My Aunt Joanna sent me an article today reprinted from www.Mises.org Ralph Roico wrote it in 1995, but it's pertinent still. It's called America's Will to War: the Turning Point. He describes a military expansionism beginning in the late 1900s which was contrary to the spirit of America's founding fathers.
I wrote my first major paper ever in high school on "American Involvement in the Spanish Civil War." My history teacher told me when I turned it in that she found it an odd title, since America had been officially isolationist in that conflict. She learned from my paper that while that was the official political position, many Americans were engaged in the conflict. The "Lincoln Brigade' were American fighters opposed to Hitler's expansionism. Ernest Hemingway placed his novel For Whom the Bell Tolls in this setting. Hitler supplied Franco's regime with weapons, and tested their new weapons in Spain against the 'freedom fighters,' to be used not soon after in other parts of Europe. I think this is indicative of the 'American' experience. We have been 'engaged' in conflicts many times in ways not 'official,' even clandestine to the American public. Another example is the trainers on the ground in Vietnam not long after the French left. I imagine we have CIA operatives in Libya and other places in North Africa already, though no ground war is declared. I had a church member some years ago who was an army ranger working for the Defense Mapping Agency, which is headquartered in Saint Louis. Though he of course did not tell me so, I deduced that he and his comrades regularly were sent secretly into potential future war zones to map terrain, or to 'assist' other nations.
Yes. I believe America is militarily engaged beyond our sustainable capacity. Nothing else (except maybe the rising cost of health care) presses the federal budget more. We have already spent as much as $6 billion in Libya, while Congress quibbled over $38 billion vs. $60 billion total in 'paper' cuts for the balance of fiscal 2011.
But why? While Roico says it was earlier, I think World War II was the major turning point. First, there was the humanitarian crisis. I think most Americans feel it is immoral to allow a government to annihilate whole populations. But of course, we have intervened some places and not others. Why? Because the second motivation and criteria is economic. Uganda, for example, represented no great economic interest. Raico hits on this point: "This policy by no means entailed the "isolation" of the United States. Throughout these decades, trade and cultural exchange flourished, as American civilization progressed and we became an economic powerhouse. The only thing that was prohibited was the kind of intervention in foreign affairs that was likely to embroil us in war." I think he and I differ in perspective a bit, though maybe not as much as you might think. I think behind the scenes we were very much 'embroiled' well before World War II, for the very purpose of economic expansionism on the part of American corporations. We Americans greatly benefitted as our economic strength grew well into the past decade. But as Roico points out, we have increasingly been 'embroiled in war.'
I think the big change is that we really no longer have an "American economy.' The economy is global. the corporations, American in rootage, are no longer 'American.' But they still enjoy the level of influence they have developed over previous decades. Our campaign financing system favors their influence. Leaders who seek to govern in the interest of the general American public or even the general global public, whether Republican, Democrat, Socialist or Independent, have to cow-tow to global corporate interests. The underlying assumption, which Roico seems to advocate, is that what is good for these global corporations is good for the American public. I just don't agree with that. I think the whole system and situation has changed. I think we have to find effective ways to rebalance the 'common good' (which now is global, not 'American') with corporate profit motive. I do NOT believe capitalism is always going to work in the best interest of citizens. Often, yes. But not always.
So, the big decision our Congress now faces is to what degree we will continue to put the marbles into military expansionism to protect corporate expansionism. Roico and I agree, I think, that we can't stay on this path. I agree with him that business mostly wants 'peace and quiet.' Stability and predictability are in the best interest of business. But we now live in a future-shock world. Like it or not, I think, those days are over. Everything changes too quickly, over and over again. I think business adapts better than government, and increasingly government leaders are learning from business leaders.
We religious leaders need to regain our influence, even in this increasingly secular environment, for the good of all. You would expect me as a clergyman to place priority on what I believe is the most important concern: core values. I find across the political spectrum people of sincere faith are committed to protecting human rights, protection of the environment, government which is truly representative of people for the common good, and economic sustainability over quick corporate profit. I appreciate Jim Wallis' work and writing. Consider reading his recent book, Rediscovering Values: A Moral Compass for the New Economy. In think Wallis' greatest contribution was in one of his earliest books, The Call to Conversion. He challenged us to grow to see religious conversion not so much as just personal faith acceptance, but as life-long turning of our lives toward the common good. Methodism's founder John Wesley called in Sanctifying Grace. What do you think? Can we convert the world's approach to politics and economics? I think so. Jesus called it The Kingdom of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment