A luxury we can't afford

Peter Robinson, National Review Online contributor, frets over Dubya's inaugural address, telling us

"... the speech was in almost no way that of a conservative. To the contrary. It amounted to a thoroughgoing exaltation of the state.

Bush has just announced that we must remake the entire third world in order to feel safe in our own homes, and he has done so without sounding a single note of reluctance or hesitation. This overturns the nation’s fundamental stance toward foreign policy since its inception. Washington warned of "foreign entanglements." The second President Adams asserted that "we go not abroad in search of monsters to destroy." During the Cold War, even Republican presidents made it clear that we played our large role upon the world stage only to defend ourselves and our allies, seeking to changed the world by our example rather than by force.

Robinson ends with: Tell me I'm wrong. Please.

Peter, you are wrong. Revisit 9/11. Understand that to be conservative is to seek to protect the good. The security of our citizens and the future of our economy depend in great part on fending off attacks from "out there," from people who would terminate our way of life tomorrow if they could.

In Washington's Day no one had that capability, except maybe the British (and don't think they didn't try in 1812). We had the luxury of oceans to keep would-be enemies at bay. Technology has trimmed our safety margin. Stupid political correctness -- and no small measure of free trade enthusiasm -- has laid waste our attempts at border control. The idea that we could crawl back into Cocoon America is enticing. Traditional conservatism saw isolationism as our best chance for untrampled peace.

Isolationism in today's world is a guarantee of terrorism, and a promise that our system will be tested, perhaps beyond its limits to survive. This "whistlin' in the dark" isolationism is a main theme running through what passes for mainstream liberalism today. ("We should be spending our tax dollars on the poor at home, not on the military abroad." Etc.)

What was once distant Asia, Africa and the Middle East is now next door. And the neighbors are not quiet. They fight among themselves constantly, and when we peek through the curtains we see them casting covetous glances are our possessions. They do not ask us how we became wealthy (through freedom, hard work and the blessings of the Almighty). They instead berate us for having more than our "fair share."

If we can spread the concept of personal liberty and economic freedom to these regions, prosperity will follow and we might not have to worry about keeping an eye on the neighbors. Sharing the wealth means nothing if we do not share the secrets to creating it. Mere redistribution is only a temporary measure that will results in more anger later.

The only way we can go back to a workable isolationism is to seal off the borders, bury our alliances (and a great deal of free trade), and then aggressively defend ourselves with every weapon we possess. This would require great reliance on nuclear power (for energy needs as well as defense). As long as we import most of our petroleum we are forced to deal with the Middle East.

Perhaps educating the neighborhood to freedom is easier than trying to convince our own American family to modify its extravagant energy-spending ways.