America’s anti-American foreign policy

This is one of the most insightful articles on American politics I have come across in quite a while. The title is “Anti-Americanism is the Foreign Policy of Fools”, but it’s his sub-title that more closely explains the text: Anti-Americanism is the only foreign policy that the American Left needs. The point is that the left has no foreign policy other than to oppose Republicans. It is simply a vehicle for domestic political advantage. The actual outcomes across the world are of no consequence other than in terms of whether or not it allows Democrats to win elections. But what makes this policy so profoundly striking is that at the centre of the political views of the left, and what gives it whatever consistency it has, is a deep and unabiding anti-Americanism. The article begins with an observation on Ben Rhodes, who by now should need no introduction.

Ben Rhodes knows next to nothing about foreign policy. He has no idea whether Iran will get nukes and couldn’t care less whether it’s moderate or not. He’s a failed fiction writer whose goal is “radically reorienting American policy in the Middle East in order to make the prospect of American involvement in the region’s future wars a lot less likely”. . . .

Rhodes sneers at the reporters whom he manipulated as knowing nothing. And he’s right. But he also doesn’t know anything. The condition is typical of an American left which has no foreign policy. It only has an anti-American domestic policy which it projects internationally without regard to its relevance.

What has brought Rhodes to prominence is his involvement in selling Obama’s capitulation to Iran.

The Iran deal had to happen to defeat “neo-conservatives”, the “war lobby” and whatever other leftist boogeyman was lurking around the premises. The men and women doing the defeating, like Rhodes, had zero interest in what was actually happening in Iran or what its leaders might do with nuclear weapons. They would tell any lie to help sell the deal because they were fighting a domestic battle of narratives. Iran wasn’t a real place. It was a fictional counter in a domestic ideological battle.

He provides another example from the previous Democrat administration:

Bill Clinton had no foreign policy. Like Obama, he viewed foreign policy in terms of his domestic conflicts with Republicans. He tried to engage diplomatically while retreating militarily. His botched intervention in Yugoslavia had strong similarities to Obama’s disastrous intervention in Libya.

The argument is that American foreign policy is, so far as the Democrats are concerned, merely domestic policy. The consistent theme is opposition to traditional American values which means opposition to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Anti-Americanism, like most prejudices, is a license for ignorance. By embracing a prejudice against their own country, Democrats have lost any skill at foreign policy that they once had. Instead of learning anything about the world, they resort to the easy answer of turning away from the confusing problems of other countries to blame them all on us. Anti-Americanism is the only foreign policy that they need.

Until now, the Democrats could maintain this position without actually damaging America itself although the damage elsewhere has been immense. That is no longer so. Either the policy will have to go or America will. It will be impossible for both to exist long term.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s