Posts Tagged Foreign Policy

It’s Just a Scary Word

Hearing Mitt Romney and the rest of the neocons ramble on about foreign policy is like watching an Adolph Hitler speech in 1939. Eloquent at face value, the scare tactics of a neoconservative foreign policy couldn’t contain more fallacies. But my favorite of this litany of spooky words is “Islamofascism.” The term, when left to its own devices, is an oxymoron at best. When used the in the phraseology of an ignoramus like Rudy Giuliani, the term becomes a hostile world of hate in American dialog.

It’s not that I do not recognize we have enemies abroad. Instead, it’s the way neocons inflict fear in a rather ignorant demographic. Giuliani said in 2007 that our enemies “follow a violent ideology: radical Islamic fascism, which uses the mask of religion to further totalitarian goals and aims to destroy the existing international system.”

That sounds scary, doesn’t it?

Of course, I’m sure there are some in the world, non-Muslims most certainly included, who wish to see the destruction of this “international system” that Mr. Giuliani speaks of. What that international system is, I’m not entirely sure. Perhaps he meant international trade?

Islam within itself is anything but fascistic. Fascism was a government system designed by Italians prior to Benito Mussolini’s reign in the 1930’s. Fascism was a response to the failed democratic experiment in Weimar Germany after the First World War. Mussolini sold the system as a necessity for Italians to progress away from democratic failures and stimulate the Italian economy through unity. The idea of the collective being a dominant force against the individual sold rampantly throughout Europe, but especially strong in a weakened Italian state.

Fascism was a term that originated from the Latin “Fasces” which meant “bundle” or what ancient Romans referred to as “a bundle of tightly packed sticks.” Analogous to the collective, a bundle of sticks represented a bundle of people, in which the individual stick, or person, was ineffective in relation to a group that sacrificed individual freedoms for security (sound familiar?). This security was economic and national.

Islam, on the other hand, by nature is very market-driven. In Islam’s early beginnings, hundreds of “Silk Roads” littered the Arab world where trade and commerce dominated the climate. Sultans and Caliphs often appointed a “muhtasib” who served as a market supervisor at bazaars to eliminate fraud and ensure a balanced and fair trade. They were officers of public morals. Today, several Middle Eastern countries function through heavily regulated and restricted markets due to a hundred years’ worth of interference from the West. From British and French conquests of Arabia and North Africa to the manipulation of oil markets and the propping up of rogue states in the Middle East, the United States has manifested “Islamofascism” for itself, if it even exists.

Our enemies abroad don’t necessarily even have an economic policy as they’re more concerned with the withdrawal of American occupation troops. And of course, you’ll always have the crazies of any movement or organization who call for total destruction; however, I feel that even leaders that neocons dub as enemies and threats like Muqtada al-Sadr understand that state boundaries exist for reasons and the United States isn’t going away as a superpower anytime soon.

To call our enemies abroad “Islamofascists” is awkward and wrong on historical, philosophical, and political bases. Fascism is a European invention, exported by the West under the mask of regime change, and requires the total surrender of a nation’s economy to the government. The Kuwaiti government actually pays its people to live in Kuwait (kind of like reverse fascism). Fascism is a government system that denotes total control of a state’s economy. I highly doubt our enemies abroad are concerned with economic policy when half the Middle East is in flames due to an insurgency angered by the presence of American soldiers harassing their property. Islamofascism is a scary term at best, misused by political figureheads to promulgate their own agendas abroad.

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Tom Vendittelli: Finally, A Candidate I Can Support

On January 20th, 2009, Barack Obama told us not to question whether government is too big or too small, but if it works. Well, it’s no coincidence that a government that continuously grows, continuously fails as well. The Democrat solution to societal problems is more intervention. They have successfully developed a Keynesian take on economics and a Leviathan take on government as a whole. When markets “fail,” they say we need more regulation; and the regulation passes with little legitimate opposition. The sad part to the story is that we’ve been heavily regulating markets since the turn of the last century. From the creation of the Federal Reserve to the Wall Street bailout, government’s sole response to any problem is more regulation. The practices of free market Austrian economics of the 19th century are but a footnote in history text books. Those who tell us that the “free market has failed” are ignorant to the fact that we haven’t practiced a free market in over a hundred years and every financial downturn we experience today is a direct result of government intervention in the market. Crony Capitalism has friends from both the Left and the Right. And Republicans are still no better than their Democrat counter parts in most instances.

Republicans in the past century have increased the size of the Federal government in ways unimaginable by the Framers of this country. From increased healthcare benefits at taxpayer expense (See G.W. Bush 2003 Medicare Legislation), to undeclared wars of outright aggression, Republicans have taken the philosophy of small government and essentially threw it down the trash.

Third Parties today hold little legitimacy in the political culture of America. In States like New York, which have co-opted the parties, it’s extremely hard for Third Party candidates to get on the ballot and campaign. This system is flawed. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that Americans should be limited to a two-party system. What’s worse is that our “two-party system” has fortified what I like to call, the Republicrat. Both Republicans and Democrats have endangered our freedoms at home for their personal gain and the expansion of big government. So, in essence, Americans have little choice in the system and that is why I outwardly encourage Third Parties to rise. A more diverse political setting will give Americans more choice in representation and will also shake and challenge the establishment in DC.

Tom Vendittelli, Candidate for Congress

Yesterday, I had the privilege of meeting Congressional Candidate Tom Vendittelli, running on the Libertarian Party line in the 13th Congressional District which covers Brooklyn and Staten Island (gerrymandering? You bet). A young, enthusiastic champion of liberty, Tom expressed his distaste for establishment politics and wanted his campaign to shake things in the political culture of New York. He pointed out one major flaw: it was lacking some liberty. For a city that is entrenched in a history of revolution, reform, and industry, most people in New York are so wrapped up in their 9-to-5 that government regulation and intervention seems either status quo or another obstacle to just go around before reaching their home or apartment to relax for the night. The Tea Party is ignored or laughed at and the small Tea Party that does exist is actually George Bush relic of neoconservatism at its finest; it’s standard hypocrisy. The Tea Party, which supposedly stands for limited government, apparently supports a very expensive, expansive, and interventionist foreign policy that has been “draining a third of the entire Federal budget that could otherwise be refunded back to the taxpayer,” said Vendittelli. And I couldn’t agree more.

Tom also brought up issues like the Federal Reserve, something Republican candidate Michael Allegretti knew practically nothing about. Vendittelli told me of a time he ran into Allegretti and asked him what he would do about the Federal Reserve. Allegretti’s response? “Well… I know that the Federal Reserve is a bank… but that’s pretty much it.” And that’s pretty much what’s wrong with the Republican Party and the Federal Government. Little did Allegretti know the vast, unchecked power that the Federal Reserve has. It audits itself every two years, has complete control over how much money is printed in the U.S., can take or give loans to foreign countries at its own discretion, and regulates interest rates without any forewarning, all at taxpayer expense. Vendittelli, who was aware of the Federal Reserve’s unconstitutional powers, knew that something had to be done with the political climate whereas Allegretti did not. A Congressman should, at the very least, have expansive knowledge of the monetary beast otherwise known as the Federal Reserve. The system plays with your money, the fruits of your labor and Congress should be seeking to protect your property, not devalue it. Vendittelli understands this concept whereas Allegretti does not.

Tom Vendittelli was a genuine individual with a knack for political philosophy that you otherwise don’t get in New York. He’s extremely principled in the ideals of liberty and economic freedom and comprehends the notion that a large government equates to a restricted marketplace, something New Yorkers are being choked by on a daily basis. I know Tom Vendittelli is getting my vote. The other establishment hacks have already proven themselves to be… establishment hacks. To all my conservative and Republican friends, please remember that conservatism as a political theory is deeply rooted and founded in the tenets of libertarianism. I fully support Tom and his efforts to run for Congress.

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Foreign Policy Handbook Issue 4 Released!

, ,

No Comments