If Trump wanted to avoid foreign entanglements and choose a non-interventionist as Secretary of State, what 20 people might he consider? What 10 people? What 5 people?
It’s extremely difficult to draw up a list of non-interventionists who are also Republicans. Senator Mike Lee from Utah might be one. Try even to find mainstream Democrats who are non-interventionist.
None of the names that have been floated as Trump possibilities for Secretary of State are non-interventionists, names like Bolton, Gingrich, Giuliani and Romney. The neocon philosophy and policies are alive in the thinking of these men. They are Establishment, and Establishment stands for intervention, the national security state, pro-Israel, anti-Iran, anti-Putin, anti-China and militarism.
Other than Rand Paul and Ron Paul, who are the non-interventionists?
Unless Trump pulls a rabbit out of the hat, which is a possibility as long as the post remains open, his Secretary of State choice is likely to be Establishment and interventionist.
America has been thoroughly pro-intervention for a long time. This is reflected in the Congress and media. It is reflected in what the U.S. government does. It’s reflected in the near-absence of non-interventionists in politics. It’s reflected at present in the names being bandied about for Trump’s Secretary of State. Has this election altered that? Is this an event that raises the status of non-interventionism to a significant and notable standing in which foreign policy directions change over the next 4-8-12-20 years? This conclusion is highly doubtful. Let’s examine how non-intervention was treated when Rand Paul made some noises in its favor.
A short few years back, Rand Paul asserted some non-interventionist views. Immediately, editorials, articles and speeches appeared, like here, here, here, here, here, and here. Or one might turn to John Bolton’s article: “America’s new isolationists are endangering the West.”
These followed a predictable pattern designed to squash any political influence of Paul and destroy the non-interventionist position. You label the position as a threat. You call it isolationism, not non-interventionism. You exaggerate the threat. You fail to name the names of those who are taking the non-interventionist position, because you cannot identify them and you’re creating a false enemy. You instead tell a story of history in which isolationism is the anti-American force at work that, if it had succeeded, would have brought American defeat with it or allowed Hitler or Stalin to rule the world or some similar implication in which America would no longer be the exceptional Number One world power.
Editorials can involve as much in the way of counterfeit charges, distortion and fabricated story-telling as any fake news site.
Rand Paul’s position was no more than a small wisp of wind compared to the Establishment. The anti-Paul forces made out that this was a serious storm gathering strength. However, they could not name 20 allies of Paul or even 10 or even 5. They labeled the threat as isolationism. This fake charge enabled them to dredge up the history of isolationism and argue at length that it doesn’t serve American interests.
Six days ago, “Lawmakers voted 419-1 in favor of extending the Iran Sanctions Act, the foundation of a range of U.S. sanctions against Iran.
“The only vote against the bill came from Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky.”
Find me the non-interventionist bloc (much less the “isolationist” bloc) in the House of Representatives. It does not exist. Find it for me in the Senate. It doesn’t exist. You will find this: “Senate overwhelmingly approves Iran review bill in 98-1 vote”, and that no vote comes from a man (Tom Cotton) who wanted a stronger action, making it a treaty. Or consider this Senate vote in 2011: “By a vote of 100-0 the Senate passed its most stringent Iran sanctions bill to date.”
The modern media-oriented strategy to prevent an opposing position from rising is to characterize it and name it with terms that have negative associations. Label it early and vastly exaggerate it. Make a big deal of it. Act as if it’s about to rape our women. Then lynch it. Toss the historical book at it, indict it, judge it as an enemy to America and Americans.
8:58 am on November 21, 2016
