their way, Mr. Botha will chew on the exile’s bread alongnwith Mr, Marcos, to be joined in the near future by thenleaders of South Korea, Taiwan, Chile, and Saudi Arabia.nAt the same time, we can’t find enough nice things to saynabout the liberal regime in mainland China. Judged by thenstandards we apply to South Africa, China should be anpariah in the company of nations. Why? We know why:nBecause any form of Communism—in the befuddlednminds of some globalists—is preferable to any form ofncolonialism. On the other hand, it is equally disgusting tonhear the way some conservatives support South Africansimply because it is more democratic than its neighbors orneven because of its racial policies. The other outstandingnexample of an ideological enemy/ally is Israel. The leftnattacks her because she is an American ally and a Westernnredoubt to check Soviet expansion. The right, for the samenreason, sometimes seems to put Israeli interests above ournown. (Some of them even use a zany, apocalyptic interpretationnof Scripture to support their view.) ConsideringnIsrael’s almost unique efforts to sustain a democratic societynJDutside Europe and North America, it is easy to understandnwhy some conservatives should become unbalanced in herndefense. Still, I am waiting for someone to explain why, innconcrete nonideological terms, I should be too concernedn•with the quality of rascals other nations allow themselves tonbe oppressed by. We have our own to worry about.nBy nonideological I also include all references to whatnmy old Senator (Strom Thurmond) calls the internationaln”Commonist” conspiracy. But we have never had a consistentnanti-Communist policy. In fact, the U.S. has nevernhad a foreign policy for more than a few years at a time.nAmericans may not be smart enough to conduct affairs ofnstate; Our attention span is too short. The result is, leftistnpoliticians are always able to short-circuit any real policy ofncontainment and to drum up support for Communistdominatedninsurgencies. In the long run, a moderatendefensive posture somewhere between Robert Taft’s isolationismnand Irving Kristol’s highly modified and restrainednglobalism is probably in the best interest of the UnitednStates.nGood anti-Communists tell me that any withdrawal fromnthe world stage plays into the hands of the Soviet Union.nHowever, for all the rhetoric and secret operations, we havennot kept the Soviets out of Cuba and Nicaragua. If we arenreally willing to go to war (a third time) for the liberty ofnEurope or to boot the Communists out of Latin America, Inhave no objection—so long as we do it for us and not fornthe nations we propose to “liberate.” Unfortunately, U.S.nbellicosity, increasingly selective, is only directed againstnnations who can’t fight back. There just aren’t that manynQaddafis in the world to keep the Air Force busy for morenthan a week.nAll of our Founding Fathers understood these questionsnfar better than we do. Washington’s warning against entanglingnalliances was taken to heart by every President untilnMcKinley, Roosevelt, and Wilson destroyed forever ournsplendid isolation in the world. Early on, John Randolph ofnRoanoke had warned Americans against taking the Declarationnof Independence too seriously, much less applying it tonforeign affairs. Randolph was as mad as Cassandra and hasngone unheeded.nWhile “Mad Jack” was an aristocrat, his best disciple innmodern times was a populist Democrat from Illinois (andnNebraska), William Jennings Bryan. When the Republicansnwere hell-bent on conquering and administering thenPhilippines, Bryan discovered the correct word for thesenproceedings: imperialism. When Woodrow Wilson insistednon applying a double standard to the antagonists of WorldnWar I, Bryan resigned as Secretary of State. When warncame, he was among the first to volunteer his services.nAlthough a passionate believer in democracy, Bryan wasnprudent enough to realize that other nations had the right tonwork out their own destinies. Despite his dislike for monarchy,nhe attended the coronation of the King of Norway. Ifnthe Norwegians wanted to saddle themselves with a king,nthat was fine with him. Bryan was convinced that America’sngreatest role was to set an example for the world, to attractnrather than to drive other nations to democracy.nBryan’s open-mindedness stands in sharp contrast withnthe professorial parson’s son under whom he served. WoodrownWilson, on at least one occasion, prolonged the war bynhis refusal to deal with the kaiser’s representatives. WilhelmnII, he observed icily, had not been properly elected. Wilsonnis hardly the only politician who has taught himself to putnideology above the national interest. The worst aspect of allnthis politicking over South Africa, Nicaragua, etc., is thenway it keeps the fires of our disunity stoked. The moderatenleft and the moderate right would stand a better chance ofncollaborating for the common good, if both parties everngave up locking horns over their favorite foreign constituencies.nAs it is, we continue to define ourselves not so much asnAmericans but as supporters (or enemies) of the SovietnUnion, South Africa, “democratic aspirations everywhere,”nor the cause of popular revolution.nIt is a bit too reminiscent of the scenes described bynThucydides in his History. In the course of the longnwar—hot and cold—between Athens and Sparta, city afterncity underwent a civil war in which the democrats alliednthemselves with Athens, the aristrocrats with Sparta. At thenend of the war, the Athenian aristocrats succeed in dishingnthe democrats and making peace with the enemy on lessnthan heroic terms. For Athens, the civil strife was morendestructive than losing the war. Athens’ greatest asset hadnbeen her national energy and sense of commitment. Ideologicalnbickering destroyed Athenian patriotism as it isndestroying ours.nLet me make myself clear: I don’t particularly like thenregimes in Angola and Nicaragua; I was even brought up tonhate the estimable Turks; I fully support our alliance withnIsrael, and I’m even prepared to say nice things about JonasnSavimbi or Pancho Villa. But what is hard to stomach is thenassumption that we should put the interests of any othernnation on par with—much less above—the interests of thenUnited States. Ethnic and political factions who thinknotherwise might consider emigration. I’d like to see anbrigade of blow-dried congressmen and their well-groomednaides marching shoulder to shoulder and eating dog meatnwith the contras or living off cattle blood and taro roots withnMr. Savimbi. The diet will agree with them about as muchnas their internationalism agrees with the taste of mostnAmericans.nnn—Thomas FlemingnSEPTEMBER 1986 / 25n