Imagine a small impoverished country that nobody used to
care about, suddenly discovering natural resources in such quantities; it
becomes one of the wealthiest countries in the world overnight.
You are a young citizen of that country; you traveled the
world, studied in the finest schools abroad, and you're considered to be a
highly educated, highly intelligent person. For these reasons, you are
approached by your government and asked to join the civil service so as to help
chart the future course of the nation.
The first file you delve into is foreign policy. Studying
the subject, it takes you little time to discover that from a time when nobody
cared about your country, it has now become the object of everybody's curiosity
and interest. The nations of the world, be they big or be they small, are
knocking at your door and handing you invitations to join their organizations
and groupings.
Having traveled the world as a student, you know what's out
there but realize that what you experienced then hardly went deeper than the
thickness of the skin. To get a better understanding of what you'll be dealing
with, you arrange to meet with representatives of some foreign governments. You
also do something more immediate; you start to read the ideas of the leading
opinion makers in those countries.
You find that most of the small and mid-level countries are
preoccupied with local problems having to do with matters relating to health,
education, growth in the economy and the like. As to the bigger countries, they
devote a great deal of attention to foreign policy in addition to their local
preoccupations.
One of those countries is America
whose opinion makers – called pundits and commentators – never seem to doubt
that they have the perfect solution for every ill in the world except the ills
that plague America
… about which they remain as dumb as turkeys. Intrigued by the phenomenon, you
delve into America 's
thinking more deeply than you do all the others.
You first acquaint yourself with the recent history of the
world going back a century or so. Now armed with adequate knowledge about the
hot war, the cold war that followed it, and the competition that flared between
the “Socialist” East and the “Capitalist” West, you begin to realize that the
world is a complicated place. You surmise that the situation will require you
to deal with it carefully.
Upon further studies regarding the current situation, you
learn that the competition between the remnants of the Socialist World and the
reconstituted Capitalist World did not die with the demise of the Eastern bloc.
What seems to have happened instead, is that the relationships have mutated on
several levels (economic, diplomatic, scientific and others) into cooperation
on one hand, and more competition on the other.
Having digested all that information, you ask yourself if America is
offering your country love, or it is lusting after something else. Does America want
your country's citizens to thrive and lead the good life, or does it lust after
your coming into the fold the way that things were done during the Cold War? Is
America
altruistic like it says it is, or does it wish to add your country to its list
of conquests, thus cement the notion that it won the post Cold War competition
against the old foes and the emerging ones?
Searching for answers and going over the writings of the
opinion makers, one particular article engrosses you more than anything else
because it reflects the true nature of America 's interests at home and
abroad. It was written by Jonah Goldberg, and came under the title: “Why Can't
the Left Distinguish Conservative Christians from Islamic Terrorists?”
published on June 18, 2016 in National Review Online.
You see in that article an author that no longer speaks of
the foreign “Socialist” that's out there in the Eastern bloc, but of the new
bogeyman that's a homegrown Socialist operating right here together with the
local Left. What you see is Jonah Goldberg who is participating in a debate in
which he attacks the new Socialist enemy as ferociously as his elders used to
attack the old Socialist enemy.
The reason why this debate chills your bones is that it
describes not a battle of the wits but the massacre of real human beings. Not
just that; each side in the debate accuses the other of being indifferent to
the mass slaughter of people because they are of a different political
persuasion or because they are different in other ways.
So you ask yourself if this is the America you
should trust when it says it cares about the well being of your people. And you
answer that no, you shouldn’t trust an America that doesn’t care about the
lives of its own people.
You conclude that America does not love you or your
people; it only lusts after your membership in the club that might enhance its
stature.