-
Passport
Syria’s Lung-Eating Rebel Explains
-
Transitions
Is Venezuela Becoming a Failed State?
-
The Cable
Issa Subpoenas Pickering on Benghazi
Posted By Uri Friedman
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 - 1:38 PM
Share
Let's face it. When Millard Fillmore, the undistinguished, uninspiring 13th president of the United States, comes up in political conversation these days, it's usually as the butt of jokes. "When five of your six candidates could not be elected president if they were running against Millard Fillmore, I think you can presume there will not be much serious issue discussion," New York Times columnist Gail Collins quipped last week in a primer on the upcoming South Carolina primary. If only the rags-to-riches Whig, whose 212th birthday was recently celebrated with much fanfare in his native Western New York, were around to defend his record.
But last night, during the GOP debate in South Carolina, Ron Paul issued a full-throated endorsement of Fillmore's approach to foreign policy, whether he realized it or not. "If another country does to us what we do to others, we aren't going to like it very much," Paul explained in the context of his opposition to war with Iran. "So I would say maybe we ought to consider a Golden Rule in foreign policy," he continued placidly, as he was eaten alive by boos and jeers. "We endlessly bomb these other countries and then we wonder why they get upset with us?" Paul has trotted out this Golden Rule line several times during the campaign, drawing laughter in New Hampshire after asking, "What if the Chinese came into the Gulf of Mexico and took over the Gulf of Mexico? I know we in Texas would be pretty annoyed."
OK, but what does all this have to do with Millard Fillmore? The former president, it turns out, expressed nearly the same sentiments in 1850 during his first State of the Union address, in a formulation of foreign policy that sounds an awful lot like Paul's noninterventionist, empire-shunning worldview (key lines in bold):
Among the acknowledged rights of nations is that which each possesses of establishing that form of government which it may deem most conducive to the happiness and prosperity of its own citizens, of changing that form as circumstances may require, and of managing its internal affairs according to its own will. The people of the United States claim this right for themselves, and they readily concede it to others. Hence it becomes an imperative duty not to interfere in the government or internal policy of other nations; and although we may sympathize with the unfortunate or the oppressed everywhere in their struggles for freedom, our principles forbid us from taking any part in such foreign contests. We make no wars to promote or to prevent successions to thrones, to maintain any theory of a balance of power, or to suppress the actual government which any country chooses to establish for itself. We instigate no revolutions, nor suffer any hostile military expeditions to be fitted out in the United States to invade the territory or provinces of a friendly nation. The great law of morality ought to have a national as well as a personal and individual application. We should act toward other nations as we wish them to act toward us, and justice and conscience should form the rule of conduct between governments, instead of mere power, self interest, or the desire of aggrandizement. To maintain a strict neutrality in foreign wars, to cultivate friendly relations, to reciprocate every noble and generous act, and to perform punctually and scrupulously every treaty obligation -- these are the duties which we owe to other states, and by the performance of which we best entitle ourselves to like treatment from them; or, if that, in any case, be refused, we can enforce our own rights with justice and a clear conscience.
So, what was Millard Fillmore's foreign policy? While his term in office was dominated by a congressional debate over slavery, Fillmore did adopt a "foreign-policy agenda that emphasized expanding trade while limiting American commitments outside the Western Hemisphere," according to the University of Virginia's Miller Center (Ron Paul claims he's not isolationist because he's a free trader who simply doesn't want the United States to be the "policemen of the world"). Fillmore cultivated closer commercial ties with Japan, (ineffectually) opposed a Bay of Pigs-style invasion of Cuba, and refused to confront oppressive imperial governments in Eastern Europe -- all stances Paul might have taken had he been in Fillmore's shoes (we're not sure where Paul would have come down on securing bird dung from Peru, which Fillmore pursued zealously).
Here's footage of the crowd's hostile reaction to Paul's remarks last night:
Might Paul have pacified the crowd by explaining that, hey, he was only echoing Millard Fillmore? Something tells us he wouldn't have received a standing ovation. But bewildered silence might have done the trick.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images and National Archive/Newsmakers
maybe david duke? can you just not stop laughing at this former "gynecologist"!!!!! LOL.......LOL......What a major looooooooon
Millard Fillmore's foreign policy statement was made within a few years after President James Polk's war with Mexico that annexed a vast amount of territory for the United States. Fillmore, as Vice President, entered the office for one term upon the death of Zachary Taylor. If the shoe fits.....
While Polk and the whole expansion thing is a bit embarrassing to mention (for obvious reasons) he greatly expanded the power of the U.S. Fillmore would have been in an interesting position if he had been forced to decide whether or not to annex Texas (which was very popular in the U.S and Texas but would mean war with Mexico).
I like the correlation to Millard Filmore, it's spot on, but I believe that although Ron Paul may seem to be old enough to relate to Filmore, he far more likely is echoing FDR's Good Neighbor Policy considering he would have read about that as recent history in grade school. If FDR can echo Millard Filmore (and quite successfully regarding Latin America) , why can't Ron Paul?
FDR August 14, 1936 -
"Long before I returned to Washington as President of the United
States, I had made up my mind that, pending what might be called a more opportune moment on other continents, the United States could best serve the cause of a peaceful humanity by setting an example. That was why on the 4th of March, 1933, I made the following declaration:
In the field of world policy I would dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbor--the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others--the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.
This declaration represents my purpose; but it represents more than a purpose, for it stands for a practice. To a measurable degree it has succeeded; the whole world now knows that the United States cherishes no predatory ambitions. We are strong; but less powerful nations know that they need not fear our strength. We seek no conquest. We stand for peace."
Jordan, I hadn't thought about FDR's good neighbor policy, but it's a really interesting analogue. Thanks for pointing it out.
Isolationism or Interventionism?
""If another country does to us what we do to others, we aren't going to like it very much," Paul explained in the context of his opposition to war with Iran. "So I would say maybe we ought to consider a Golden Rule in foreign policy," he continued placidly, as he was eaten alive by boos and jeers. "We endlessly bomb these other countries and then we wonder why they get upset with us?" Paul has trotted out this Golden Rule line several times during the campaign, drawing laughter "
-------
He is not talking about an absolutist isolationism is he. If he is please find it for me. If you carry on through the footage the crowd (which you place so much emphasis on as a viable critique of his policies) goes from boos to cheers, as soon as he says we should not be fighting another war we should get out of the wars we are already in.
And how is criticizing a little known president's policy of Golden rule for FP a legitimate critique of the policy itself. You write for FP but seem incapable of understanding the founding principle of foreign relations and peace studies.
Poor article. Clearly that axe you have to grind with Paul has been wedged somewhere in your frontal lobe.
Ameshiea,
It's true that the crowd begins cheering when Paul says the US should not fight another war with Iran, and I'm glad you pointed that out (I am interested in how people are interpreting the booing during his Golden Rule remarks but cheering with regard to Iran). The article, however, is not meant to suggest that a Golden Rule, noninterventionist foreign policy is isolationist or misguided but rather that Fillmore and Paul both seem to be championing it.
Isolationism or Interventionism?
"(I am interested in how people are interpreting the booing during his Golden Rule remarks but cheering with regard to Iran)"
He is speaking to a SC audience. Its a tough crowd to sell anti-war concepts to, even though, technically RP is not anti-war but anti interventionist (which is distinct from (isolationist). This community is overwhelmingly involved in US foreign adventurism and does not need to hear more slights against their extended family, hence the boos. Yet when he speaks of no more random conflicts he gets cheers, why? Because, for precisely the same reason, they do not want their extended family put on the line for ambiguous foreign exploits.
You have to ask yourself why, as Paul posited, the RP campaign gets twice as much funding from the vet community as all the other nominees combined. Is that not telling.
This is all connected Uri. People (especially military families) don't want to fight wars that are not necessary. To require congressional declaration at least slows the gears of war. That is all Paul asks. Why does that make him a pariah? Explain.
"The article, however, is not meant to suggest that a Golden Rule, noninterventionist foreign policy is isolationist or misguided but rather that Fillmore and Paul both seem to be championing it"
I think that is an interesting analogy but the way you construct your essay implies that Paul like this little known president are a laughable aside.
Apologies for the frontal lobe quip. I did not expect a reply.
Isolationism or Interventionism?
Ameshiea,
Interesting take on the SC audience's reaction - it seems to at once suggest support in the crowd for muscular foreign policy but also exasperation with foreign military adventures. And thanks for the feedback on the piece.
My take on the seemingly self-contradictory response of the audience is that the audience wasn't a homogenous collective. There was a large contingent of neo-con, establishment Republicans that booed and hissed at Rep. Paul and cheered for the bloodlust of Gingrich and Romney, and there was a smaller number of Paul supporters, who are well-known for whooping and hollering given the chance. What does this indicate? It points out a philosophical difference between the GOP party line (and US political dogma in general) that aggressive American military action is necessary to ensure various U.S. interests (e.g., protecting human rights and democracy, controlling natural resources, supporting Israel) and, on the other hand, a new brand of libertarian Republican that sees these endeavors as hypocritical (i.e. killing innocents, chipping away at basic human rights traditions) and counterproductive (i.e. diverting money away from domestic concerns, unintentionally fostering hate towards the U.S.) What we heard was the reaction of each of these factions.
For me, this moment was, at least, understandable given the above analysis. What I can't wrap my head around is the weird jeering at Juan Williams' Mexico reference and his exchange with Gingrich. The best I can come up with is that they were opposed to the questions being asked, but that just seems too silly for my satisfaction.
I find it a very sad day in America that "The Golden Rule" would get booed on national television.
Blowback is for real.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/foreign-policy-experts-agree-with-ron-pauls-controversial-foreign-policy/
Ron Paul's Reading List:
Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror
1. Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror by Michael Scheuer
Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism
2. Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Robert Anthony Pape
Blowback, Second Edition: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire
3. Blowback, Second Edition: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire by Chalmers A. Johnson
The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Authorized Edition)
4. The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Authorized Edition) by Thomas H. Kean
Here is something about the Newsletters you won't see in the Main Stream Media:
www.fox19.com/story/16458700/reality-check-the-name-of-a-mystery-writer-of-one-of-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=6613339
No Kings, No Wars.
No one but Dr. Paul
Ron Paul 2012
Restore America Now!!!
Here is something about the Newsletters you won't see in the Main Stream Media:
www.fox19.com/story/16458700/reality-check-the-name-of-a-mystery-writer-of-one-of-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=6613339
You never actually read that Fox article. Its pure dookie.
It doesn't actually refute anything concerning Paul's racist newsletters. Paul himself never refuted anything concerning the racist newsletters. He has actually defended them.
The man is a bigot, deal with it.
And we remember Millard Filmore for what?
Absolutely nothing.
His presidency falls in that black hole of American History education between the Mexican War and the Civil War where not much of anything worth noting.
A sure sign of BS:
"Fillmore cultivated closer commercial ties with Japan"
That really meant sending ships to sail up Tokyo Harbor and threaten to bombard the capital if Japan didn't sign a favorable trade treaty. The Japanese still remember the period even if we don't because it completely upended their society. [See Satsuma Revolt and Meiji Restoration]
I don't think Paul would have supported that. But then again as a free trade kinda guy, he would undoubtedly not oppose private concerns doing the same thing. Paul's ideals are definitely of the 19th century.
Paul certainly is no friend of people who worry about pollution, humane work conditions, or discrimination under the color of law.
Yes, keep believing that unions, the EPA, and the federal big daddy are your friends. Good luck with any job prospects in the future though.
I would much rather have the EPA, FDA and the EEOC and OSHA than have to depend on state and local corrupt governments to take care of things.
Some things were put in federal hands because the local officials couldn't be trusted. Paul obviously doesn't give a shit about anything to protect consumers, workers or about invidious discrimination, neither do his fans.
hahahahaaaaa... and you think that the Federal gov't and EPA aren't corrupt??? You think theres more transparency and accountability within the Federal public sector than within the State and municipal governments? Washington policymakers have created so many regulations and an insane bureaucracy that local governments can't hold a candle to it.
and it seems to be for sure, freedom is a fearful thing. How could one person possibly survive without the helping hand of our bloated, out of control, totally inept Washington D.C. problem solvers?
There are many of us who have thrived, not because of the guiding hand of the central planners in Washington D.C., but in spite of it. We have taken risks, birthed businesses, create jobs, raised families, educated children and brought benefit to the world around us.
For us, freedom is not such a fearful thing. To someone thirsty for security, I imagine the EPA, the DEA, the TSA and the FDA are the passies to which you understandably cling.
My wish for you is that when these hideous organizations whose horn you so loudly blow. become so big, so powerful, so cumbersome and reach their full and utter impotence, they come crashing down around you and choke you to death in their rubble.
And the first thing before closing those 800 military basis, Ron Paul should voluntarily declare that US Dollar is no more a world reserve currency. If you want to be a free trader, act like one. If you are not ready for that, then do your duty conscientiously as the global policeman.
S Dollar is no more a world reserve currency. If you want to be a free trader, act like one. pasta oyunlar?Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden
Degenerating the content of this "article" to name calling and backhanded insults against Dr. Paul shows why there are so many ignorant people.
From the insult in the title to the guffaws in the opening paragraph, Mr. Friedman wants to reinforce the illusory concept of Dr. Paul being a fringe candidate.
What is particularly disturbing is that Mr. Friedman degenerates the Golden Rule as applied to foreign policy to a knock knock joke. What is certain however, is that the United States was occupied by the British and blockaded by the Royal Navy during the War of 1812. It is fairly easy to read about how the Untied States felt about that intrusion.
How did you feel about the intrusion of 9/11?
Would this event be met with laughter?
Now that you have the first hand experience, does that change your thesis of ridiculing Dr. Paul's policy?
When Dr. Paul asks how we would feel if the Chinese were in the Gulf of Mexico, the presence of an invading foreign power has happened (and please, spare me your sophomoric humor ).
As long as you do not have to do the fighting, war is just great.
With regards to the bird dung from Peru, your not worth the time.
First, that crowd seems odd.
This next problem I have is with the comments involving Israel. Their not offensive per say but you just sound stupid.
I know thats what the neo-cons talk about but all they really want is a real ally in the region. I am sure there will be a wave from both sides of the argument here, but what if they are a non factor? If you believe the United States is an imperial power, it is in your best interests to police the world. If supporting other nations and breaking others is in your economic interests then go for it. It has nothing to do with zionism or with the "Christian" neo-cons wanting to be raptured. It has everything to do with power and money. Remember most of the public is uneducated and will be swayed by rhetoric, so it is easy for them to champion "causes" and not theory. As a Christian I can tell you Israel has been taking care of itself for thousands of years. It can handle itself, and if wants to take back the gaza strip once Ron Paul takes office. Great! The argument against the aid to Israel people is shouldn't we back off and let them do whatever they want?
The other side says look we have been on a slow curve to imperialism ever since the founding (Max Boot Small Wars on History of our wars). The argument is the order of governance. Is it the federal governments job to police the world? Is it's job once finding no real threat go out and find one? The Iron Law of Bureaucracy anyone? I am in the latter.
Samuel Huntington (i reference this guy a lot.) in the Soldier and the State page 79. It does not mean we do not fight. It promises when we do we will bring all the horrors and glory. You can find this book for free on google books.
"This next problem I have is with the comments involving Israel. Their not offensive per say but you just sound stupid."
You had me from that line going forward. Well said.
Why are so many correspondents on Foreign Policy Jewish please?
www.charlesfrith.com
It's amazing that a rational voice, just saying what everyone knows, that what goes around, comes around, would get booed. That's the America I know - screw rational thinking! Let's be rednecks!
I just want to commend the Brits, the S1 guys, for bringing me to this report, so I could smile today. The ovation at the end just goes to show the divisions a little bit of thought will bring to the people of this great nation.
The other side says look we have been on a slow curve to imperialism ever since the founding (Max Boot Small Wars on History of our wars). The argument is the order of governance. Is it the federal governments job to police the world? Is it's job once finding no real threat go out and find one? The Iron Law of Bureaucracy anyone? I am in the latter.
Samuel Huntington (i reference this guy a lot.) in the Soldier and the State page 79. It does not mean we do not fight. It promises when we do we will bring all the horrors and glory. You can find this book for free on google books.
I'm sure the Native American Nations wished Millard Fillmore actually practiced what he preached. The fact is the US has been expansionary and interventionist ever since its founding. George Washington issued an executive order or something to that effect that the natives of the Carolinas should be pushed out west to make room for settlers. Manifest Destiny took us all the way to the Pacific, taking by force what wasn't ours to take to begin with.
We've meddled and intervened and continue to do so at almost every opportunity. See "Overthrow" by Stephen Kinzer. A concise primer on US interventionism he starts with Hawaii and ends with Iraq. Had to start somewhere. Another good read on the subject is "Dominion of War."
reviews of each can be found here:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/about/overthrow.jsp
and here:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60690/walter-russell-mead/the-dominion-of-war-empire-and-liberty-in-north-america-1500-200
Ron Paul is right...10% of the time.
Great, Ron Paul is opposed to endless, mindless war. How "refreshing." Too bad he's also opposed to abortion, Federal Civil Rights, the EPA, the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce and he's FOR the Domestic Marriage Act, Right to Work legislation, Vouchers for religious schools and ending social security. If only he was for and against the right things, say, 70% of the time, that would be tolerable. But 90%? Sorry man...too much wrong doesn't give us rights.
Re: Owl
Ron Paul is against civili rights legislation. But not civili liberties. Why is there a divide between black, white etc? The Federal Government is not in a place to make legislation like affirmative action. I had a buddy who is half Lebanese not get accepted to Annapolis simply because they have to get a certain % of each race. So i bid that the civili rights acts are one unnecessary because those are civili liberties already protected by the Constitution. I also bid that because of those bills we have become more divided socially. Also since when is it the Feds place to give money to religious schools? Or since Marriage is a function of the Church why does it regulate that? Owl your argument is about the function of government in the US. Not Ron Paul. If you are in your 20's now you won't get back what you put in. Why should the government take my money then store it for 30 years down the road? Inflation? I can do a better job saving for my retirement thanks but no thanks.
Re Spood "Protocol of Elders of Zion???"
My other post you praised; you then say that. I don't understand. So you think Jews or people who support Israel run wall street? Next you are going to say all Irishmen are Cops. Ireland has control over New York crime? Your posts seem very Nazi propaganda-ish.
This declaration represents my purpose; but it represents more than a purpose, for it stands for a practice. To a measurable degree it has succeeded; the whole world now knows homeimprovementblog that the United States cherishes no predatory ambitions. We are strong; but less powerful nations know that they need not fear our strength. We seek no conquest. We stand for peace."
Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(29)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE