Why The Neutralist? The term Isolationist implies a narrow Fortress America outlook and is used as an epithet. The term Neutralist does not indicate someone hiding out from the world. No one calls the Swiss isolationists. The Wilsonian world view is old, tired and wrong. Our interventions have been less and less successful and now the failure can no longer be covered up.

Friday, January 27, 2017

I love ya Bill, but can't we give a nod to the good n word instead of the i word?

Over at the Spectator, Bill Kauffman has a lovely article entitled Isolationism is a noble American tradition.  He goes over the reasons that non-intervention is better than the eternal save the world stuff that is our foreign policy.

As to his use of the word "Isolationism" he uses it better than most people who say they are isolationists.  Even he, if we could ask him, might admit neutralism is a better choice, at least we hope.

So go read his article and just try to squeeze out Isolationism and replace with Neutralism.

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Mike Whitney nails it, The Trump Speech That No One Heard at Counterpunch

It looked like business as usual for the foreign policy establishment back in 2015.  Jeb was being set up to lose gracefully to Hilary and war and mayhem could continue in foreign lands as usual.

A funny thing happened on the way to the continued status quo.  That funny thing was Donald Trump.  We at the Neutralist kind of laughed at first as well.  However, anyone who is anti-intervention has to be guardedly hopeful.

Trump has come close to a sensible foreign policy as anyone in recent times, such as maybe Grover Cleveland.  Not a high bar that.

Mike Whitney at Counterpunch has noticed that our new pres made a sensible speech.  Unfortunately, the press did not.  For those of you who have not read Mr. Whitney's article here is what the then president-elect said in Cincinnati on December 1.

“We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past…We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments…. Our goal is stability not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country [the United States]… We will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism …In our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will.”
As the Neutralist, we would wish he would just bring all the troops home and try not to let bad actors into the country.  Still, as a policy, it would be an improvement over the last several chief executives.  Who could be against such common sense?

No one except the foreign policy elite including such institutions as the Council on Foreign Relations and that pay for play outfit, the Brookings Institute.  No matter that our FP this century has been one screw up after another, they want to keep going to take over the world and run it for elite interests.

It has been a recipe for disaster and probably will be in the future, but let's repeat the mantra "Trump is dangerous.

Read Mr. Whitney's piece.  It is worth your time.