paul is for taking America out of the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and all free trade agreements. He is perceived as an isolationist.

3. He is highly critical of Israel, the only Republican candidate to be so, and yet does not see Iran as a threat for the future with the development of nuclear weapons.

4. Paul is for wiping out most government agencies and their bureaucracies, including Education, Commerce, Homeland Security, Energy, Health and Human Services, and Energy. He also would love to eliminate the Federal Reserve Board. None of this is going to happen, no matter what criticisms there might be of these agencies.

5. Paul promotes letting states decide most matters dealt with by the national government, and thinks climate change is a hoax, and advocates stopping interference with religion’s influence in government, including the teaching of intelligent design over evolution.

6. He is a strong believer in pro-life without exceptions; against any government intervention in the environment; any regulation of guns; and any aspect of affirmative action.

7. Paul opposes any kind of amnesty for illegal aliens, any support of any kind for them, and birthright citizenship for their children born in the United States.

8. Paul believes only in excise or sales taxes, and the wiping out of the income tax, and refuses to support any spending programs that create new debts.

Also, a study by a political science journal, The American Journal of Political Science, came to the conclusion that, overall, Paul has the most conservative voting record of all 3,320 members of Congress from 1937 to 2002!

So the attacks on Ron Paul as outside the mainstream, even of the GOP, is rapidly growing!

Ron Paul: The “Secret Weapon” Of Barack Obama In 2012!

Texas Congressman Ron Paul is Barack Obama’s “Secret Weapon” in the Presidential Election of 2012.

Ron Paul is the steady candidate, constantly improving his standing in the public opinion polls nationally, and in Iowa and New Hampshire polls.

He is the burr in everyone’s back, including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, and was an annoyance earlier to Rick Perry, critical of his home state governor in GOP debates when Perry was soaring.

He could take away the chance of Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney to win Iowa and New Hampshire, respectively, without himself winning the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary.

He could be the “bridesmaid”, instead of the “bride”. He is like someone’s uncle who is always present to annoy, but not able to take the number one spot.

With his libertarian economic and social viewpoints, and his anti interventionist (some say isolationist) foreign policy, Ron Paul CANNOT win the Republican nomination or win the Presidency, but he can decide, by being the annoyance in the race, who does win the nomination.

And then, it is clear that a repudiated Ron Paul could very well run a third party candidacy, as he did as the Libertarian Party candidate for President way back in 1988. Ron Paul is NOT a typical politician, never has been, but has a very loyal following among his supporters, many of whom are young and fanatical about him. He brings a different image to the race, totally different in so many ways from all of the other Republican candidates for the White House.

If Paul runs on a third party, he has the potential to take 5 to 7 percent of the vote, and be a spoiler for the Republican nominee.

No matter how one looks at it, Barack Obama is the ultimate beneficiary of a Ron Paul second or third place finish in Iowa and New Hampshire, and of an independent candidacy!

Republicans Start To Deal With Foreign Policy Finally! First Mitt Romney And Later Jon Huntsman!

The Republican Party has been busy trashing President Barack Obama and economic problems in America, but has failed to address the world scene and our foreign and defense policy.

Barack Obama has done a masterful job in many ways on the international scene, often seen as his strong point, particularly with dealing with international terrorism, including Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Many problems, of course, remain, including North Korea, Iran, China and the Middle East crisis. He has also had a masterful Secretary of State in Hillary Clinton!

But the question arises: Do the Republican candidates have any vision of how to deal with the outside world, considering that only former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman has had any real expertise, as former Ambassador to Singapore and China?

Well, now, Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts has announced in a speech at The Citadel in South Carolina, what is defined as a “muscular” foreign policy!

Romney calls for:

1. Increased Naval shipbuilding.
2. Strengthening alliances with Great Britain, Israel and Mexico
3. Keeping aircraft carrier groups in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean as a deterrent against Iran
4. Spending more on national missile defense
5. Renewed emphasis on diplomacy and foreign aid to the Middle East
6. Increased diplomacy and trade with Latin America
7. Figuring out how to deal with Afghanistan beyond 2014
8. Devising a national cyber security strategy

Romney calls for a “new American Century”, with aggressive and hawkish foreign policy reminiscent of Ronald Reagan and the two Presidents Bush. This is in contradiction of the Tea Party Movement followers, and the libertarian, isolationist view of Congressman Ron Paul, an opponent in the Republican Presidential contest and his son, Senator Rand Paul, as well as liberal Democrats who want to avoid military conflicts overseas, which Romney seems clear to be unwilling to avoid if it is seen as necessary to assert American power.

Romney’s doubt about working through the United Nations will also turn many off from his strong foreign policy and defense policy statements, and of course, the question will be how the costs of this new, bold foreign policy will be managed in the present budget mess we are facing as a nation!

Next week, Jon Huntsman will enunciate his views, as foreign policy goes from the back burner to the front burner of American politics, as indeed it needs to do. But the question is can Romney or Huntsman convince the American people that Barack Obama has not, overall, been successful in areas of defense and foreign policy?

One thinks that will be difficult to convince the nation over the next year!

The Iowa Straw Poll: The Triumph Of Illusion Over Reality!

The results of the Ames Iowa Straw Poll is proof that those who participated in the straw poll, a total of about 17,000 people, are living on hallucinatory medication!

The fact that Michele Bachmann won about one out of four voters, and that Ron Paul was a very close second, demonstrates that those who participated are far from the norm of America, as there is NO POSSIBILITY that either Bachmann or Paul will be the Republican nominee, and were either to be so, it would be the suicide of the Republican party!

Ron Paul’s libertarian view has no chance at all to carry the country, and his isolationist foreign policy, while appealing to many emotionally, would never gain the support of most Republicans in a nationwide race.

Michele Bachmann, who says God speaks to her, and tells her what to do, and that she believes in being “submissive” to her husband, is clearly someone who alarms those who believe in separation of church and state, and those who believe in gender equality, with the vast majority of modern women refusing to consider a candidate with her religious views of the role of women in 21st century America!

Yesterday was a day quite depressing for mainstream Republicans who are alarmed at what is happening to the party of Lincoln, TR, Eisenhower, and Reagan. But should, or will the votes of 17,000 right wingers in Iowa be enough to cause the party to commit suicide? That is extremely hard to imagine!

The Republican Party Again Doing What They Are Best At: Self Destruction!

The Republican Party has suicidal tendencies since the years of the Great Depression.

When the Great Depression began in 1929, the party in Congress refused to abandon laissez faire economics, and some even fought President Herbert Hoover’s attempt to provide some public works projects and federal aid through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

During the New Deal years of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the party stood in the way of reform and change and continued to decline.

As World War II came on, most Republicans were isolationists who failed to see the threat of Fascism and Nazism.

As World War II ended, Republicans set out to to weaken labor unions and set back the New Deal, and after two brief years in control of Congress in 1947-1948, they lost control and saw Harry Truman stage an upset victory in the Presidential campaign.

The party pursued the Joseph McCarthy anti communist agenda in the late 1940s and early 1950s, undermining America’s effort in the Korean War, but with a popular World War II general, Dwight D. Eisenhower, they were given another chance in 1952, and won back control of Congress, but with their conservative agenda, lost control again after two years.

From that point on, the party failed to gain control of Congress for 40 years in the House, and 26 in the Senate, and after six years of a divided Congress under Ronald Reagan, lost the Senate again in 1986 and for the next eight years.

Despite Eisenhower’s personal popularity, it did not transform into party control after two years, and while Richard Nixon won over a divided Democratic Party in 1968, he could not translate his victory into a Republican majority, and Watergate damaged any hope again of a soon to occur change in party loyalties and success.

Ronald Reagan managed a divided Congress with Republican control of the Senate for six years, but again it did not change party loyalties and success in the long run, and the party was bitterly divided during the administration of George H. W. Bush, with Pat Buchanan helping to divide the party and lead to the defeat of Bush in 1992.

Then in 1994, the Republicans gained control of Congress for the next twelve years, but Bill Clinton, despite personal problems leading to impeachment, was able to control much of the political agenda.

After the Republicans won the battle over Florida’s electoral votes with George W. Bush in 2000, it seemed as if finally they had become the majority party, but September 11, two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the economic collapse of 2008, took away any gains it seemed that the party had made.

While they won the House of Representatives in 2010, the emergence of the Tea Party Movement has now destroyed any chance of Republican success, as again they are seen as obstructionist in so many ways, and public opinion polls still see the party as to blame much more for the economic recession we are suffering through, rather than to hold Barack Obama accountable.

With an image of negativism, concern only for the rich and powerful special interests, isolationism, corruption, and obstructionism, the Republican Party is again in the process of committing political suicide, and relegating itself to minority status in American politics!

The House GOP, Barack Obama, And Libya

The House of Representatives, led by Speaker John Boehner, slapped President Obama in the face symbolically on Thursday by refusing to back the President’s intervention in Libya. Interesting, since we did not see the Republican House of Representatives refuse to back George W. Bush constantly in his interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But then when one realizes that the Republican House failed to back Bill Clinton in his intervention in Kosovo in 1999, for the same reason to prevent a total massacre of civilians, one understands this is all about politics.

But it also divides the party nationally, as John McCain and Lindsey Graham see it as a sign of isolationism in the party, in their mind a dangerous trend.

Also, the House acted as a “paper tiger” when they went ahead and refused to cut funding for the war effort against Moammar Gaddafi, but then again, NEVER has the House refused to support a President’s intervention in financial terms.

So it comes down to the reality that the War Powers Act is an ineffective way to deal with foreign policy, and the President of the United States, whoever he is, remains the Commander in Chief, with final control over decisions on committing troops overseas!