“Avoid Political Alliance”

Today’s silly and ignorant crop of U.S. politicians seems to walk around with the assumption that the Founding Fathers had quaint, late 18th Century ideas that are no longer relevant to today’s bigger and more complex world. This assumption is false. Technology and weapons become more sophisticated, but human nature never changes.

George Washington was a far wiser man than most of the guys now residing in the city that bears his name could ever dream of being.

American foreign policy wonks and Congressmen such as Lindsey Graham insist on ignoring the sage advice that President Washington gave in his Farewell Address of 1796, printed in Claypoole’s American Daily Advertiser on September 19, 1796.

I have placed passages in bold that strike me as especially relevant to today’s state of affairs.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

America’s interventionist foreign policy wonks do not serve the interests of the American people, but those of defense contractors, bankers, lobbyists, and themselves.

Thinking about this reality, I can’t help wondering about the curious trips that Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Amy Klobuchar and others have made to Ukraine to fraternize with its politicians and soldiers. President Washington made it very clear what he would have thought about such junkets.

The United States has a great ocean on either side of its continental territory and the biggest navy in human history to patrol these oceans.

Europe has continually engaged in “frequent controversies” of the sort it engaged in during the pointless Napoleonic Wars of 1803 to 1815, as well as innumerable other wars during the 19th Century. The U.S. stayed out of all of them.

It was only when bankers, industrialists, and weapons makers acquired undue influence over foreign policy in the 20th Century that the U.S. government started intervening in Europe’s “frequent controversies.”

Washington’s exhortation to “Avoid Political Alliance” was an extension of his reflections on international relations.

In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and in tractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.

Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation prompted by ill will and resentment sometimes impels to war the government contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject. At other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim.

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opin ion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak toward a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

I will gladly debate any academic or politician in this country who asserts that President Washington’s advice is no longer wise and tenable for our nation.

Author’s Note: If you found this post interesting and informative, please consider subscribing to our Focal Points newsletter. For just $5.00 per month, you can really support us in our tireless effort to investigate and report the truth of what is going on in our world. You won’t find this kind of reporting and analysis in our mainstream media.

Many thanks and best regards,

John Leake

Subscribe now

Share