Reds Under The Bed Redux

A late friend of ours was an old time lefty who saw the Soviet Union as if not a workers’ paradise, at least morally superior to the U.S.  One of his favorite phrases about American cold war paranoia was our fixation on “Reds under the bed.”

It was a bit overwrought, as we were engaged in a struggle with an entity that gave as good as it got. We might have avoided the long cold war, but it was a real conflict.

It must have been fun as we seem to  be in conflict with the Russians again.  It may no longer be the U.S.S.R.  There is a pile on and as Jimmy Durante would put it, “Everybody wants to get into the act.”

It’s serious as God himself wants to find some reds under the bed.  Morgan Freeman, is taking time off from playing the almighty onscreen to descend to opine on international relations   With his tinsel town buddy, Rob Reiner ,are celebrity members of The Committee to Investigate Russia.

We at the Neutralist have a funny feeling that God, er Mr. Freeman is not going to be working on any studies, looking up footnotes, etc., nor is Mr. Reiner.  Not that they don’t care about what Russia is doing to our democracy.  We are upset as well.  Listen Putin, we are capable of screwing up our democracy by ourselves, so butt out.

Just because a couple of thespians provide window dressing does not mean there is no depth to this important committee.  There isn’t any, but Reiner and Freeman are not the reason.

The problem is outlined by Leonid Bershidsky at Bloomberg View in his article, Wanted: Russia Experts, No Expertise Required.  His subtitle, Jingoism has replaced scholarship and a spirit of real inquiry when it comes to Russia. That's a mistake, says it all.  The fanaticism of the anti-Russki crowd means study and reflection are out of place.

The group has Clapper, but under a better system he would be in disgrace for perjuring himself before Congress.  The chickenhawk Max Boot is on the team, but really, do we have to treat an Iraq invasion tout with any seriousness?

Take some time to read Mr. Bershidsky.  From our rather shallow research into the man (wikipedia) it appears he is no Putin toady.

Follow us on Facebook.

Laurence M. Vance on An America First Foreign Policy-Finally someone uses an N word (Neutrality) well!

I have been reading Laurence M. Vance for years and he is reliably anti-intervention.  Like many others, he has just never got around to standing up for neutralism.  Of course this is a quibble on our part as too many tar the anti-war crowd as Isolationists.  The implication is we all are fortress America types which is ridiculous but useful for war mongers.

My guess is that mr. Vance has never been against the idea of neutralism, but has never exactly found a need to use the word.

At The Neutralist we feel it is important to seek a neutralist ethos like Switzerland's otherwise we shall just lurch back and forth from foreign adventure to reaction.  Granted there has not been as much reaction now, but it is probably building.I have been reading Laurence M. Vance for years and he is reliably anti-intervention.  Like many others, he has just never got around to standing up for neutralism.  Of course this is a quibble on our part as too many tar the anti-war crowd as Isolationists.  The implication is we all are fortress America types which is ridiculous but useful for war mongers.

My guess is that Mr. Vance has never been against the idea of neutralism, but has never exactly found a need to use the word.  As we at The Neutralist have not read everything he has written, we may be doing him an injustice and regret that.

At The Neutralist we feel it is important to seek a neutralist ethos like Switzerland's otherwise we shall just lurch back and forth from foreign adventure to reaction.  Granted there has not been as much reaction now, but it is probably building as our current adventures are failing.

So, it was wonderfully refreshing to read Mr. Vance's column of September 1, 2017, An America First Foreign Policy at Explore Freedom at the Future of Freedom Foundation's website and come across this paragraph:

An America First foreign policy would be one of neutrality. The United States regularly takes sides in civil wars, territorial disputes, and controversies in other nations, in addition to picking winners and losers. It should instead remain neutral. Neutrality guarantees a noninterventionist foreign policy. It checks presidential power, it prevents hatred of America and Americans, it doesn’t create enemies and terrorists, it respects the sovereignty of other nations, it keeps U.S. soldiers from dying unnecessarily, it doesn’t cost anything, and it ensures that the military is not misused. Not remaining neutral does not put America first.

Indeed, at the Neutralist we doubt we would be hard put to come up with anything as succint to explain our position.

Well done Mr. Vance.

Is this why Bannon was fired?

 "As Steven Bannon, President Trump’s former “Chief Strategist,” is quoted as saying, “There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.”  That may explain why he was fired. "

 The above quote is from MAYDAY KOREA! by William R. Polk (Part 2)

William R. Polk went into the history of our Korean involvement in Part 1 (link here) and in Part 2 looks at the situation as it is and our options.  Both parts deserve a read by everyone.

Now, the Neutralist thinks Mr. Polk is a wise man, but believes the wisest policy is to leave.  We hope that Trump is playing a deep game in showing what a truly stupid policy is to get people on board with a smart policy.

Of course, the guy who said something smart had to go.


Follow The Neutralist on Facebook.