An Imperialist Vision for Survival
By Erik Rush (08/15/07)
In 2005, I wrote a column entitled "The Case for Imperialism" which candidly espoused the United States' responsibility to maintain global preeminence given the retrograde tribal dynamics that remain in play throughout the Middle East, Africa and much of Asia. This gave rise to a couple of articles that applied this philosophy to our southern border woes, and finally my book "Annexing Mexico: Solving the Border Problem Through Annexation and Assimilation."
Based on certain high-profile political developments (such as the grass-roots euthanization of the Senate Immigration Bill) and the realization among increasing numbers of Americans that the popular vision for our country has been subverted by minority fringe elements whose perceptions are either profoundly myopic, borderline delusional or self-serving to the point of being evil, for the moment I have re-focused my attention to the national survival strategies I described in “The case for imperialism.”
The majority of Americans (who occupy points on a much wider economic, ethnic and sociopolitical spectrum than once believed) are beginning to realize that they have more in common with each other than the consummate political prostitutes in Congress (who, mind, are supposed to be representing them) and special interests who have moved America from constitutional republic to oligarchy, and have now set a course toward the shores of socialist paradise. The only problem is, the majority of Americans already know the oxymoronical nature of the phrase “socialist paradise.”
Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th President of the United States (1901–1909), was something of an enigma. One of our most memorable (and many would say one of our best) presidents, he held office during what is now known as the age of “Progressivism” (no similarity whatsoever to the modern Progressive Movement). Roosevelt, a Republican, was also a conservationist who worked toward improved race relations, regulation of big business, oversight of the food production industries, and a host of other causes now considered to be the realm of Democrats alone.
He was also an imperialist. “Speak softly and carry a big stick” is the proverb Roosevelt quoted regarding his philosophy on foreign policy. A visionary, he supported an exponential reinforcement of U.S. naval forces based on the premise that powers in the Pacific (Japan, specifically) were likely to present security problems in the future. His methods for manifesting the Panama Canal consisted of using the threat of military action against the South American nation of Colombia in order to bring about the secession of what became Panama; his support of the former disenfranchised Colombians made his subsequent bid to establish the Canal Zone and get the Canal built relatively simple, politically speaking.
Teddy Roosevelt, like most Americans at that time, did not doubt the superiority of Americans’ vision and capabilities compared to most of the rest of the world, and had no reservations in the area of doing what was necessary to establish and maintain the United States’ “biggest dog on the block” status.
The only change that has taken place vis-à-vis foreign policy has been due to the influence of fringe elements on the far Left: Global socialists and those in the media. Add to this the duplicity and insincerity of those who claim to be conservatives and we have the unenviable geopolitical position we occupy today. The American majority still believes we ought to be the biggest dog, because – as I’ve said before – we also happen to be the most even-tempered.
We are not however, the United Federation of Planets from “Star Trek” with a Prime Directive not to interfere in the development of emerging civilizations until someone sells them enough technology and armaments to threaten us. We have a moral right as a nation to neutralize people such as the aboriginal Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez before he foments a Latin American socialist revolution, Kim Jong Il of North Korea, Bashar Assad of Syria and the mullahs in Iran before they destabilize the world beyond our power to ameliorate the situation without employing our entire nuclear arsenal.
Barack Obama, one of the contenders for the Democrat nomination for President (and someone I have roundly criticized) was excoriated by the press for using harsh rhetoric on the issue of Pakistan harboring terrorists, their level of cooperation in the War on Terror, and what an American president might do to extricate some of the world’s most notorious terrorists from that nation. Although Obama’s words were all part of that delicate, half-choreographed, half-improvised dance candidates do, Americans ought to be clamoring for that sort of tough talk and more.
I believe that the American majority would stand behind a President and Congress with the fortitude to decisively cut off some key snake heads and ignore the ignorant, plaintive squealing of the media and the socialist, politically-correct fringe minority. While I maintain that Barack Obama is not the man for the job due to his party’s agenda, I also maintain that this sort of talk – reinforced with decisive action, of course – would have helped the Republicans hold Congress in 2006 and resulted in a dramatically improved approval rating for President Bush at present.
On the other hand, I don’t believe the American majority wants to see their Border Control agents charged with crimes against criminals, their soldiers charged with crimes against terrorists and the phenomena embellished by the media to ridiculous extremes in order to humiliate and demoralize. I don’t believe the American majority is overly concerned with men who tried to kill our troops sitting on ice at Gitmo, or the type of coercion techniques our intelligence agencies use on captured high-level terrorists. I don’t believe the American majority wants to see its national security agencies hamstrung at the behest of out-and-out communists. I don’t believe the American majority is sufficiently dull that they don’t see our political leaders kowtowing to untrustworthy and even treacherous foreign leaders as dangerous folly which illustrates their sympathies and weakness, and foreshadows darker times to come for America in the foreign relations arena.
I honestly believe that the American majority would stand behind a president like Teddy Roosevelt right now. He would appeal to the Right-middle, moderate, and Left-middle – in other words, the majority – of voters. I believe that deep down they know we need someone like him, despite what our enemies domestic would have us believe.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Erik Rush
