WASHINGTON, July 27, 2014 — Almost unnoticed back on May 1 of this year Senator Bob Corker (R) of Tennessee introduced perhaps the most dangerous and most pernicious foreign policy legislation since the days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, fifty-two years ago. Co-sponsored by twenty-six Republican US senators and titled “the Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014,” bill S.2277 would place the United States in the position of beginning a new and very “hot” Cold War, and, indeed, in all likelihood starting a probable shooting war with Russia. The thoughtless British pledge to “come to the assistance of Poland” in 1939 pales in comparison. This legislation actually aims at war, pushes it to the forefront of American foreign policy.
Consider the following sections. The proposed legislation:
“Directs the Secretary of State to increase efforts to strengthen democratic institutions and political and civil society organizations in the Russian Federation.
Directs DOD to assess the capabilities and needs of the Ukrainian armed forces. Authorizes the President, upon completion of such assessment, to provide specified military assistance to Ukraine.
Expresses the sense of Congress that the President should: (1) provide Ukraine with information about Russian military and intelligence capabilities on Ukraine’s eastern border and within Ukraine’s territorial borders, including Crimea; and (2) ensure that such intelligence information is protected from further disclosure.”
Provides major non-NATO ally status for Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova (during the period in which each of such countries meets specified criteria) for purposes of the transfer or possible transfer of defense articles or defense services.
Directs the President to increase: (1) U.S. Armed Forces interactions with the armed forces of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia; and (2) U.S and NATO security assistance to such states.
Directs the Secretary of State to: (1) strengthen democratic institutions, the independent media, and political and civil society organizations in countries of the former Soviet Union; and (2) increase educational and cultural exchanges with countries of the former Soviet Union.”
Such legislation, if adopted, would not only re-start the Cold War, it would place the blame for such an initiation squarely on the shoulders of the American government and those mindless congressional leaders who buy into the belief that the United States has not only the right, but the duty, to impose its ideas of liberal democracy and equality on every country, however big or small, whether they want it or not, across the face of the globe.
On Tuesday, July 22, radio “talking head” Rush Limbaugh asserted that the United States–that is, the American government and its NGOs [American-sponsored non-governmental organizations]–had the obligation to do this around the world. We had, he stated, “earned that right, because of who we are.”
Such a viewpoint was not the view of the Founders of the American republic. The concept that the American nation had the duty and right to impose equality and liberal democracy globally would have struck most of the Founders with horror.
Indeed, such a view is not the view of traditional conservatism, as the acknowledged founder of modern conservatism in the early 1950s (and my mentor), the late Dr. Russell Kirk, stated on numerous occasions.
Here is how Kirk described this mania for humanitarian perfection and terrestrial equality under American tutelage that neoconservative and Republican leaders seek to impose on the rest of the globe. Such zealots, Kirk writes,
“suffer from the itch for perpetual change. Change in what direction? Why, change away from superstition (by which they mean traditional religion), from old customs, from established constitutions…away from local and national affections…change toward an arid rationalism, change toward emancipation from old moral obligations and limits…toward collectivism and total equality of condition, toward sentimental internationalism, toward a concentration of power” [Kirk, “The Mission of America,” 1987]
Already when Dr. Kirk penned his words, the ongoing infiltration of the “conservative movement” and the Republican Party foreign policy establishment by former liberals, self-denominated “neoconservatives,” was reaching a successful conclusion. Bitterly he complained that America’s mission in the world was to demonstrate here in the United States “the reconciliation of law with liberty,” and that what he termed “the democracy of degradation” proposed by the neoconservatives must be rejected. If the American nation were to be a beacon to the rest of the world, it must not be through “a patronizing endeavor, through gifts of money and of arms, to cajole or intimidate all the nations of the earth into submitting themselves to a vast overwhelming Americanization, wiping out other cultures and political patterns.”
Can anyone deny that this is, indeed, the object, the modus operandi, of current American foreign policy around the world today, whether in Ukraine, Iraq, or Afghanistan?
Once again it is clear that so-called “conservative” and Republican political leaders actually partake in the same philosophical base as their supposed opponents over on the professed Left. The establishment neoconservative movement and their GOP surrogates push for the same overarching destructive egalitarian goals as the Left. The dynamic that both the Left and neocon Right champion is one of unlimited human progress. Certainly, establishment conservatives and Republican leaders would qualify their belief in universal equality and democracy, and attempt to define the terms a bit differently. But once the template of across-the-board equality is accepted, once the belief that “America was founded on the idea of equality” is maintained (to quote Glenn Beck recently on his radio program) and that this should be imposed everywhere, real opposition to the clear-sighted impetus of the Left eventually disappears, and what is left for so-called “conservatives” is arranging the chairs on the decks of the Titanic.
Russia now stands in the way of the implementation of this vision. You see, Russia does not respect “the rights of homosexual minorities”— Russia has practically outlawed abortion—Russia has enacted strongly pro-family legislation and demanded that all its high school students be taught traditional Christian values—President Putin has embraced the traditions and positions of the Russian Orthodox Church. Such “reactionary” and “backward looking” views are a “no-no” in our modern, controlled, managerial world. Perhaps even more grievous, Putin has attempted to free his country from the domination of Wall Street international capitalists who have no allegiance to any country, but only to their profit line and the ability to control the world’s economy.
These offenses are unforgivable as we descend each day further and further into the iron grip of the “New World Order.” By no means is Vladimir Putin a model “Christian statesman”; there aren’t any of those left in our benighted world today. But he has, in his own nationalist way, struck back at the cancer of the New World Order, and for that he deserves the thanks of genuine and conscientious American patriots.
Sadly, the John McCains and Bob Corkers of this world, along with the zealous Fox talking heads, have already made their peace with the Beast, advancing its cause. Senate bill 2277 is the latest and most dangerous step yet in their unnatural desire for war. It must be opposed.