Home » Iranphobia, Iranphilia, and the Jacksonian approach

Comments

Iranphobia, Iranphilia, and the Jacksonian approach — 32 Comments

  1. Jacksonialism = Charity begins at home. First things first.

    Hamiltonialism = No man is an island. Modern civilization is composed of an interdependent world.

    Wilsonialism = What do we, as a nation, stand for?

    How are these inherently antithetical?

    Where we err is when we reject all but one.

    America is the world’s “Shining City Upon a Hill”, humanity’s “last, best hope”. Without an America as envisioned the world is doomed to totalitarianism. Whether 1984 or Shariah; “it’s a boot stomping on (liberty’s) face… forever”

    America’s founding principles are the finest platform upon which to ‘stand’, yet conceived.

    If I’m only for me, then what am I? If I’m not for me, then who will be?

    To fail to see the core truth in each viewpoint is to philosophically, throw the baby out with the bathwater.

  2. Excellent treatise.

    I will pass this along to people who should, but probably won’t, read it. With attribution, of course.

  3. Soleimani’s killing was, without question, the most consequential act of Trump’s presidency.

    What are the difference between Soeleimani and other terrorist killings :

    – Obama – Bin Laden
    – G.W. Bush – Alzarqawi
    – Trump – Al-Baghdadi

  4. “What do we, as a nation, stand for?”

    To me the answer is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Obviously, I am old school. America does have a very important role in global relations, but as Trump often mentions, the safety and welfare of American citizens comes first.

  5. What are the difference between Soeleimani and other terrorist killings

    First, he was a state actor who could call upon state resources. Second, he was a trained and competent military man. In short, he was a professional pursuing state ends, not a terrorist.

  6. I’m shocked that anyone would think Walter Russell Mead anything but a liberal, it colors all of his writing.

  7. Geoffrey Britain: the point is precisely that these archetypal schools of thought each tend to overreach. IMO, a good follow-up conversation to a chat with Walter Russell Mead would be one with Victor Davis Hanson about the ways in modern American political history in which hubris begets nemesis—a central theme in much of his writing.

  8. Chuck,

    Yes, Mead and Deshowitz are liberals, but they are liberals I can politely disagree with, and most importantly they don’t want me and mine in a gulag or a gas chamber.

  9. But for neo, I would not know of Mead.

    parker’s description of Dershowitz echoes my thoughts.

    By the way, Dershowitz makes me proud of Jews. Schumer, Nadler, Schiff, Vindman, Wasserman Schultz, not at all.

    KEEP AMERICA GREAT.

  10. Jonathan is wrong:
    “Soleimani’s killing was, without question, the most consequential act of Trump’s presidency.”
    The Trump Tax Cuts are the most consequential, boosting the economy hugely as those who created the new wealth are allowed to keep more of it.

    Even if one is talking international “most consequential foreign policy”, it might be the early visit to Saudi Arabia; or moving the embassy to Jerusalem; or building the Wall.

    Mead wrote a long, fine essay about Bush that used “Jacksonion”, along with other US Founders, as archetypes, which is understandable and seems to align with reality well. Jacksonians put America First — so does Trump.

  11. Ira
    But for neo, I would not know of Mead.

    He used to write a lot at The American Interest blog, but hasn’t published anything there since 2017. IIRC, he basically was writing that the liberal model of governance needed some tweaking- and he wasn’t talking about the direction of Obama/Sanders/Warren. One of his books is Special Providence:American Foreign Policy and How it Changed the World.

  12. And it would seem that Trump’s Iran policy is catching:

    “Masked gunmen on Wednesday ambushed and killed the local commander of a paramilitary security force in southwestern Iran, an associate of Iran’s top general recently killed in an American drone strike in Baghdad, the official IRNA news agency reported.

    The slain commander, Abdolhossein Mojaddami, headed the Basij forces, a paramilitary wing of the Revolutionary Guard used for internal security and other tasks, in the town of Darkhoein. He was gunned down in front of his home in the town in the country’s oil rich Khuzestan province.

    Two gunmen on a motorcycle, armed with an assault rifle and a hunting rifle, ambushed Mojaddami, IRNA reported. Other Iranian media said the gunmen’s faces were covered with masks and that four shots were fired.”

    https://www.egyptindependent.com/masked-gunmen-kill-local-commander-of-irans-security-forces/

  13. Chuck on January 22, 2020 at 7:26 pm said:
    not a terrorist

    What about his killing in the region not in his own state?

    The state he is blongs to is asponcer of terrorst? Isn’t?

  14. The problem is that the elites in the uniparty believe they must manage world affairs. It provides for their sustenance and identity. They never seek to impose any system on the world beyond some vague “Democracy”. The differences described between the European West and the Anglosphere so well by Daniel Hannan in Inventing Freedom is unknown to them, and treated as extremism when encountered.

    Jacksonianism as described above may be a factor. A larger one IMO is that someone like Trump has spent his life actually finishing large complex projects, bringing them to life, and seeing them operate profitably. The idea of endlessly dragging them out is only available to government.

    Trump will change Iran and North Korea. He will establish a free trade zone with the UK which will be very beneficial to all. If he wins both houses this fall he will end the Russian estrangement, but will never get an ounce of credit from the elites. He is destroying their reason for existence.

    The commercial world, which voted for Trump, finishes things continually. It sees that as the natural and necessary order of things.

    Future historians will call this period the Trump Restoration.

  15. I had never seen the different political views on foreign policy summarized in this manner before. I found it refreshing. In particular, it reminded me of my observations from my time in Africa.

    Africa is full of international charity, public and private. At one time, the U.S. and the USSR competed in giving aid to the African countries hoping to to sway (bribe?) them into their sphere of influence. The USSR died, but the plethora of Western Charity organizations didn’t.

    I was there as a Project Manager of a construction project, a completely non-altruistic pursuit. Yet, I am convinced that my team of Americans and I were better ambassadors of good will than the U.S. professional diplomats. We did more training and skills transfer than all of the AID programs could ever hope to. And we taught American values by example, person to person, not isolated from contact with the Africans like many of the diplomats and aid workers.

    In my example and experience, it is the Jacksonian approach that produces results in the foreign policy arena. Pretending to some sort altruistic objective is not believed nor respected abroad.

  16. F.B.,

    The difference? Souleimani was an Iranian General. His actions were official acts of the nation of Iran.

  17. State sponsored terrorist, aka, revered military leader, poet, lightworker, ….. Well maybe not lightworker; that one is already taken (although some here haven’t heard how it was used). He was well and truly lit up in passing. He was at last on the wrong side of brightness (Austin Bay book).

  18. Roy Nathanson:

    Having spent 20 years as an American diplomat in Africa (seven different countries), I take exception to your blanket condemnation of me and my colleagues. If you want to list it to USAID employees, I’ll agree with you. But if you think to include State Department and USIA employees, your comment is too general and broad. Some of us did a damn good job, and accomplished quite a bit of good for the American government and people.

  19. the United States is not a political entity created and defined by a set of intellectual propositions rooted in the Enlightenment and oriented toward the fulfillment of a universal mission. Rather, it is the nation-state of the American people, and its chief business lies at home.

    There’s something to this. The colonists, and later the early Americans, needed a way to redefine themselves as something other than just skycaps for British… or whatever other European… cultural and political baggage.

    To be free of Europe and its demands meant creating a new American aboriginal identity, one that transcends both old world civilization and new world savagery. According to Philip DeLoria, author of Playing Indian:

    As they first imagined and then performed Indianness together on the docks at Boston, The Tea Party Indians gave material form to identities that were witnessed and then made real. The performance of American Indianness afforded a powerful foundation for subsequent pursuits of national identity.

    https://www.amazon.com/Playing-Indian-Yale-Historical-Publications/dp/0300080670

    Playing Indian is an important aspect of American national identity and finds expression through many contemporary cultural forms.

    Looking forward to seeing the Kansas City Chiefs and the ol Tomahawk Chop at Super Bowl LIV:

    No, cheering for the Chiefs isn’t racist

    The Kansas City Chiefs’ fans themselves have long been a source of controversy thanks to the “Arrowhead Chop.” Like the Florida State Seminoles or the Atlanta Braves, the Chiefs have a long-standing tradition of fans chanting and mimicking the use of a Native American tomahawk.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/cheering-for-kansas-city-chiefs-in-the-super-bowl-isnt-racist%3f_amp=true

  20. F,

    You shouldn’t be so sensitive. If you will re-read my comments, I specifically said that my team and I were better “ambassadors of good will”. I did not say or claim that we were better diplomats. At work, you and your colleagues are largely insulated from the general population by a layer of FSNs. When you socialize, you tend to do so with the elites of the host nation. We, however, interacted directly with people from all stratas of the society on a daily basis (and, no, I am not referring to the maid, the askari, and the driver).

    I met and have worked with many of your colleagues. Some of them I respected immensely. But, the job of the State Department is to represent the American Government, not Americans. There is a very big difference.

    And, by the way, I do think that the State Department is full of a lot of dead wood and is in dire need of a major reform, but that was not the issue that I referred to in my original comment. Even in the best of conditions, the improvements in fundamental conditions in Africa are being achieved through private investment. The job of the diplomats is to achieve the conditions that make that investment possible.

  21. Roy Nathanson:

    Generalize much? Or do you really know all about F and his service abroad? I would venture when you were abroad your main purpose was to make a profit for your employer, not to “represent” the American people.

  22. Let’s read what this guy who is Iranian propagandist from London although he says he is an Iraqi but the fact he is Iranian heart and mind.

    Iran will strive to bring # Trump @realDonaldTrump,  After the end of his presidency in Iran and his trial for the murder of Hajj martyr # Qassim_Soleimani ..

    This is not a wish, and the Iranians if they say they did ..

    Ask # God’s Spirit

    Najah Muhammed Ali
    Iraqi Journalist/expert on Iran, regional affairs, human rights activist &Terrorism expert.Ex-Iran Desk Editor in
    @AlArabiya Tv. A columnist in @alqudsalarabi.
    @najahmali

  23. “Yes, Mead and Deshowitz are liberals, but they are liberals I can politely disagree with, and most importantly they don’t want me and mine in a gulag or a gas chamber.”-parker

    I agree, and would add Turley to that list, but they are still people (despite their high intellect) who think they can pick up one end of the progressive/socialist stick and not get the other one as well.

    That’s what Hayek knew when he showed that you can’t just have socialism (democratic or liberal or otherwise), because you always up with totalitarianism.

  24. om,

    Of course, I was there to earn my salary by making money for my employer. But, that is my point. The improvement in conditions in Africa is not the result of charities and high-minded altruism. They are more the result of foreign investment and the resulting technology, skills, and values transfer.

    This is the Jacksonian view of the world. The entrepreneur does not start a business for the purpose of providing employment. He does it to make money, and shouldn’t have to pretend otherwise. That his efforts and investments are, in fact, good for the economy is because wealth creation benefits everyone.

    The United States shouldn’t have to pretend that it is engaged in the world out of high minded ideals. It is engaged in the world to expand its markets and power. Our success benefits the whole world, but that is not our reason for doing it. If that is “Imperialism”, then let us wear the label proudly.

  25. Roy Nathanson:

    So this is the view from the high horse, economic self interest trumps all other concerns? You seemed to have claimed to be a better representative of American values. Not like those cloud coo coo land Dept of State diplomats.

    BTW your grasp of basic economics is astounding.

    I know Christian missionaries who are teaching in Malawi the basic technologies of potable water supply and sanitation practices and the private enterprise skills so that the development of clean water and sanitation (less disease, local development) becomes endemic and self sustaining. Not some big project run by non natives. Who is a better representative of America again?

  26. Geoffrey Britain on January 22, 2020 at 4:48 pm said:
    Jacksonialism = Charity begins at home. First things first.

    Hamiltonialism = No man is an island. Modern civilization is composed of an interdependent world.

    Wilsonialism = What do we, as a nation, stand for?

    Where we err is when we reject all but one.

    To fail to see the core truth in each viewpoint is to philosophically, throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    * * *
    Interesting concept.
    What would a synthesis of all the core truths look like?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>