Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution
The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Friday, March 31, 2006

There He Goes Again

George II said recently in regard to his policy toward Iran, "I made it clear, and I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel." Translation: I and my ruling elite will send American servicemen and women to kill--and be killed by--Iranians for the sake of Israel's ruling elite. This comment elicited little if any reaction. Why was no one outraged? Are the American people so saturated with the secular religion of statism that they can hear such words without even flinching? How many Americans would join the armed forces consciously to "protect Israel," which in practice includes protecting the regime that subjugates the Palestinians, whose property rights have been trashed with U.S. sponsorship for two generations? Does the corruption of the American people run that deep? Have they lost all capacity to question their (mis)leaders?

Read more here.


Chris said...

I think you underestimate the power of patriotism and blind allegiance.

Although I have never given it much thought, what really is an appropriate foreign policy?

Should we ever intervene? Does fighting for 'liberty' justify action?

I am beginning to think that isolationism (at least from a foreign policy standpoint, not trade) is the right approach.

Sheldon Richman said...

I don't see how patriotism would induce someone to fight for another country. Blind allegiance to the regime, perhaps. An appropriate foreign policy, as long as the state exists, is a strictly defensive policy. It was set out by Washington and Jefferson: commercial relations with all, few or no political relations. Isolationism, in the sense of isolation from war and other people's quarrels, is the right policy.