Jackson, to Lincoln’s anti-constitutionalism, to Wilson’s sanctimoniousrnone-worldism, to the bush-league Bolshevism of Rooseveltrnand Johnson, and finally to the Gramscian prevaricationsrnof Bush, Clinton, and Gingrich.rnIt is specious to believe, as do many American Christiansrn(particularly evangelicals), that the prevailing corruption hasrnnot seduced and degraded “the people” as badly as our rulers,rnand that the Humpt)’-Dumpty of Christian society can (andrnwill) be reassembled by a political movement like the MoralrnMajority or the Christian Coalition. Sadly, there are morernAmericans who are depraved enough to vote for the kind of governmentrnwe now have than there are who will vote against it.rnJust as unlikely is national salvation in the form of “revival,” arnnew Great Awakening. Americans’ Christianity has almost entirelyrnlost its savor. Social regeneration cannot be expectedrnfrom a few more group hugs for “reconciliation” by PromisernKeepers, much less from “designer” megachurches specializingrnin “Christian aerobics” for yuppies or from the babbling,rnbarking, and backflopping of the Toronto Airport Blessing, thernPensacola Outpouring, and the rest of the demonic “signs andrnwonders” deception.rnB u t . . . ;/God has not irrevocably withdrawn His grace fromrnour corrupted world, and if He were, by some miracle unforeseenrnand undeserved by us, to restore an American Christianrnsociety and the constitutional republic that the Founding Fathersrnenvisioned and which, for however short a time, existed—rnwhat should be its place in the world? What should be its policyrntoward other nations?rnOne good place to start would be with the old John Birch Societyrnslogan, an oldie but goodie: “U.S. out of the U.N., and thernU.N. out of the U.S.” Most American Christians, to the degreernthat they have any kind of spiritual compass, as well as manyrnpeople who are anything but Christian, have an instinctive andrnvalid mistiust of the growing threat that world government presentsrnto American national sovereignty. A Christian Americarnwould cease its participation in the United Nations and throwrnthat organization’s headquarters out of New York; the U.N. ParticipationrnAct of 1947 should be repealed. As Saint Paul toldrnthe Athenians, God “hath made of one blood all nations of menrnfor to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined therntimes before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation”rn(Acts 17:26). That is, even though all men are of the samernflesh. Holy Scripture suggests that each kindred, tongue, people,rnand nation has its foreordained place and time. That thernUnited States has become Frank Nitti to the U.N.’s Al Capone,rnbreaking the knees of any nation (or at least the relatively weakrnones, like Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, or Serbia) so crass as to want tornpreserve its independence and pursue its sovereign interestsrnshould be particularly repugnant to us. A Christian Americarnwould zealously preserve its own sovereignty—tiade, immigration,rnand citizenship policy would be restructured to protect,rnnot break down, the American nation —and respect thernsovereignty of other nations. We would seek, with nations asrnwith individuals, to “do good unto all men, especially untornthem who are of the household of faith,” as the Apostie writes.rnA Christian foreign policy would mean the end of foreign aidrnand, in general, the end of most officially approved meddling inrnother nations’ business. Congress should repeal the 1961 ForeignrnAssistance Act and abolish the Kennedy-era Agency for InternationalrnDevelopment and the Peace Corps. If we objectasrnwe should—to the efforts by the Chinese government to buyrnthe Clinton administration, why do we expect other countriesrnto thank us when we use tlie National Endowment for Democracy,rnfrmded with tax dollars, to influence foreign elections andrnpick winners and losers, or when armed U.S. force embarks uponrnnonsensical “nation-building”? Why does our Gauleiter inrnBosnia, Robert Gelbard, think he has the right to threatenrnBosnian Serbs with the “most serious imaginable” consequencesrn(more “serious” than the bombs and sanctions wernhave already inflicted on them?) unless they vote to ratify thernleaders we have preselected for them? Why does the InternationalrnRepublican Institute conduct programs in Russia andrnEastern Europe to encourage greater female participation inrnthe political process, as if there is something inherently wrongrnwith the traditional attitude (still stionger in the postcommunistrnworld than in the West) that politics mostiy concerns men andrnthat women’s major responsibility is the home? Most of whatrnour money goes for is neither good nor Christian, and even if itrnwere, there is no compelling reason why Americans should berntaxed to pay for work that would be better done on a voluntaryrnb;isis.rnIn general, an American Christian foreign policy that championedrnnational sovereignty over internationalism wouldrnheed the long-neglected warning of George Washingtonrnagainst “permanent, inveterate antipathies against particularrnnations and passionate attachments for others.” At the samerntime, a sovereign. Christian America would take a realistic andrnprincipled attitude toward two issues that should provoke thernconscience of any Christian people: persecution of Christiansrnand the march of militant Islam.rn”Precious in the sight of the Lord,” sang the psalmist, “is therndeath of his saints.” An amazed and stupefied Washington establishmentrnhas lately discovered the obvious fact that morernChristians have suffered a martyr’s fate in the 20th century thanrnin the previous 19 combined. (As a side observation on thernabysmal level of Christian knowledge and solidarity, how manyrnAmerican Christians now fond of citing this know that todayrnmost Christian victims of Islam are Roman Catholics, or thatrnthe vast majority of this century’s horrendous communist deathrntoll were Orthodox?) Typically, the bipartisan establishmentrnhas managed to trivialize even this belated awareness of Christianrnpersecution and has relegated it to the generic status ofrn”human rights,” unwilling to show any particular concern forrnChristians without throwing in Tibetan Buddhists, Iranian Baha’is,rnChinese Muslims, and anybody and everybody else tornavoid even the suspicion that American Christians might be especiallyrnconcerned about fellow Christians. An AmericanrnChristian policy would bar or severely limit goods from persecutingrnstates and keep our political contacts with persecutingrnregimes at appropriately minimal levels.rnSimilarly, the United States should reverse its pro-Muslimrnbias in the conflicts that currentiy rage between Muslims andrnChristians in the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, andrnalong the southern Sahara and extend toward the Christiansrnwhat tiaditional diplomacy called “benevolent neutrality”; wernshould encourage the moral unit}’ of traditionally Christianrnpeoples and should abandon misguided policies, like NATOrnexpansion and our Bosnia deployment, that promote disunit}-.rnIt is not the job of even a Christian America to go to war to protectrnChristians abroad, but we should be in solidarity with, notrnhostile to, Christian communities that are increasingly subjectrnto physical eradication by the devotees of a crazed false prophet.rnOf all the items on the Christian Coalition’s voters’ guide, inrn14/CHRONICLESrnrnrn