The interventionism of the right and left

[Sultan Of Swing]

How have we gotten to the point that both the 'traditional' right and left parties of both the USA and the UK support foreign interventionism and an aggressive military policy?

There was a time when the right-wing strongly wanted isolationism (while maintaining a strong military), to mind our own business and keep out of other people's affairs, as countries usually had done so for centuries, a most conservative value.

There was also a time when the left-wing strongly supported pacifism, nuclear disarmament and the advocation of diplomacy always over violence.

How have we gotten to the point we are in now? Obama seems just as good as Bush was at going to war (perhaps even more so). The cynical among us are prone to blaming everything on corporations, but do they really have that much to gain from wars (I admit ignorance on what they gain), and do they really have that much influence and motivation to send our nations to war all the time... is it really worth it for them?

Or perhaps our respective nations have quite simply been consumed by the romantic (though foolish) notion to do "the right thing" (with the mandatory arrogance that our form of government is far superior to all others, and the West always knows best) and in most cases end up only making matters worse?

 

[Revoltingest]

"Right" & "left" are terms fraught with peril due to continual change & multiple definitions depending upon context & the person wielding them. I'll use both, but I try to be careful that my audience will share my understanding.

 

[Laika]

The cynical among us are prone to blaming everything on corporations, but do they really have that much to gain from wars (I admit ignorance on what they gain), and do they really have that much influence and motivation to send our nations to war all the time... is it really worth it for them?

You don't have to win a war to make money out of it; if you'r just selling bullets- a long war is a profitable one. if you sell to both sides- you make a profit. if there isn't a war, you can sell military surplus to the police which is why US police forces are becoming militarised, (a really bad way to do business if ever there was one by putting guns on your own streets). the fact that weapons are mass produced means that the production lines have to keep going, so it is in the intrests of the government to subsidise the defence companies whether there is war or peace. that much makes sense and goes some way to explain why the US defence budget is so wildly inflated (matching the next 16 countries defence spending, 15 of whom are allies as I recall). if they didn't have a war, they wouldn't get the guns so it becomes self-perpetuating in the 'military-industrial complex'.

What I don't think anyone can tell you if how far the profit motive influences actual foreign policy decisions, but the perversity of "humanitarian" intervention to stop killing by killing more people should be sufficient grounds to question its validity. The Iraq war didn't bring freedom and democracy to the country, but it did bring privatisation of the Iraq state's assets and contracts to US companies.
To some extent the acceptance of interventionism a product of globalisation (or imperialism), taking on not just an economic or cultural but a political and military form. we have a bizzare system where we are all connected economically and culturally, but not politically. Most of the body of international law has even been written yet. it is important to note that the risks posed by terrorism are statistically very small. this doesn't mean terrorists can't hurt people or that they're aren't worst case scenarios to worry about, but that the level of media coverage to the threat of terrorism is disproprotionate and most likely reflects political intrests shaping public opinion, not actual real-world conditions. The state and the media have a long-term relationship so there is some level of "quid pro quo" in that the media gives the government some air time in exchange for access. So the perception of the threat is greater than the threat itself.

 

[jeager106]

War = profit.
Though German lost it's war many Germans made fortunes in the arms business.
It isn't just weapons and ammo either.
Think about this. Millions of men at war means millions of men (now women) need all kinds
of basics. Food, clothing, medical supplies, personal hygiene, ( razor blades, soap, razors)
then break those elements down. For instance clothing, both winter and warm weather
wear, boots & boot laces, socks, gloves but why go on?
Now throw in artillery and very expensive ammo, aircraft and all the support needed for just
that element.
Fast forward to Viet Nam. How much does a Huey helicopters cost?
How many were easily damaged or destroyed?
And, morbid as it is, caskets!
Imagine what money was made just replacing helicopters and jet aircraft?
The profit is freaking HUGE. Thus the military industrial complex can become one
hell of an evil machine.
Did you know that Gillette GAVE razors and blade to every G.I. during WWII?
What a way to gain a loyal customer base.
What about Hershey bars? Tons of 'em.
Studebaker built and shipped so many of their trucks to Russia that to this day a truck
is called a Studebaker in Russia. They didn't build for for donations to the cause.
Tanks and ships and planes; oh my!
Many new American millionaires came out of WWII.
NO! I am not saying we got into WWII so people could make money but profit supplying
the military war machine is gigantic. ( I forgot about fuel-enormous quantities. )
I'm not so damned sure about Viet Nam or the Gulf mess. I'm not sure at all.
About left and right becoming right and left. It's inevitable. Each party ebbs and flows
with the desires of the masses.

 

[Yerda]

How have we gotten to the point we are in now?

Could be related to the shedloads of cash that the arms manufacturers give to political parties...

Or perhaps our respective nations have quite simply been consumed by the romantic (though foolish) notion to do "the right thing" (with the mandatory arrogance that our form of government is far superior to all others, and the West always knows best) and in most cases end up only making matters worse?

No.

 

[dust1n]

There was a time when the right-wing strongly wanted isolationism (while maintaining a strong military), to mind our own business and keep out of other people's affairs, as countries usually had done so for centuries, a most conservative value.

What, some 130 years ago?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

What, some 130 years ago?

World War I and World War II were both pivotal moments in which American and British isolationism was very narrowly overturned in favour of doing something (more the case for America for WWII) and it has suddenly birthed a new paradigm where intervening has suddenly became the norm, a common thing. In WWI, the US held out right to the very end before joining, and even after the war they declined to join the League of Nations, preferring a more isolationist policy. In WWII there were many strong "America First" voices who also opposed intervention. This new ideology of constant foreign interventionism is an innovation of the past 50 years, and really could be narrowed down to the past 20-30 years.

 

[dust1n]

World War I and World War II were both pivotal moments in which American and British isolationism was very narrowly overturned in favour of doing something (more the case for America for WWII) and it has suddenly birthed a new paradigm where intervening has suddenly became the norm, a common thing. In WWI, the US held out right to the very end before joining, and even after the war they declined to join the League of Nations, preferring a more isolationist policy. In WWII there were many strong "America First" voices who also opposed intervention. This new ideology of constant foreign interventionism is an innovation of the past 50 years, and really could be narrowed down to the past 20-30 years.

So, American isolationism was still in effect during the multidecade occupation of the Phillipines, after having just won a battle it provoked in Spain? I guess none of the many excursions into Honduras count? If I remember correctly, America sent some military over to Africa around the War of 1812 to whip up on some pirates.

This is when U.S. Marine Corps Major General purposefully published, "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

 

[Laika]

So, American isolationism was still in effect during the multidecade occupation of the Phillipines, after having just won a battle it provoked in Spain? I guess none of the many excursions into Honduras count? If I remember correctly, America sent some military over to Africa around the War of 1812 to whip up on some pirates.

The US Considered Latin America it's back yard, and insisted everyone else (that is the Europeans) keep their "hands off" as part of the Monroe Doctorine. So, it was still isolationism of a sort- but for a contient rather than a nation.
There was some military intervention against the "Barbary Pirates" of North Africa because they attacked US and European shipping and enslaved White Christians (see First Barbary War and Second Barbary War for deatils). At the time slavery of white christians was considered more morally objectionable than black slavery , but the Europeans were busy trying to stop Napoleon to take the threat the Pirates posed seriously.

 

[dust1n]

The US Considered Latin America it's back yard, and insisted everyone else (that is the Europeans) keep their "hands off" as part of the Monroe Doctorine. So, it was still isolationism of a sort- but for a contient rather than a nation.

That's true, but it certainly doesn't explain the occupation of the Philippines starting in 1899 and lasting for over 40 years.

There was some military intervention against the "Barbary Pirates" of North Africa because they attacked US and European shipping and enslaved White Christians (see First Barbary War and Second Barbary War for deatils). At the time slavery of white christians was considered more morally objectionable than black slavery , but the Europeans were busy trying to stop Napoleon to take the threat the Pirates posed seriously.

Thanks. I'm going to look into this some more when I get a chance.

 

[Ultimatum]

How have we gotten to the point that both the 'traditional' right and left parties of both the USA and the UK support foreign interventionism and an aggressive military policy?

It is a very dangerous policy to adopt the political "Conservative", "Liberal", "Socialist", etc. tags in this day and age--although the latter tends to be more socially acceptable. The reason for this is that the global society is changing as we adopt a more "progressive" approach to social issues--like the "legalisation" of gay marriage and wilful acceptance to continue to give welfare to people who choose not to integrate into our society.

Most political parties don't have an opinion anymore, but follow along with what is politically correct and socially acceptable. Is this a good thing? It depends on who you ask...