Why, Oh Why, America?

For those of you who do not like to read articles which are "too long" Stop Here.

For the rest of you, click on the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/10/AR2011021005339.html

And for all of you, let me be plain. This, the idea that we should have such a thing as a "Freedom Doctrine" is spitting on the graves of the men who founded this country. Let me quote from a great man: "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop." That is, of course, George Washington, upon leaving office after serving two terms. And it was the opinion of many at that time we continue to uphold his ideals.

Of course, shortly afterwards, the country split into political factions (again, against his warnings; by the way, you can find his farewell address here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington%27s_Farewell_Address#8 ). And now, we find ourselves in the midst of this global economy, these ideals of multiculturalism and political correctness, and an entire smorgasboard of societal ideals which are supposedly all about defending freedom in the world and spreading the great idea of democracy. However, I must ask the question: is this truly wise, this global culture we are creating?

I will not deny that the beginning of this country was not a pretty one. There are many ideals, such as slavery and the many prejudices of those times against others, which are outdated and should be utterly condemned. It was a truly different world then, and the one we see now is supposed to be a much better one. But it is here where I have to ask if that is not through the perspective of, say, a rebellious teenager against parents who know better. Let me provide some examples.

Many will say that due to political parties and the Constitution we have a great system that, while not efficient, represents the people. But do they? When is the last time you called your congressman and gave him an idea which actually served a governmental function and was not just a way to gain something for yourself? Put forth your vote in a state legislature election? Do you realize the absolute largest amount of voters ever who ever turned out for the Presidential Elections was 63.1%? (http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm; http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html) I literally could fill up an entire book with historical examples of voter fraud, manipulation of the populace, and the multitude of reasons why insufficient voter turnout is not representative of the people. However, I will try and limit myself to a simple sentence: the main reason you cannot count on a simple majority, even in a constitutional republic such as ours, is that the level of voter education about the issues is generally insufficient. People, we have a very difficult time getting things right in our own country. How are we expected to spread democracy throughout the entire world?

We will leave that for now. Let's focus on something else, like the economy. It is seen by many as a sign of impropriety these days if a country does not aim to help it's neighbors, or those around the world if they are a "developed" nation (which is slightly amusing, as most developed countries send barely any money directly to people in need http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Aid_recipients._%24_per_capita%2C_2007.PNG). Oddly enough, what is described as "foreign aid" is usually a way for governments of wealthy nations to open new markets in developing countries. Regardless of whether or not this is the job of the government (which it is not, in a true capitalist society, which last time I checked is exactly what our founding fathers wanted us to be), this has brought on a gloabl idea that if you are not doing something to help your neighbors, you are not doing the right thing. Now, Do Not Misunderstand. I am not against helping someone in need. However, there are two points which things like foriegn aid, the "American guilt" we have in not helping others and how it is our obligation to give to these people completely miss. A) You can only give to someone else If And When You Can Afford It. B) You Cannot, say again Cannot, make it an obligation for someone else to give if they do not wish to do so. However, this has been done, and this is done with Our Tax Dollars. Any idea what the current budget defecit is? (http://www.usdebtclock.org/) Right now, it is about 1.3 Trillion Dollars. If you, the reader, were in debt equivalent to that on your salary, do you think anyone would advise you to loan Any More Money At All? I didn't think so. The pure and simple fact is that the US government is in debt, it overspends, and it does things with the tax payers money which the people have no idea it is doing.

But that is not the biggest issue. The government is not the problem in the economy or in any of these ideas. The biggest problem lies with you, Joe American. Look at the Debt Clock website carefully. The United States National Debt is at 14 Trillion Dollars. For a country of 300 Million People. We, as Americans, have forgotten the founding principles. I know, I said I would be brief. Well, here is the punchline: all of this information about elections and the economy and my points about foriegn aid tie back to the fact that Americans do not know how to be self responsible. As kids, we get angry with our parents when they punish us, rebel against them by doing stupid things, and eventually come to realize they were right. The problem, though, is that many Americans think that the government is their parent. They think that when they mess up and overspend or support an ideal which is not practical the Fed will bail them out and correct them. What all of these people forget is we have a government Elected By The People. As such, our government's decisions will reflect the decisions of a society which is so deep into national debt and so conflicted in its ideals that if it were an element it would be as unstable as Francium, (http://www.andyscouse.com/pages/francium.htm).

 My point is, we in this country should focus more on ourselves and not worry about other countries. This is what the great men who created this country wanted: a sanctuary, not tied down with foriegn influence, not divided by political parties, and certainly not a bringer of democracy to far off lands. It sounds cold, cruel, and heartless to many, but the simple fact is getting involved in the governmental affairs of other countries is neither wise nor helpful. Government is not a blanket which will save a society in need. It is a tool of the people to make sure they are a) well defended in times of war, b) upholding ethical laws which can be agreed on by the populace regardless of any prejudices or cultural differences, and c) maintaining the infrastructure. To put it another way: "The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his." (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html). This is not an opinion. This is a system which has been proven to work but by many is seen as too unforgiving and harsh. If that means that others will condemn me for the idea that America should be America and let other countries run themselves the way they choose to (as they have done and will do for all of time) then so be it.