Tea Party
“Isolationist” is the new “Polarizing”: A Foreign Policy Primer
As a marketing copywriter, I am paid to influence my readers’ behavior (i.e., make them buy my clients’ stuff.) It’s my job to know how to do this, and I’m pretty good at it.
So when other writers are attempting to do the same thing–make their readers behave in certain ways, to further a political agenda–it’s laughably easy for me to recognize.
One of the Democrat-Controlled Media’s favorite slurs against Sarah Palin is that she’s “polarizing.” And it has been wildly successful. A Google search of the words “Sarah Palin polarizing” returns About 18,900,000 results.
When applying labels like “polarizing,” the goal of a propagandist is to subconsciously create a sense of unease or fear. Why? The emotion of fear creates a primal biochemical reaction that interrupts one’s ability to think rationally. So fearful people are much easier to manipulate.
Most propaganda campaigns also involve setting up an “other” purported to be unlike ourselves, whom we can hate and separate ourselves from. It’s a way of encouraging a “mob” mentality, as demonstrated most recently by the OccuPooper protests. (Their “other” is “Wall Street.”) Taken to extremes, this kind of propaganda reaches its “heights” when its used to literally dehumanize groups of people (such as Jews in Germany, or intellectuals in Maoist China).
The propaganda campaigns run by DNC surrogates in the media contain both of these elements–inducing fear, and splitting the bloc of voters who are likely to vote against Obama.
The DNC-controlled media did a masterful job of this with their successful attacks against Herman Cain, who was merely accused of engaging in behavior that is completely acceptable, if not encouraged, among members of the Democrat elite.
The DNC propaganda machine was also remarkably effective in labeling Sarah Palin as “polarizing.” Sarah Palin isn’t running, unfortunately, so the Democrat-Controlled Media has focused its propaganda machine on the GOP candidate most able to beat Obama in the general election, according to the latest poll: Ron Paul.
Except in Dr. Paul’s case, the DNC propaganda machine is pushing the “isolationist” meme instead of the “polarizing” meme. But the goal is the same: to cause fear, and brainwash voters into believing that they have to go with a “safe” choice like Mittens Romneycare. (Notice how often Gingrich and Romney are referred to as “safe” choices by the agenda-driven media–it really is an appeal to the unconscious biological drive to move away from fear.)
So today’s lesson in combating media bias is about the difference between “isolationism” and “non-interventionism.”
Most people reading this haven’t had any serious education in American history or philosophy, because we went to government schools staffed by members of the NEA. It’s up to us to educate ourselves so we can sift through media bias and hope to uncover what’s really happening and what the real issues are.
Most of us have never read George Washington’s Farewell Address, nor do we understand its significance.
For perhaps the first time in world history, the leader of a country voluntarily gave up power in an organized and peaceful transition. But he warned his countrymen to be wary of future attempts to seduce them into trading their liberty for the illusion of “security.”
“The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you….But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth…
In his Farewell Address, George Washington also advised the new Nation how to deal with other countries. Washington’s foreign policy view was that the United States’ prosperity and power would rise, not as the result of British-style militarism, but out of our morality and righteousness, in addition to our dedication to Liberty:
“Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct…It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.”
In other words, Washington expected the United States to be the “shining city on the hill,” a country that led by example, and a beacon to freedom-loving people around the world.
Washington pointed out that “permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others,” should be avoided, because
“The Nation, which indulges towards 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.”
Washington pointed out that heated public opinion either in favor of, or against, another country could lead U.S. leaders to make policy decisions that would ultimately hurt their constituents: the very people whose opinions they were hoping to cater to.
It’s impossible to deny that Washington’s warnings to maintain positive but neutral international friendships have gone unheeded; and it’s equally impossible to deny that we’ve paid the consequences in blood and treasure. As Washington said,
“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.“
Maintaining positive commercial relationships, freedom of travel, diplomatic relationships, cultural relationships and friendship with other nations–while remaining politically aloof from their internal affairs–is what George Washington advocated.
This kind of foreign policy position is called “non-interventionism.” It’s what Ron Paul advocates, and has advocated for at least 30 years.
In contrast, proponents of interventionism believe that the United States military and spy agencies, as well as economic sanctions and trade restrictions, can and should be used to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries.
In an outstanding piece called America’s Tradition of Non-interventionism, Chris Leithner notes that non-interventionism was America’s foreign policy for most of our existence. We minded our own business unless there was a national security threat so dire it could convince members of Congress to declare war and send their constituents to fight and die for their country.
And that’s why the Founders put the power to declare war into the hands of the House of Representatives–to ensure that the government wouldn’t embroil the People in unnecessary, unjustifiable wars.
Leithner says,
“Yet presently in America, as for most of the past half-century, few things provoke more indignation, ridicule and denunciation from political, academic and journalistic élites (as opposed to consumers and taxpayers) than scepticism towards America’s interventionist foreign policy.”
In 1982, American troops invaded Lebanon. Ronald Reagan was vilified for “cutting and running” after withdrawing U.S. troops from Lebanon in 1983 after suicide terrorist attack on a Marine barracks that killed 231 Americans. And yet, in his autobiography, Reagan admitted,
“In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.”
Pat Buchanan earned the propagandist label of “isolationist” during the 2000 presidential campaign. I recall being afraid of Buchanan’s views at the time, though I confess I did zero independent research and just accepted what the TV told me about Buchanan. (I’m embarrassed to admit this now.)
It’s chilling to read Pat Buchanan’s warnings against interventionist foreign policy. Just a year before September 11th, Buchanan predicted the future with startling accuracy:
“How can all our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution … Have we not suffered enough – from PanAm 103, to the World Trade Center [bombing of 1993], to the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam – not to know that interventionism is the incubator of terrorism? Or will it take some cataclysmic atrocity on U.S. soil to awaken our global gamesmen to the going price of empire? America today faces a choice of destinies. We can choose to be a peacemaker of the world, or its policeman who goes about night-sticking troublemakers until we, too, find ourselves in some bloody brawl we cannot handle.”
Now, the United States has 700 bases in 120 foreign countries and we’re at war (undeclared, but no less deadly) in four? five? conflicts. Clearly, for at least 60 years, America’s foreign policy has been one of interventionism (the last Constitutionally-waged war was World War II.) In the past 60 years, our military and intelligence agencies been involved in warfare and/or regime change in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Central America, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya…and I’ve probably left out a few.
So now we know what interventionism is, and we know what non-interventionism is.
So, what is isolationism? According to Wikipedia, isolationism is “the policy or doctrine of isolating one’s country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc.”
In most instances, isolationist regimes seem to also have an element of authoritarianism, necessary to keep its citizens from traveling to and trading with other countries. Probably the best current example of an isolationist regime is North Korea. (Isolationism also typically involves poverty, as protectionist trade policies are also often involved.)
Why is “isolationism” an excellent label for a propagandist?
First, most government-school graduates like me are ignorant of world history, American history, and philosophy. They don’t know what isolationism is, but it sounds scary. And lonely.
No one wants to be frightened and alone, and that’s the subliminal emotional baggage attached to the label of “isolationism.”
The “isolationist” label is also powerful because for a single word, it’s “loaded” and easy to use in conversation. In this way, it’s similar to the propaganda word “racist.” (That word comes with over 300 years of baggage.)
And finally, propaganda words like “racist” and “isolationist” are powerful because they cause conversation (and thought) to stop. That’s why “racist,” in particular, is such a go-to word for The Left.
Labeling Ron Paul an isolationist isn’t accurate by any stretch of the imagination. Even the most cursory examination of his foreign policy positions–easily available in his book on the subject, A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship
But labeling Ron Paul an “isolationist” isn’t about accuracy; nor is it about having a sincere discussion of foreign policy differences among the GOP candidates. It’s propaganda: it’s about manipulating emotional reactions and shaping voting patterns. Just like labeling Sarah Palin “a polarizing figure.”
The DNC-controlled media’s #1 job in the GOP nomination process is to ensure the nomination of John McCain II–a squishy reach-across-the-aisle so-called “moderate” who has no chance of winning against Obama. Everything they do is in furtherance of this goal. These candidates get the most airtime; they get the most debate questions, and they get the most deference from the DNC operatives who read the “news.”
Any truly conservative candidate–and especially, any candidate with a real chance at winning–is the subject of relentless propagandizing (see Sarah Palin and Herman Cain.)
The DNC-controlled propaganda machine has successfully eliminated these two possibilities.
Until very recently, their “Ron Paul’ playbook consisted of pretending he didn’t exist, which has become harder and more comical as he has risen in the polls. As they’re forced to abandon this “blackout” strategy, look for the continuation of two back-up strategies to turn Ron Paul and his supporters into an “other” to alienate Ron Paul from the conservative voting bloc: endless questions about a mythical, and consistently-denied third-party run (questions that no other candidate ever gets, not even Jon Huntsman, the one candidate who has said that he WOULD run as a third-party candidate); and labeling Ron Paul as an “isolationist.”
Since Ron Paul massively outstrips all other candidates (including Obama) in donations from active-duty military, these foreign-policy attacks may be easier to fend off. That leaves only the “third-party” propaganda option open.
Sarah Palin on Ron Paul Media Blackout, CBS Debate
H/T LambdaChi.org
The Democrat-Controlled-Media’s bias against GOP candidates who can beat Barack Hussein Obama is getting more apparent every day.
The most blatant recent example was the CBS/National Journal debate in South Carolina, where GOP Frontrunner Ron Paul was allowed to speak for only 89 seconds during the televised hour of the debate, receiving just one question. And Michelle Bachmann’s campaign was inadvertently copied on an email from CBS “News” prior to the debate, in which CBS “News” Political Director John Dickerson admitted that Michelle Bachmann “is not going to get many questions” in the debate (though she did get far more time than GOP Frontrunner Ron Paul).
This effort at media manipulation was so transparent that it became a story unto itself. The best exposé was probably this editorial in the New York Sun.
“A controversy has erupted over the fact that in the CBS debate on foreign policy Congressman Ron Paul got only 90 seconds….We’re not with Dr. Paul on all of his liberty campaign; as a general matter, he’s far too loath to levy the war on terror. But we have covered him on and off for more than 30 years and have come, even when we disagree with him, to respect him, particularly for his tendency to reach deep into the Constitution. He has done this on foreign policy in several important ways, starting with a bill he introduced in Congress within days of the outbreak of the war that erupted on September 11, 2001.
The bill was the first bid in generations to unleash one of the most important of the constitutional war powers, the letter of marque and reprisal, which is an instrument for bringing private parties into the war. The thinking that went into Dr. Paul’s bill deserves a hearing in any debate in which the GOP contenders are going to be grilled on foreign policy….”
The media blackout was even the topic of discussion the next morning on Fox News:
In an appearance with Greta van Susteren on Fox News, GOP Frontrunner Sarah Palin notes that Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum have all been the subject of media blackouts. And she also encourages GOP Frontrunner Ron Paul to keep educating Americans about economic issues:
I have a fantasy that involves Sarah Palin running as Ron Paul’s VP…because the Democrat-Controlled media would tear itself apart in an effort to destroy the ticket.
On the one hand, the Democrat-Controlled Media’s strategy to marginalize Ron Paul’s campaign demands that they downplay the huge crowds he draws at events, the fact that GOP Frontrunner Ron Paul is polling in the top 2 in Iowa and New Hampshire, the constant wins at straw polls, the fact that he’s #3 in fundraising among GOP candidates, and the #1 recipient of donations from active duty military.
However, we all know that the Democrat-Controlled Media is obsessively fascinated with Sarah Palin (remember the bus tour?), and is bent on destroying her. How could they give Sarah Palin enough coverage to destroy her, on the one hand, while simultaneously maintaining radio silence about the top of the ticket on the other?
The more I think about it, the more I love the idea of a Ron Paul/Sarah Palin ticket…
Obamacare’s Epic Smackdown: Over Two Million Ohioans Voted for Healthcare Freedom
In the days following the November election, the Democrat-Controlled Media didn’t have much to say about Ohio’s defeat of Obamacare by a 66% to 34% margin. They were too busy crowing about the passage of Issue 2, which defeated the State of Ohio’s efforts to rein in out-of-control government unions.
So instead of government union members having to pay 15% of their healthcare and pension costs (versus the zero percent many of them pay now), Ohio’s municipalities now look forward to years of unfunded pension liabilities, bankrupt local governments, and layoffs of union members (way to go, AFL-CIO!)
Ohio is one of four states with unfunded pension liabilities that are above 35% of the state’s entire gross domestic product. That fact isn’t going away, and Ohioans need to be reminded who was responsible for this looming fiscal tsunami when the destruction finally hits.
Attention Media: This is What a REAL SEX SCANDAL Looks Like
News came down a few minutes ago that the trustees of Penn State University fired head football coach Joe Paterno and university president Graham Spanier effective immediately.
I haven’t followed this story closely, so I just became aware of the fact that Joe Paterno KNEW that his former defensive coordinator, Jerry Sandusky, had been CAUGHT RAPING A 10-YEAR OLD BOY IN 2002 AND YET CONTINUED TO WORK ALONGSIDE HIM IN THE PENN STATE FOOTBALL PROGRAM FOR NINE MORE YEARS.
I am about to throw up.
I also just found out that the person who WALKED IN ON Jerry Sandusky RAPING A 10-YEAR OLD BOY, one Mike McQueary, not only DID NOT RESCUE THE BOY AND BEAT JERRY SANDUSKY TO DEATH at the time, but IS CURRENTLY RECEIVERS COACH FOR THE TEAM!
This “man,” Mike McQueary [seriously? That's his name?], DIDN’T EVEN CALL THE POLICE to report the rape. As reported on FoxNews.com,
“The 84-year-old Paterno has been besieged by criticism since Sandusky was charged over the weekend with sexually abusing eight young boys between 1994 and 2009. Athletic director Tim Curley and vice president Gary Schultz have been charged with failing to notify authorities after an eyewitness reported a 2002 assault. [...]
Though Paterno is not accused of any wrongdoing, he has been questioned over his apparent failure to follow up on a report of the 2002 incident, in which Sandusky allegedly sodomized a 10-year-old boy in the showers at the team’s football complex. A witness, Mike McQueary, is currently receivers coach for the team but was a graduate assistant at the time.
McQueary told Paterno about the incident the next day, and the coach notified Curley and Schultz, who in turn notified Penn State president Graham Spanier. Curley and Schultz have been charged with perjury and failure to report the incident to authorities, as required by state law.
I would like to point out that this story includes all the elements that the sexual harassment smear campaign against Herman Cain does not.
- An eyewitness.
- Sexual contact.
- Names.
- Dates.
- A very long paper trail.
- Facts.
- Proof.
The only thing that appears to be missing is the one thing the Herman Cain smear campaign has in abundance: OUTRAGE.
WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE???
Last night, ESPN broadcast video of a student rally at the home of Joe Paterno. They RALLIED in front of his house, shouting words of encouragement to him.
via USAToday.com
Presumably the residents and students of State College, PA were more aware of the situation than I was. Some, if not all, of these people must have known that this Jerry Sandusky had been protected by Penn State’s coaching staff and administrators, including Paterno.
But the people of State College PA and the students in front of Joe Pa’s house were more concerned with FOOTBALL than with CHILDREN BEING RAPED.
This is what a sex scandal looks like.
And the fact that the Democrat-Controlled Media has spent more time in the past three days reporting on Herman Cain than on Jerry Sandusky and Joe Paterno…that’s a scandal all its own.
The Democrat-Controlled Media and Herman Cain: Who Are You Going To Believe?
This election will be / is a scorched-earth campaign. The Dems will burn down every building in America if they believe that it will help them win the election.
Manufacturing “witnesses” is easy… Judas was bought and paid for.
The “October Surprise” tactics are coming out early.
Stupid rock-ribbed conservatives… The Bush DUI story on the eve of the election almost cost him the Presidency. That DUI was a long-time earlier, and Bush had repented, sobered up, and become a devout Christian, but because the knee-jerk reaction of the moral majority, they didn’t vote for the hypocrite Bush, when their Christianity should have DEMANDED that they accept his long-standing repentance and so vote for Bush.
If today’s Republicans can’t see that the lying-cheating-stealing PRESS Democrat-Controlled Media are doing everything they can to scuttle anyone who may threaten Obama’s 2nd term, then they deserve to be defeated and have Obama oversee the final destruction of their remnant of America.
The PRESS Democrat-Controlled Media are LIARS. Liberal Dems are happy to help them destroy candidates. The Cocktail Party Reps are in bed with them, too.
The Cocktail Party is to the Democrat Party like the Washington Generals are to The Harlem Globetrotters; they make a good living by always losing to the “home team” after making it look like they tried hard.
Gloria Allred showed up in the last days of the 2010 California election to throw an illegal-alien maid under the bus to service her beloved Democrat Party. It may have contributed to the Republican loss.
Now Allred is showing up with accusers who have no court case, not even CIVIL courts, so where is the money? Somebody is giving out $B$I$IG$ to lots of people to make it happen.
OWS? It’s a stage magician’s distraction to get people’s eyes off Obama and the Dems so they can operate more freely. Now ask yourself where the $M$O$NE$Y$ for the gourmet catering in all those cities is coming from? Somehow, the PRESS Democrat-Controlled Media is not curious about it.
How do all these Cain accusers find the money to do things like fly to California and be in press conferences with Allred? Who is paying the freight?
If the Republicans allow themselves to be tricked into swallowing the lies of the PRESS Democrat-Controlled Media and the Dems, that Cain, or any candidate, is bad / immoral / what ever, then the Reps deserve to lose everything, and be taxed 100% while Dems get paid government money in several more rounds of Porkulous.
Decide who you want to believe:
(1) the PRESS Democrat-Controlled Media who always is surprised at the high unemployment numbers (3 years running) but predict a good outlook next month, only to be surprised by the disappointing unemployment numbers again, but next month will be better
(2) your own eyes.
Like a jealous teenager, the PRESS Democrat-Controlled Media and the Dems will do and say anything to ruin a candidate who the Reps may like that could beat Obama in the 2012 Presidential Election.
Don’t be stupid!
Don’t fall for it.
Ohio Obamacare Smackdown?
The polls closed almost two hours ago, and very early returns show that Ohioans are smacking down Obamacare by a 2 – 1 margin, with a YES vote on Issue 3, an amendment to Ohio’s constitution.
Click to Embiggen
But there’s bad news on Issue 2, a vote to reign in the power of government employee unions. Thanks to massive spending on a disinformation campaign, it looks as though Issue 2 is going down by the same margin– 2 to 1.
However, election results are coming in extremely slowly. Nearly two hours after the polls closed, 20 of Ohio’s 88 counties have reported ZERO results. Hmmm. Here’s a map:
Click to Embiggen
I’ll update this post with a final vote tally as the evening goes on.
UPDATE: 1:48 A.M.
Ohio Votes To Nullify Insurance Mandate
Liberals–including our former governor, Ted Strickland–are spinning this 2 to 1 landslide against Obamacare as a “totally symbolic” and “meaningless” vote, whereas the 2 to 1 landslide in favor of government unions (Issue 2), on the same ballot, during the same election, was a profoundly significant mandate.
Huh. Reeeeeally.
The big story is the grassroots effort that got Issue 3 on the ballot (a totally citizen-led initiative with ZERO paid petition circulators). This was a profound defeat of Obamacare and socialized medicine at the grassroots level.
Fox News: Take Ron Paul Out Of Debates Unless He Endorses Romney
I think Fox News is more fair and balanced that Democrat-controlled media outlets like MSNBC, for example–but Fox News is, and always has been, part of the Cocktail Party GOP Establishment. So I wasn’t surprised that Chris Wallace spent much of this interview on Fox News Sunday asking Ron Paul about other candidates instead of his own positions.
During the interview, Ron Paul was asked if he would endorse the eventual nominee. Why even ask a candidate, this early, if he would endorse someone else? I think it’s part of an effort to further marginalize GOP Frontrunner Ron Paul, who’s #3 in donations among the GOP field, and has won more straw polls than all other GOP candidates, and is consistently polling in 3rd place in early primary states. GOP Frontrunner Ron Paul gets more donations from members of the active duty military than all other GOP candidates combined. This is despite the fact that Ron Paul gets only 2% of the coverage of the GOP field.
As part of the Cocktail Party GOP Establishment, Fox News is working to give the nomination to Mittens Romneycare. and Ron Paul knows this.
So, when Ron Paul was obliquely asked if he would endorse Mittens–the most unprincipled candidate in the race–the most principled GOP candidate in the race, Ron Paul, answered:
“…if they believe in expanding the wars, if they don’t believe in looking at the Federal Reserve, if they don’t believe in real cuts, if they don’t believe in deregulation, and a better tax system, it would defy everything I believe in, so therefore I would be reluctant to jump onboard and tell all the supporters that have given me trust and money… ‘all we’ve done is for naught,’ so let’s support anybody at all…even if they disagree with everything that we do….”
Last time I checked, this was the platform of the Tea Party. This is what all those Tea Party rallies were all about.
This concept of having “principles” is foreign to many people in today’s world, and it’s exceptionally rare among politicians (and nonexistent among the Democrat-controlled media).
So the talking heads on The Five, which is Fox News’ version of The View, just can’t wrap their heads around it.
Asking Ron Paul to endorse a candidate who wants to expand unconstitutional wars, unconstitutional government regulations, unconstitutional spending, and massive debt is like asking an Hasidic Rabbi to endorse the Hamas candidate. It’s like asking Coke to endorse Pepsi. It’s like asking Barack Obama to endorse George Washington.
So, if Ron Paul, and his supporters like me, simple won’t vote for Obama-Lite–if we won’t endorse a candidate who will take the country over the cliff at 65 miles an hour versus 80 miles an hour–then the talking heads on The Five think that Ron Paul doesn’t deserve to be a candidate for the GOP nomination.
Members of The Five get themselves into quite a snit over Ron Paul having principles. After all, “all the other conservative candidates” say they’ll support whoever is nominated. Well, except for Jon Huntsman, who isn’t a conservative.
They wring their hands over the “solid 7%” of Ron Paul voters who refuse to vote for whatever Obama Lite, It’s His Turn, John McCain II, Cocktail Party Establishment GOP candidate the media shoves down our throats. (Hint to Fox News: it’s a hell of a lot bigger than 7%. NO real conservatives can stand Mittens Romneycare. But you already knew that, didn’t you?)
And one of The Five actually says that unless Ron Paul will go along to get along, abandon his principles, spit in the face of the servicemen and women who support him, and feed the Constitution into the shredder, he shouldn’t be allowed in any more debates.
How many times do I have to say it?
Don’t let the media pick your candidate for you!
