What an Entangling Alliance is

Joe,

Ed made his case without ever making personal accusations or labeling and made it well. Your reply does not reach that level when you say, "Quit pretending you're being picked on and you're the voice of reason, copying Rand at her best. You're not."

You address me, referring to the adjective "entangling", saying, "It was meant to describe the alliances that pull you into unnecessary and frequent wars, as alliances with the old world would have back then. The founding father's reasons for avoiding those particular kinds of alliances are valid even today, but when you stretch the meaning to be every possible alliance, the argument stops being valid." I attempted to describe the things that made alliances entangling for the purpose of bringing clarity to the discussion - a fact you omit. If you want to address the attributes that make an alliance "entangling" that would help the discussion. I reasoned that alliances were "entangling" because they contained an obligation to act in a way that was not in our national interest.

You are happy with using the label "isolationist" even though that is inaccurate when a person does not believe in government imposed trade restriction and protectionism. That is a valid and commonly used distinction. Paleoconservatives are isolationists. You say, "Isolationism describes a government policy, not a individual policy. In fact, protectionism is the opposite premise." What do you think laws passed and enforced by the government that restrict free trade might be if not government policy. Both policies have the same effect of isolating the country from the world - one isolates from other nation's governments and the other isolates from other nation's trade. My position is NOTHING like that. I said government should make no laws regarding free trade and enter no alliances whose obligations are not in our national interest. I am not against all alliances.

You are not happy with using the phrase "entangling alliances" despite the fact that it clearly fits some treaties that could be proposed and does not fit others.

You say, "Claiming that all alliances are entangling (and therefore bad for some reason) is saying we should go it alone. We isolate ourselves from the rest of the world, don't get involved, don't help out friends, don't piss anyone off." Your problem is that I have NEVER made statements like that! I've said on many occasions that NATO during the cold war days was NOT an entangling alliance but that it is now. We are in many, many treaties now that are good for us - they let us request extradition, exchange diplomates, etc., etc.

You said, "Intervenionist" implies people push a policy of intervening in other people's affairs." Yes, that is the implication. "It assumes that despots and tyrannies have sovereignty, and their murderous regimes are their own business, and we are getting into the middle of something that isn't our business." Wrong. I do not believe despots or tyrannies have any kind of sovereignty that protects them - we have already gone over that. We should interfere when it is in our interest, but not for ideological or altruistic or world policeman reasons. "It also doesn't distinguish at all between foreign policy choices that are genuinely in our interests and defense, and immoral cases." That is the whole argument. That is the statement being made by referring to a position as "interventionist" - it implies that we should not intervene. When people advocate intervening in another country the burden is on them to show where that is in our interest.

Post 41

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 12:30am

There is a difference between a concept and a word as perceptual tag.

No one has denied that it is valid to use the concept embroiling treaty. Everyone here opposes getting into them. The problem is using the words "entangling alliance" - Washington's words - because of the prestige those mere words have, even though Washington did not mean by them what the "isolationists" mean by them.

And that brings us to "isolationists" and "interventionists/militarists." Those words are being used here as convenient labels, not as arguments. No one has been so stupid as to say "Your isolationist policies are wrong, you isolationist, because they preach isolationism." The same for the use of interventionist. The use of scare quotes should make this obvious.

I don't have a problem with you "isolationists" using the concept embroiling treaty all you like. I do have a problem with you using Washington's words, because they are Washington's words, but meaning something else by them than he did. If your argument is valid, then the sounds you use to make that argument should not matter.

At this point "entangling alliance" is like "neo-con," a fetish used for its emotional connotation.

Post 42

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 9:14am

Ted,

You say that Washington used the term "entangling" - Wikipedia specifically says that is a mistaken notion. Now I have enough respect for you, and enough of an understanding of Wikipedia to believe you might be right, but I liked like to see it. Would you be so kind as to point me in the direction of where he used that term?

You continue to label me as "isolationist" - in response I guess to my pointing out that term doesn't apply. What is that, a case of trying to prove that two wrongs just might make a right? A new way to make me respect the meanings of words? Or is it kind of; nah, na, na, nah, nah, you don't use words right, I won't either!

Post 43

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 9:41am

Come on Steve. I believe it was Ed used the term here which he correctly attributed to Jefferson. The same notion is attributed to Washington. I was taught in high school that this was his farewell address. My teacher went over what this meant in a full day's lecture. It is this repeated attribution to the Founding Fathers that is incorrect. This continued nitpicking does not change that fact.

Jefferson: "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none"

James Buchanan: "To avoid entangling alliances has been a maxim of our policy ever since the days of Washington, and its wisdom no one will attempt to dispute."

George Washington: "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests."

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world..."

Post 44

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 10:03am

Joe,

I agree with you that using terms which have been used before as bromides requires intellectual justification. I agree with your take on Rand's use of the term: selfish.

I disagree with your take on my use of the terms: neocon and entangling alliance. I disavow the notion that I deserve some kind of pity because I've been intentionally or unintentionally portrayed as an underdog who's being picked on.

I am not staking claim to a "taking-the-high-road" sense of moral superiority (i.e., I'm not interested in who it is that gets the last word). I look forward to other kinds of debates with you, but I see no prospect of personal value in continuing this particular debate with you.

Ed

p.s. In an effort to attempt to gain/maintain transparency, I want to say that I'm about to post a quote to the boards which could be construed as an underhanded tactic to continue this debate by proxy (construed as stemming from evil or sinister motives). I don't agree with that hypothetical interpretation and I won't apologize for it, either.

Post 45

Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 12:47pm

Ted,

Remember that I am not the one who made "entangling alliances" a big issue here. This thread was yours. The criticism against me for allegedly misusing the phrase came from you (and others).

You say, "But the desire to cloak an isolationist argument in the prestige of Washington's terms is misleading in part because his own choice of words was unfortunate for posterity's understanding." I get lumped with isolationists, when that isn't an accurate term for my positions, and Washington is associated with the term "entangling," even though he didn't use it.

You make a post saying, "Ed, the phrase [entangling alliances] is used because Washington said it. He is endlessly quoted as having said it."

I point out that the among the founding fathers, the concept of this kind of alliance appears to have come from Paine, the statement as foreign policy from Washington, BUT that only Jefferson used the adjective "entangling." No big deal - just some interesting data applicable to the issue.

You continue to say, :The problem is using the words "entangling alliance" - Washington's words..."

I reply, "You say that Washington used the term "entangling" - Wikipedia specifically says that is a mistaken notion." And I asked if you could find any examples of Washington using the adjective "entangling."

So I take it from your last post that you can NOT find any examples of Washington using the word "entangling"?

I find this whole, long, strange dance down the lanes of word-use to have been mostly a waste - I believe I was on the right track in the beginning, when I was attempting to translate the objective values behind the founding fathers abhorrence of certain kinds of alliances into words that COULD be applied to today's alliances when appropriate.

And I note that the people who get all prickly over the use of words neo-con or entangling or interventionist make no effort to correct their own language when it comes to isolationist.

Post 46

Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 5:12pm

Steve, all alliances are "entangling" by their very nature. If you're in an alliance, you have certain obligations, and so does your ally. That's why they are formed. To make sure you aren't going it alone. Two parties working towards the same goal may be viewed as "natural allies", but there is no explicit alliance. If you're in an alliance, you're generally not allowed to make peace with the enemy while your ally is still at war and especially if it leaves them in a bad situation. The whole point is to stick together until both of your objectives are met. An alliance "entangles" your interests.

If every alliance is "entangling", as it is in the very wide sense of the term (and not the sense that Ted has argued for), then the prefix "entangling" adds no value. It's alliances that are being argued against, in any form. So when people use this term to try to borrow the prestige of the founding fathers, it's not done for clarity or precision. Those, like Ed, who seek to find a coherent definition so that they can be justified in using the phrase are not seeking clarity, but seeking an after-the-fact justification for using it.

As far as "isolationist", my problem with your definition is that it exclude anarchists, who want no government, not just no government in foreign affairs. By trying to add protectionism to the definition, it shields anarchists from the criticism. I agree the term isn't perfect. If you've got a better term that describes a deliberate policy of staying within your borders no matter what happens, I'm happy to hear it.

And for "interventionist", would you consider a law against rape to be an interventionist policy? The police are interfering with other people's affairs, after all. How horrible? Perhaps the problem with this term is that it attempts to define very un-alike actions or policies by a non-essential. Government regulating the economy is not the same as arresting a rapist or murderer, and yet both are acts of "intervention". In domestic affairs, it's obvious that it's an anti-concept. Why is it a fount of clarity when it's applied to foreign affairs?

(Edited by Joseph Rowlands on 9/21, 7:16pm)

Post 47

Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 7:20pm

Joe,

Here is how I started post 1 in this thread, "Ted points out that the founding fathers did not oppose alliances - not all alliances, but only entangling alliances. We allied with France in support of our revolution, because it was in our interest to do so and because it did not entail any obligation - that is it did not entail any entanglement.

The founding fathers opposed alliances that hooked us into struggles between two other parties. They oppossed alliances that entailed obligations and that did not rise to a level of American self-interest. We were not interested in alliances for the sake of power plays, or for ideological expression, or for sake of conquest."

Please notice the following:
1) I was trying to clarify the understanding of "entangling"
2) I specifically pointed out a good alliance.
3) I specifically included 'being in our national interest' as a deciding factor.

You say, "The whole point is to stick together until both of your objectives are met." I agree with that, and I was attempting to describe those principles that would let us discern alliances that had American objectives in them that could and should be met - certainly not all alliances, past, present or future do.
-------------

The definition of "isolationism" isn't mine - it is commonly accepted and it makes sense. It is people who want their government to not interact with foreign governments and want their government to make it impractical for businesses to interact with foreign businesses. They want to isolate America. I have no idea why you see a need to put anarchists into this definition. It is the definition that paleoconservatives use (probably with different wording) to refer to themselves and describes their attempt to isolate themselves from the world (and from the present, I'd say).

One can argue against some kinds of foreign intervention and not others (as I do) and against all government interference with foreign trade by businesses (as I do) and most certainly not be either an anarchist or an isolationist.

I think the term "anarchist" is the only term proper to describe an anarchist and they shouldn't be allowed to hide within any other label as that gives them a degree of credibility they don't deserve.

I'm not that happy with the term "interventionist" but it has a meaning for me - it means our government intervening in either the absence of self-interest or in the absence of a law based upon the violation of individual rights (usually both). Common usage of the term is only in the area of foreign affairs, but in a rough sense it is equivalent to "intervening" domestically where it shouldn't. In other words, a rape would not be an intervention because individual rights were involved, but a law authorizing the draft would be. But like I say, I'm not fond of it as a label. The reason that it isn't a total anti-concept is that there is a group of individuals that are actively advocating use of military force to achieve ideological goals and it makes sense to have a word that can be applied to that position - if you have a better word, I'm happy to entertain it.

Post 48

Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 7:48pm