During the past eight years, the Progressive approach to foreign policy, which essentially emphasizes diminished funding for defense and dependence on international, rather than American leadership has been predominant.
An examination of how that philosophy has fared is more than an academic exercise. Former Secretary Clinton has pledged to continue the path begun at the onset of the Obama presidency, and a third party candidate, Jill Stein, has vowed to expand it even further.
Progressivism should not be confused with any past practice. The tenets of Progressivism are readily distinguishable from pre-Obama/Clinton/Kerry Democrat Party philosophy. Consider how these quotes from President John F. Kennedy would have been received at the 2016 Democrat convention:
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to insure the survival and the success of Liberty.”
“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
Obviously, a resurrected JFK making those statements at the DNC gathering this year would have been harshly booed and probably forced off the stage.
Former leaders who Progressives hypocritically point to as forbears would have been repulsed by the actions of the current Administration.
Now, there pfizer viagra cheap Learn More Here are a number of supplements taken to improve your physical growth. One just needs to choose reputed web medicine suppliers so that a happy deal can http://deeprootsmag.org/2015/10/27/fanning-the-flames-of-whitmans-subtle-electric-fire/ generic cialis in canada be enjoyed. The recommended dose of this drug is 50 milligrams, but the range of normal dosage is from 25 mg to 100 mg. that’s the accepted dosage by the Food and Medicine administration. viagra levitra viagra The order generic levitra their pharmacy store therapist or aesthetician is typically a cosmetologist with a state-administered license. Franklin D. Roosevelt was highly cognizant of the looming dangers from Germany and Japan, and began the process of preparing the nation’s industrial base for the challenge. In sharp contrast, the policies of the Obama Administration are geared for the exact opposite effect. Indeed, it is highly ironic that President Obama couldn’t find any “shovel ready” jobs for his “Stimulus” to invest in, and instead used that funding as little more than a thinly veiled gift to his political supporters. Meanwhile, he sought to close down crucially needed and unique defense industrial facilities.
Woodrow Wilson actively sought to impart a fair value system to the world; the Obama Administration has pandered to the worst offenders, most recently illustrated by the stunning delivery of cash to Iran, and the acceptance of Russian/Iranian hegemony in the Middle East. It shouldn’t be forgotten that the current round of fighting in that region, following the fall of Saddam Hussein, began with the rise of ISIS, which would not have occurred if American troops remained in Iraq, and Russian/Iranian support for the despicable Syrian regime of Bashar al Assad, who has used artillery and poison gas against his own people to continue his murderous rule. The President initially drew a “red Line” against Assad’s action, then completely ignored it.
The current White House has wholly abandoned the formerly bipartisan policy of not tolerating the presence of hostile international forces in the Western Hemisphere, a dogma extending as far back as President Monroe, and previously adhered to by Democrats and Republicans alike. JFK forced Moscow’s missiles out of Cuba, and President Reagan drove the Soviets out of Nicaragua. Now, that centuries-old and successful practice has been abandoned by the Progressive Obama/Clinton/Kerry regime. The Russian Navy is returning to Cuba, Russian nuclear bombers land and refuel in Nicaragua and powerful tanks have been sent there. Russia and China have established substantial military to military relations with several nations in Latin America, and terrorist forces are intimately involved in Latin American drug cartels.
Clearly, there is no logic in entering into conflicts that don’t affect American interests, or the cause of freedom. But repelling forces that do affect American interests and do seek to impose tyranny in the place of freedom are worthy of attention and action. Over the past eight years of Progressive rule, a premature withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq allowed ISIS to become the power it is today. A failure to confront, even diplomatically, Chinese aggression in the Pacific has led to a belief by Beijing that it can move surely towards complete hegemony over the region. A ludicrously weak response American response to the invasion of Ukraine has emboldened Moscow to believe it can restore the Soviet Empire.
As China, Russia, Iran and North Korea have dramatically ramped up their military strength and acted aggressively across the world stage, Progressive leadership in the White House has decreased defense spending and bent American will to international opinion.
The progressive belief in dependence on international leadership rather than American interests, meanwhile, led to the ridiculous American involvement in Libya’s regime change, which opened up a whole new area for ISIS and al-Qaeda to expand into, and eventually resulted in the Benghazi disaster. It is relevant to note that once international attention turned away from Libya, the Obama Administration also turned away, and wasn’t even interested in taking action to either defend our ambassador when he was attacked, or to take appropriate measures to respond, in order to discourage future assaults.
The Progressive record in foreign policy has clearly failed, and poses extraordinary dangers to America’s safety.