Raimondo on a Return to Normalcy

From antiwar, Raimondo writes:

In a normal country, it is entirely possible to separate domestic policy from foreign policy – because the latter is strictly limited to the goal of protecting its citizens from foreign invasion, which means, in large part, protecting the territorial integrity of the nation, i.e. its borders.

And that’s the essence of the utopian dreams of many of us: A polity that minds its own business.

Some of the mythology Raimondo writes I question, but one part is clear, the Cold War reconstructed us into the evil Leviathan we find ourselves trapped within today. Raimondo writes:

The new “crisis” was the cold war, a face-off with our former ally, the Soviet Union, that inspired conservative leader William F. Buckley, Jr., to abandon the traditionalist stance on behalf of constitutionalism and embrace the Leviathan.

A conservative telling of this story might add how the US was 89% white in 1965, that after WWII America has sold off its economic wealth, and Europe had been neatly divided into rough nation-states that could have been worked into a stable, enduring order. It’s tough to give a year for when Europe was best divided, but the potential was there.

And it’s worth mentioning Antony C. Sutton’s work revealing Wall Street’s influence among the Bolsheviks and Germans, which complicates the story. I mean to say: I am not a believer that “statism” is entirely behind our fall. Regardless, it can be agreed that a “normal” polity is the high ideal.

5 thoughts on “Raimondo on a Return to Normalcy

  1. karsten

    I can’t fault the U.S. for taking an interventionist stance in the Cold War because the more honest Americans must surely have realized that the only reason why the USSR became as strong as it did was because the U.S. saved its hide in WWII and destroyed the non-communist state that would otherwise have destroyed it in due order (Third Reich Germany).

    In short, America made the mess and created the Soviet threat; it was basically stuck with cleaning it up.


    1. weavercht Post author


      Thanks for the reply.

      In retrospect, was intervening in Vietnam necessary? It looks silly since some of the “communist” countries today aren’t so terrible, and the USSR ultimately collapsed, likely would have collapsed even without the arms race and global proxy wars. And post-collapse, the US retained its large military budget, even retained NATO. And the US created al-Qaeda to defeat Russia in Afghanistan; that has certainly bitten us.

      Finally, it’s difficult to defend the transnational corporations which the “left wing” condemns so fiercely, which leads to me to suspect some of our Cold War activism wasn’t always in support of the good guys. An example of supporting a questionable side, though perhaps unrelated to my point: Nicaragua and the Contras.

      Anyway, China is undemocratic today, but it’s similar to South Korea and other Asian miracle states economically, in that it’s a mix of “socialism” (state owned enterprises) and “capitalism”. S. Korea is clearly better run. My point being: The supposed ideological differences don’t seem significant today. If it were said to be democracy vs. (ah) authoritarianism or small states vs. gigantic empires (China), that’d make more sense. Or maybe things are portrayed most accurately as Russia/China sphere of influence vs. USA/NATO sphere, without any ideological component.

      N. Korea is obviously a nightmare, and China today is quite scary; but the US as well is moving in that direction.

      The best move can at times be to not fight, in order to bring out the best resulting outcome. There’s truth to the warning Libertarians like to make that, “War is the health of the state.” For me, opposing big government is not the ultimate goal – but neither is supporting it.


  2. roho

    karsten…………………….The US saved nobody?…….Nobody, if you do the history?

    Even Churchill said, ” I’m afraid that we roasted the wrong pig?”…………Russia never needed us. Research how fast they destroyed the Japanese in China after the Germans were done?

    We fought on the wrong side, and today’s relationship with Israel proves it.

    We should have [opposed] both Jews and Bolsheviks………Try not to faint?

    Now we have to live with Political Corruption:

    Israel Paid GOP Senator $1 Million to sabatoge Iran accord: Reports

    Goggle if it don’t post?


    1. weavercht Post author


      I expect more would reject classical liberalism in favour of, ah, Buchananite positions if not blaming Jews, especially Frankfurt School Jews, for everything.

      Ah, anyway please watch what you say a little, if you would. I’m not taking the blog overseriously; I just think you go too far in the previous.

      Also, Churchill was gunning for war. It’s surprising if what you say is true. Chamberlain / Churchill could have chosen to sit out the war, allowed Germany and its new Polish satellite to fight Russia, its natural enemy.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s