Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Foreign Policy & News The Dangers of Jingoistic Intervention

While we have been conditioned that it is patriotic to accept a history that portrays our country in the best light possible, the real patriotism is looking at our history honestly and even critically thereby learning from the lessons of both the successes and the failures it provides. It is shameful, and perhaps even dangerous when we allow our history to be colored, misrepresented or manipulated to support ideologies, agendas, or causes. It is an absolute mistake to use patriotism as a factor in convincing the American People to choose a spirit of aggression and intolerance in policy making over the traditional values found within our Constitution and the Founding Documents. If we are to profit from the errors of the last century in particular, the we would come away from our history lesson with a very clear understanding that the United States has strayed extremely far from its foundation and it has costs us dearly.

In viewing the history of the Twentieth Century, we can quickly see that it was a century characterized by provocation and intervention; rarely did we contribute to widespread stabilization, but destabilization. We don’t consider that our popular history seems to be written for our consumption, portraying a very righteous and amicable nation that has sought only justice for the nations of the world, a view that is totally contrary to the facts of history. It is impossible for us to justify our national aggression by stating it is consistent in maintaining a peaceful influence. Such aggression is an anomaly of our traditional American character. Indeed, such aggressive intervention has proven to be a defect in our modern national character, one that is in a vital need for correction by returning to our foundational Constitutional philosophy.

In general, the American psyche, both politically and socially, has been distorted to reveal a lack of tolerance and respect for the rights of other nations while promoting our own version of self-righteousness wrapped up in a façade of Red, White and Blue while calling it patriotic. We cannot expunge our history through palpable evasions or distortions of the truth while maintaining that by doing so we defend our nation and uphold our patriotism; such mentality is a contradiction to all reason and indeed, the meaning of patriotism itself. Until we openly confess our political sins of the past it is doubtful that we can prevent their repetition in the future.

Militarism naturally lends itself to national expansionism and in ways we rarely consider, to that of the glorification of executive monarchism. We have seen the Machiavellian philosophy take root in this country, a philosophy that teaches that the State and its ability to render its power unabated is the real source of all happiness and security. It feeds upon the doctrinal plea that by strengthening the reach of the State it can, through the medium of militarism, provide for the necessary security of the People by spreading its particular ideological agenda and making the world safe for democracy. That philosophy however, ignores the primary source of our national security by subjecting our nation to the consequential dangers that such militaristic interventions entail.

The most important factor that is overlooked in this Machiavellian ideology is that the greatest source of national defense can be found by remaining entanglement free, although the indoctrination of the last 109 years has been effectively engrained, not only in the mind of the political apparatus, but also in the minds of the People themselves. There must be a rejection of Machiavellian ideology and the maxims that have blinded our national conscience to the point that we can no longer rationally see the options provided to us by the wisdom of the Founders. The Machiavellian Shibboleth should be considered an obsolete doctrine, dangerous in its application and perverse in the tenets of Jingoism that now dominates this current Administration. We must disavow such national war fetishes and the demands of imperialistic traits that promise security while not only failing to provide such security, but potentially decreases our national safety.

In our seemingly persistent denial of imperialism, we are simply being untrue to ourselves and through such denials we turn our backs upon those tenets that our Founding Statesmen ascribed, for our benefit, to this Great Nation of Liberty and Justice. When our politicians lay claim to a peaceful disposition while promoting the cry for intervention, they not only betray our national conscience, but deceive the People with such contradictions of traditional national principles.

Our history has been filled with threats, threats to our way of life, threats to our very existence and yet, while all threats should be confronted and treated with a rational response, instead there is a tendency to face the issue with a charge of reactionary emotionalism. In our nature we are afforded the ability to either look at our actions based upon reason or based upon fear. Upon reason, we shall always find a sense of rational comfort combined with responsible actions that ultimately benefit us as individuals and as a nation however, if we are given over to irrational fears then our actions risk betraying our overall security through reckless actions both domestically and on the foreign stage. We would do well to consider that our actions are connected to events from ages past and tie future consequences to the present.

A policy of interventionism is usually accompanied by a swell of national pride, promoted, as it were, by the State and its corporate sponsors, who are always the beneficiaries of such polices. It is rarely considered that a poor and potentially dangerous doctrine or policy, when consistently applied, will eventually embed itself deeply into the national character and influence that character in ways that will ultimately decrease all periphery vision, giving rise to unreasonable fears and trepidations that tend to blind other possible considerations. There has never, in all our history, been such a poorly defined doctrine as that we currently are witnessing with regards to our foreign policy. Its broad application has no real focal point, no perceivable goals and few effectual results that can be declared as successful in providing this country actual defense.

The common thread to all threats, throughout our history, has been the utilization of the fear associated with those threats, usually implemented by the government, to increase its own grasp of domestic powers or to expand its global reach. Militarism is developed and defined specifically by tyrannical aspects within governments to support their own arbitrary authority and through designing predatory ambitions for the scope of their power they extend their reach, usually into weak and relatively defenseless nations. The driving ambitions besides power are potential marketable resources that are usually closely tied to the perception of national self-interests.

Interventionist militarism has always promoted and utilized the development of pseudo-patriotism in the hearts and minds of the people to the point that they believe the push of military might is not only necessary, but a noble cause. Rarely is there the consideration that such actions are not only used to maintain and grow the institutions of militarism, but that they are usually inimical to our own security. Of course, it is always in the interests of the Militarists to win the conflict, but even when a conflict is won the consequences of even victory are rarely considered.

The entry of America into World War I is a perfect example of the effects of militarism on a country. Prior to our entry, both sides in the war had almost exhausted themselves to the point of suing for peace, but with the entry of America the war was extended and the results of the war changed the structure of power around the world. Additionally, our entry and the victory that followed set the stage for several events that not only promoted a domestic extension of our government’s authority, but also created events that would ultimately lead to the rise of Hitler and therefore WWII. Had America not entered WWI, both sides of the conflict would have settled for peace, Germany would have never faced the severe and shameful terms of the Treaty of Versailles, the economic drain of ruining reparations and decades of national impotency that would later give rise to the extremism of National Socialism. This government rarely appears to take into consideration the consequences of its actions, its policies, and its interventions.

Perhaps one of the most damaging results of our entry into the WWI was on the domestic front. The government created a truly massive propaganda machine called the CPI [Committee on Public Information] for the sole purpose of beating the drums of war, whipping the American public into an almost total acceptance of militaristic interventionism and repression of all dissent contrary to the war effort.

Those propaganda methods were extremely effective and they are still employed today by the government when seeking support for its militaristic agenda. The primary method utilized was fear and hate; fear of the enemy combined with hate, all epitomized by an inordinate demonization. The methods of the CPI portrayed Germans as the most dangerous enemy this country had ever faced, a threat to our way of life, depraved, brutal barbarians, intent of the destruction of our democracy and all freedom loving people around the world. Stories of atrocities and potential atrocities were common-place; the intent was to stimulate a national self-righteousness and complete indignation toward the enemy, it was very effective and produced the desired results within the minds of the people thereby making them pliable to the militaristic cause of the government. The CPI propaganda arm of the government had no qualms about the distortion of the truth or outright subversion of the truth and blatant lies utilized for the greater good of the cause and the expansion of American military might.

"So great are the psychological resistances to war in modern nations that every war must appear to be a war of defense against a menacing, murderous aggressor. There must be no ambiguity about which the public is to hate. A handy rule for arousing hate, is, if at first they do not enrage, use an atrocity. It has been employed with unvarying success in every conflict known to man." Lasswell-CPI

Obviously, it worked so well that it has continued to be used to this day. It is not hard to find the exact wording today as was utilized during WWI and WWII in describing the enemy and the potential extreme threat that enemy represents to our way of life. It also appears that the American people remain equally as sensitive to such methods today as they were nearly 100 years ago during the Wilson Administration. In such efforts, the government needs hatred to fuel its war machine and it is extremely skilled in presentations crafted to elicit those darker emotions among the People, all for the cause, the government’s cause, whether justified or not.

After WWI, the CPI remained a very useful tool of the government, but instead of war, it used the same methods against potential political opposition, to enhance factions and special interest that government sought partnerships with in order to gain a far more powerful position on the domestic front. It became government policy to use such tools to mold American public opinion to fit the views and requirements of the State.

The use of Militarism, and the propaganda tools used to support it, are contrary to the goals once espoused by this country and the traditions upon which it was founded. It is impossible for the traditional institutions of this country to continue if such tactics continue to influence and direct public opinion based upon certain agendas which may not always be exposed to the general public but are sold to them as an absolute necessity for our survival as a nation when in fact that may not be the case. Unless we are willing to not only maintain our Rights and defend our Liberties, we will lose them to a systematic distortion of truth created to generate a particular agenda contrary to our real national interests and the traditional Constitutional form of government.

“The abuse of official powers and thirst for dishonest gain are now so common that they cease to shock.”—Edward Bates-Lincoln’s Attorney General.

We have lost much to those who seek an agenda other than those upon which this country was founded and yet there remains a strong tie, and even a yearning that now compels the People to return to the traditions instituted by our Founders.

In Liberty,

Republicae-Seditionist