Nationalism, Internationalism and the Future of the Republic
By Raymond Shipley
"Give me liberty, or give me death"
Politics in the United States of America has never been a two-sided debate: there have always been three. In our founding there wasn't liberalism and conservatism, as it was in England, but rather three men whose voices birthed their movements: Alexander Hamilton was the man of the banks and strong federal government; Thomas Paine was the radical that believed in revolution and complete upheaval of tradition; and Thomas Jefferson was the voice of the yeoman farmer and small government. It should surprise no one that a trio exists today as well in progressivism, conservatism and the newly minted neoconservatism.
Progressivism vs Conservatism
Progressivism was originally the idea of progressing towards a civilized society, away from barbarism. Advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization were seen as vital to improving the human condition. Investing all into improving the lives of all humankind can easily be seen as noble, and in fact progress has never been shunned in American society. However, in the methods chosen for this progress lies its weakness. Progressivism demands an ever reaching, ever stronger centralized government in order to engineer the human condition rather than individuals progressing themselves. It should go without saying this immediately runs afoul of the US Constitution and its separation of powers. Although the concept of progression is worthy in itself, it should be private individuals, not public institutions, that progress using tradition as the platform from which to ascend.
In opposition to big government progressivism is conservatism. Conservatism in the United States, as defined by Wikipedia, is "rooted in the American Revolution and its commitment to republicanism, sovereignty of the people, and the rights and liberties of Englishmen while expelling the king and his supporters." Moreover, a conservative is "someone who rises above his personal self-interest and promotes moral and economic values beneficial to all," according to Conservapedia. Rooted in the principles of personal responsibility, moral values and limited government, conservatism demands progress of the individual as the basis for societal progress, not the reverse. To quote Ronald Reagan, "The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom."
If anyone were to note this has hardly been what "conservatives" have been doing in Washington for the past 30 years, they would be right. Seemingly endless wars with Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and the impending conflicts with Iran and ISIS have been largely orchestrated by conservatives. Likewise, the Patriot Act, amnesty and big government welfare programs have also been implemented, championed and expanded on by supposed conservatives in our government. So, what's going on?
Neoconservatives have controlled the Republican Party since the conservative Ronald Reagan was forced to accept one of their ranks, George H.W. Bush, as his running mate in the 1980 election in order to avoid the wrath of the growing neocon movement. But what is a neoconservative if not a conservative?
One need only look at the actions of neocons in US politics to identify what is their platform. Big government, interventionism and hostility to religion and morality in politics and government is the truth of neoconservatism. Meaning "newly conservative", this movement is not conservative at all, but according to Irving Kristol (father of Bill Kristol) in his book "NeoConservatism: The Autobiography", they are actually adherents to the philosophy of Leon Trotsky and thus not conservative at all. These left-leaning "conservatives" infiltrated the Republican Party in the 1970s, after George McGovern won the Democratic nomination and they felt their influence wane. The neoconservative big government and internationalist world-view is easily identifiable by their involvement in the Council on Foreign Relations, desire for a North American Union with Canada and Mexico and their circumvention of Congress in actions of war, sending US troops into battle based on United Nations resolutions rather than at the discretion of our own elected officials. Hardly conservative and truly RINO.
The Future of the Republic
The trio of American politics has thus become two internationalist ideologies combining to crush the nationalist, and this simply cannot be. Internationalism is a pipe dream, and one that will spell the end of individual liberty and the culture that revealed that as an inalienable right to all humankind. During the 2016 primaries the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, "humiliated the neocon's insistence on the Iraq War, exposed the neocon claim of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as a lie, and routed the neocon-supported Marco Rubio in his home state of Florida by a wide margin" (Conservapedia). Moreover, it has been Bill Kristol, son of Irving Kristol, that has spear-headed the "Never Trump" movement. Clearly the neocons see the Republican nominee as a threat to their internationalist agenda.
Simply put, Donald Trump must win the presidency of the United States in order to uphold not only the possibility of a truly conservative ideal, but to preserve the United States as a sovereign nation. It is this author's hope the decision to choose Mike Pence as a running mate in order to unite the Republican Party will not have the same results as when Reagan chose Bush. Only time will truly tell, but when the choice is between guaranteed enslavement at the hands of an internationalist philosophy and a chance for individual liberty, I will take the chance every time. "Give me liberty, or give me death."