House of Eratosthenes

Now, Barack Obama has decreed that the American Atlas should shrug. Weary of its burdens and tired of being blamed for the world’s problems, America is withdrawing from its global leadership role. And the result, as in Atlas Shrugged, is disaster. Everywhere one looks, there is turmoil and violence. Russia is resurgent; China threatens Vietnam, Japan and the Philippines; Iraq’s Christians are being wiped out; Iran’s nuclear weapons program proceeds apace; the Sunni Gulf states seek new alliances; the Taliban is retaking Afghanistan; American diplomatic personnel are withdrawn from Libya as that country descends into chaos; al Qaeda extends its influence in Africa. The list goes on and on. The United States has gone Galt–everywhere except Gaza, where we are playing a discreditable role in support of a terrorist regime–and the forces of evil and disorder are on the march.

Of course, the analogy ultimately breaks down. In Atlas Shrugged, the world’s producers go on strike in order to show that the Left is wrong. Barack Obama has withdrawn the United States from its leadership role, not in order to demonstrate that the Left’s critiques are wrong, but because he believes them to be right. Unlike the producers in Atlas Shrugged, Obama means for the U.S. to “go Galt” permanently.

But things are not turning out as the Left expected. Those who thought (like Obama) that America is the source of most of the world’s ills, and if only we would keep to ourselves problems would disappear, are being refuted by every day’s newspaper headlines. So perhaps in the end, America’s going Galt in foreign policy will prove to be temporary, as the result of Obama’s experiment will be much like the dystopia that Ayn Rand foresaw many years ago.

Good. As far as every place in that list is concerned: Fuck ’em, and anyone who looks like ’em. Not that I am indifferent to their suffering — far from it — but they and everybody else have been screaming for 60 years about imperialistic cowboy warmongering Americans. (Yeah, even the Democrats. Our Betters, functional illiterates that they are, don’t pay attention to the foreign press, but the rest of the world said the exact same things about John F. Kennedy that they said about George W. Bush). For sixty years, any European, Arab, or Asian politician could score cheap points anytime he wanted by making a “Yankee go home” speech.

Well guess what, comrades — you wanted a world where America doesn’t serve as the self-appointed world police. And now you’re going to get it, good and hard. Have fun with that.

In fact, schadenfreude is going to be my lifeline for the next however many decades. You wanted socialized medicine, idiots — and now you’re gonna get it, good and hard. You wanted to vote for skin color or genitalia over competence. You wanted “social justice.” You wanted to feel good for voting away our national borders. And now you’re gonna get it, good and hard. Don’t come whining to me, unless you want a full and complete recitation of all the ways you so richly deserve what you’re getting. You thought American hegemony was bad? Oh, you’re gonna love the Chinese and Sharia versions.
- Severian | 07/29/2014 @ 07:05
Never knew quite what side of the fence Severian was on, but that was basically mirrored everything I’d love to say and never had the…severity…to say.
- P_Ang | 07/29/2014 @ 14:10
I was originally very much an interventionist. I supported the 2003 Gulf War and Afghanistan. (I still do support them in the sense that somebody needed a post-9/11 ass-whooping, and those dickheads volunteered). But now?

We tried to spread “democracy” (=”civilization”) to people who don’t want it, can’t handle it, and actually prefer living in medieval barbarism. Given the choice between “voting, education, and, oh yeah, the freedom to wear jeans” and “forced clitoridectomies and beheadings,” they picked the latter.

So, fuck ’em.

The same goes for Europeans. See Jack Nicholson’s A Few Good Men speech, which is basically Kipling’s “Tommy.” You all have been makin’ mock o’ uniforms that guard you while you sleep ever since World War II, and now those uniforms are leaving, and good luck with that. Please tell Vlad Putin that a 20+ hour work week is a hate crime and that retirement on full pension at 45 is a basic human right. Same goes for you, Japan, and you, South Korea. Kim Jong-un and the Chinese Politburo are reasonable folks; I’m sure they’re super eager to hear what you have to say.

Withdraw the army, seal the borders, close the ports. Let it be known worldwide that the US military will not put boot one outside our borders unless attacked, at which point our response will be massive (and possibly nuclear). The rest of you can enjoy the Islamofascism, or just plain fascism, that you seem to crave.
- Severian | 07/30/2014 @ 05:36
Alas, Severian, it will be worst of all for us, because America has never wanted to be the World’s Policeman, but we make all our major coin by trade. Have done since the beginning of the country, which is why we ended up in Tripoli the first time. No country is more dependent on Free Trade for it’s standard of living then America, and the moment we “close the ports”, the pirates come back, the tariffs become punitive, and companies get “nationalized”, at which point the boots will march again. Not like we haven’t tried Isolationism before, only to see it fail, because it seems that the World is either at our throat or at our feet. Know which one I prefer……
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 07/30/2014 @ 08:00
the moment we “close the ports”, the pirates come back, the tariffs become punitive, and companies get “nationalized”

Zero of which actually happened in the periods 1800-1917; 1919-1941. The tariffs of the 19th century were designed to protect American industries — i.e. to effectively close the ports to foreign competition — and no companies were nationalized. Not even during the Civil War. Though big business did bail out the government a few times back then…. For the idea that “free trade” is the high road to a great standard of living, cf. the British Empire, 1800-1947.

Not that I’d mind a straight-up empire, for the record. Great Britain did a lot of “world’s policeman” stuff back in the days, and the world was indisputably better off for it… but that’s because the “world” they were policing largely belonged to them.
- Severian | 07/30/2014 @ 09:58
Actually all of the above did happen. It takes two to trade, and while these things were not done by us, they were certainly done by the rest of the World, leading to greater poverty for everyone, including us. And the GNP of Britain exploded, 1800-1947. Their standard of living, no so much, because of the “Empire” part of the equation. They make a lot of other people wealthier……..
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 07/30/2014 @ 12:43
and while these things were not done by us, they were certainly done by the rest of the World…

I thought we were talking about what would happen if the USA closed the ports, withdrew the army, etc. I could give a rat’s ass what the rest of the world does. The USA was pretty damn isolationist over the course of the 19th – early 20th centuries, and the tariffs were not intolerable, no companies were nationalized, and our coastal waters remained largely pirate-free.

….leading to greater poverty for everyone, including us.

As this was the heydey of imperialism, I’m not sure exactly who was closing their ports and pulling back their armies…. the Qing Dynasty? Tokugawa Japan? I guess you could argue that the British East India Company got nationalized — I’ll give you that one — but as the British were also shoving “free trade” down China’s throat at cannon-point at the time, I don’t really see a connection there. It’s also hard to argue that we, the USA, were made poorer in the 19th century by all this…. what with becoming the world’s dominant economy and all. I suppose one could argue that we could’ve become even richer than we already were had Britain (or whomever) not done X, Y, and Z, but Americans got demonstrably more prosperous as the 19th century turned into the 20th. Which brings us to:

Their standard of living, no so much, because of the “Empire” part of the equation.

Are you seriously arguing that the average Briton in 1900 wasn’t immeasurably better off, on any metric that matters, than the average Briton in 1800? Or that he was, but it wasn’t due to the Empire? If you can prove either one of them, you’ve just knocked about 100 years of conventional wisdom in the history biz on the head. Which is fine by me, but if you’ve got the numbers to back it up, please share them with Daily Kos and Mother Jones; the looks on their faces will be priceless. 🙂

I think I see what you’re saying, and I even (somewhat) agree — complete isolationism, Japan-style, is untenable. But I’m not arguing for that. I’m arguing for something much closer to George Washington’s original vision — friend to all, but beholden to none. We’ll trade you as much stuff as you can carry, but if you mess with us, we will wreck you. Above and beyond that, you’re on your own.
- Severian | 07/30/2014 @ 13:41
Oh, no, Sev. You invoked “Stuff Washington Said.” Just when we finally got the ink out of Morgan’s sofa cushions!
- nightfly | 07/31/2014 @ 08:50
Yeah, but I have the references to back it up. It’s on page 94 of Stuff Washington Said, revised 4th edition. You know, the one edited by the Mount Vernon Association of Expert Experts on the Expertise of Mount Vernon Association Experts.

And it’s been thoroughly peer-reviewed.
- Severian | 07/31/2014 @ 09:26
“We should avoid foreign entanglements and cisnormative prejudice.” –George Washington
- nightfly | 07/31/2014 @ 11:13
Exactly. In fact, Washington said a lot of stuff, much of it while talking to Thomas Jefferson.
- Severian | 07/31/2014 @ 11:47
“Let’s just say we want to avoid any IMPERIAL entanglements…”
– Obi-Wan Kenobi
- P_Ang | 08/01/2014 @ 11:40
I’m totally with you, P_Ang.

But be advised that the Mount Vernon Association of Expert Experts on the Expertise of Mount Vernon Association Experts has judged that Obi Wan quote “possibly spurious, with a chance of meatballs.” Because science.
- Severian | 08/01/2014 @ 14:36

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Barack Obama is John Galt?Tuesday, July 29th, 2014

Barack Obama is John Galt?
Tuesday, July 29th, 2014