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.

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.

Isolationism, always new always fresh!

America is taking a short break from remaking the world.  This may have something to do with the last few attempts not being too successful.  Actually, they were failures, but is that any reason to stop trying?  It never has been and never will be over at Planet New York Times.

Back in October, Andrew Bacevich, West Point Grad, Professor of International Relations and History at Boston University wrote a long piece on the Times' love of adventuring.  It was exhaustive in displaying how the “Paper of Record” supports intervention and condemn Isolationism whenever it rears its ugly head.

Professor Bacevich exhaustively chronicles how Timesguys and Timesbabes are always fighting the eternal recurrence of “The New Isolationism” (TNI). The opponents of TNI are so numerous that if they could be mustered together, they could constitute and invasion force and head off to the next country we need to save.

The lads and lasses who hate isolationism so much never get around to explaining why the whole internationalism stuff is so great.  It's just that America hunkered down here is horrible in their view.

And this is of course the problem.  There really are not many isloationists.  It's that the op-edsters in the times get to define the terms.  I wish the Professor had come to grips with this as he wrote a great Neutralist column.  Neutralism is not turning our back on the world, though it is turning our back on running the world.

My favorite part of the article, his quote of James Traub from the 1991 NYT,

An op-ed by up-and-coming journalist James Traub appearing in the Times in December 1991, just months after a half-million U.S. troops had liberated Kuwait, was typical.  Assessing the contemporary political scene, Traub detected “a new wave of isolationism gathering force.”  Traub was undoubtedly establishing his bona fides.  (Soon after, he landed a job working for the paper.)

This time, according to Traub, the problem was the Democrats.  No longer “the party of Wilson or of John F. Kennedy,” Democrats, he lamented, “aspire[d] to be the party of middle-class frustrations -- and if that entails turning your back on the world, so be it.”

Anyone who wants to be part of Wilsonianism is either not bright, not sane or a charlatan.

Good work, Professor.  You don't have far to go to come out into the sunlight of Neutralism

Professor Bacevich' article has been posted a few places.  I read it at the Unz Review .