Bob Goodlatte and the Tea Party’s Nascent Foreign Policy
By Jason Johnson | Wednesday, October 13th, 2010 | Policy, PoliticsRecently, the Roanoke Tea Party (RTP) rated the three candidates running for election to the U.S. House of Representatives for Virginia’s 6th Congressional District. In the resulting voter guide, the RTP chose not to endorse any candidate, but had some harsh words for the popular incumbent Republican, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, rating him a “Failure with Some Hope of Redemption”:
Representative Bob Goodlatte has consistently opposed the Obama Administration’s initiatives. However, during the Bush Administration, Goodlatte’s record was inconsistent with several examples of going along with Bush Era initiatives that were politically expedient but Constitutionally and/or fiscally questionable. Upholding an Oath is critical to us and we cannot excuse the examples in which he has violated his Oath of Office to support the Constitution of the United States.
Goodlatte is well versed on issues, generally responsive to contact from voters and consistently shows up in DC for votes. We urge Representative Goodlatte to begin taking the Oath of Office more seriously. He needs to support and defend the Constitution of the United States with all of his votes, no matter what side of the aisle the legislation comes from. He showed some courage when he voted against Bush’s initial TARP bill and we urge him to take more of a leadership role in defense of the Constitution of the United States.
While acknowledging that Rep. Goodlatte has many positive attributes (not the least of which is his almost single-handed effort to derail an overpriced renovation of Roanoke’s Poff Federal Building), the RTP’s rating stems from, among other issues, Rep. Goodlatte’s support for the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, and the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (which was also supported by Tea Party favorite Virgil Goode). The best rating issued by the RTP, “He Understands the Constitution and Seems Ready to Uphold the Oath of Office,” went to Libertarian Stuart Bain (who is also a member of the RTP).
While Rep. Goodlatte is expected to be reelected in a landslide, the RTP’s rating brings up an interesting question: heretofore, the primary focus of the Tea Party movement has been fiscal/scope of government issues. As a result, it does not appear that the Tea Party movement has developed a unified position on foreign policy and national security issues. Once many Tea Party-backed candidates are elected this November and are faced with a plethora of these issues, what will the Tea Party’s foreign/national security policy look like? Will it emulate Rep. Ron Paul’s relative isolationism or will it reflect the mainstream conservative foreign policy views of FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey?
Conservatives have long been lukewarm in their support of the Patriot Act, but in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, almost everyone agreed that law enforcement agencies needed more tools in their arsenal to curtail the risk of terrorist attacks. Opposing the Patriot Act and perhaps even the Military Commissions Act is easy–almost a decade after the initial attacks–yet how should we protect the constitutionally protected rights of American citizens while also ensuring their safety from those wishing to do us harm? This is one major issue that the Tea Party movement will have to address very soon.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
A lifelong political junkie, Jason caught the political bug as a fifth grader after meeting George Allen in 1993. Since then he has studied political science at both the undergraduate and graduate level. When not perusing the blogs or volunteering for conservative Republicans, Jason enjoys cheering on his beloved Virginia Tech Hokies and spending time at his Bedford County home.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
11 Responses to "Bob Goodlatte and the Tea Party’s Nascent Foreign Policy"
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bearing Drift, Tea. Tea said: Bob Goodlatte and the Tea Party’s Nascent Foreign Policy: Source: bearingdrift.com — Wednesday, October 13, 2010… http://bit.ly/ba0swI [...]
I don’t agree that Representative Ron Paul is an “isolationist.” The word noninterventionist would be far more appropriate.
To me, it seems like our current national security agenda promotes isolationism. The last several presidents have consistently advocated for unnecessary sanctions and trade barriers, as well as abrasive anti-diplomatic relations. That, to me, seems isolationistic.
Representative Paul has a proven record of advocating free trade and diplomacy. Additionally, Paul often highlights the dangers military-industrial complex – both domestically (unwarranted searches, seizures and wiretapping) and abroad (undeclared wars, the overthrow foreign governments). The Congressman’s positions are hardly that of an isolationist.
However, the subject of this blog is very relevant. The tea party is obviously divided on this issue and it will be interesting to see how the (presumably) newly elected folks will treat the national security and foreign policy issues.
If the tea party is going to support freedom, the movement should endorse the philosophy of individual liberty in all corners – be it Obamacare and the stimulus package or the undeclared wars overseas and unwarranted actions of our federal police.
One of the primary reasons our country is in such a quagmire both domestically and abroad is due to our institution of light socialism and corporatism in the beginning of the 20th century. A little bit of socialism (and/or corporatism) eventually leads to a lot of socialism (and/or corporatism) – and that’s where we are today.
Hopefully the tea party movement can connect the dots and realize that our foreign policy is totally unsustainable and counterproductive.
“War is the health of the state.” – Randolph Bourne
“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.” – Thomas Jefferson
The Tea Party is for limiting government and cutting spending. When we can’t afford something, we can’t afford something, defense spending is not excluded, and when something is unconstitutional, IT IS unconstitutional, there are no exceptions for security. Patrick Henry isn’t famous for saying “Give me safety, or give me death!”, it’s liberty that truly matters.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
- Benjamim Franklin
Also, isolationism is based on protectionism, Rep. Paul is a strong advocate of free trade.
There was a very interesting interview on NPR today with an author who just came out with a book about the John Birch Society. Among many topics, he suggested that the Tea Party has some of its philosophical roots and methods in the John Birch Society. Foreign policy, unfortunately, was not discussed in this framework. I don’t agree that the Tea Party movement is structured anywhere along the lines of the John Birch Society, which, ironically, was structured much along the lines of the Communist Party. The Tea Party does not have one single leader. In fact, quite the opposite. Still, it was an interesting analogy.
J. Christopher: You are correct, inasmuch as “isolationism” contains elements of both noninterventionism and economic protectionism, it was a poor choice of words to describe Rep. Paul’s position and for that I apologize. His position is much more nuanced than that of the post-World War I isolationists. That is not to say, however, that Rep. Paul’s noninterventionism is a particularly prudent policy for the post-9/11 world. If we learned any lessons from World War II, it should be that ignoring international conficts only lead to larger conflicts that might, eventually, draw us into a costly war. I think a prime example is the Iraq War: by moving quickly to disarm Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist regime, we prevented a ruthless dictator with a history of aggression and Pan-Arab fantasies from instituting the new caliphate that might’ve eventually drawn us into another war; at least we were able to fight on our terms. That having been said, our attempts at nation-building in postwar Iraq should give pause to future leaders considering preemptive invasion. We must learn to strike a balance between noninterventionism and micromanagement, as both can eventually lead to conflict.
Trevor: I realize that our war machine gets expensive, but that is the price of preserving our liberty. We live in a dangerous and unstable world filled with people who genuinely believe they are on a divine mission to kill Americans and who only understand military power. Maintaining the superiority of our ground, air and sea forces is not an unnecessary cost if preserving liberty is your concern. However, the debate–as you attempt to reframe it–isn’t a choice between safety or liberty, it is a question of how we optimally balance liberty and safety, as Americans have been doing during wartime since the Revolution.
Quick hypothetical: during the Civil War, President Lincoln called for volunteers to quash the rebellion without calling Congress into special session, suspended habeas corpus for southern sympathizers deemed a threat to the Republic and even deported an outspoken critic in the House of Representatives. All, I might add, were technical violations of the Constitution (albeit it temporary ones), yet all helped the Republic and liberty to prevail. Was Lincoln wrong? Should he have upheld every jot and tittle of the Constitution during the Civil War even if doing so would lead to the death of the United States and all of the liberties guaranteed by our Constitution?
Craig Kilby,
I guess I heard the same program on NPR. I do not believe the historian was saying the Tea Party is structured like the John Birch Society, just that it is heavily influenced by Glenn Beck and that Beck’s take on history seems to come straight from the John Birch Society.
@Jason:
There are two primary reasons I am against the war in Iraq:
1. I’m not a proponent of the preemptive war strategy.
2. There was no declaration of war by Congress, thereby making the war blatantly unconstitutional.
Additionally, I’m not sure who your were referring to regarding those on a “divine mission to kill Americans and who only understand military power.” I certainly hope you weren’t referring to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist affiliates.
Osama bin Laden has stated time and time again that the actions of al Qaeda and others against the United States is not due to our respect to equality and inalienable rights, but due to our previous interventions in the Middle East…! From the undercover overthrow of Iran in 1953 to the inhumane sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s, we have systematically devastated the Muslim world. Their hatred toward America continues to grow today – not be because of our freedom and prosperity, but because we are consistently intervening in their internal affairs and killing their people (directly or indirectly).
September 11, 2001 was a tragic day in our history, but it has been manipulated by our government to enhance the military-industrial complex and undermine our liberty. Our freedoms should never be unconstitutionally sacrificed for temporary security. The American people should stand up for the rule of law and defend their natural rights as aggressively as the founders did.
As for Lincoln, one of the worst executives in American history, he should have respected the rule of law. Our republic is no place for a dictator.
While I don’t agree with Ron Paul on much, I thought he repeatedly made a courageous statement during the 2008 Republican nominating debates when he said “America was never meant to be an empire.”
Although he was ignored by the moderators and shouted down by the other contenders for the nomination, he was right. And it’s something no other candidate, Republican or Democrat, would have had the guts to say.
That sentiment does strike me as somewhat “isolationist.”
Jason you raise a fundamental question: Was there a rebellion or invasion during the Civil War?
Invasion:
We can clearly rule out foreign invasion ( Im sure we can agree on this one ). Internal invasion? Well if you mean the North invading the South then yes their was an invasion. The south did not invade the north. After the 7 deep southern states seceded, Lincoln ordered a blockade of southern ports. Under the law of Nations, only a country could be blockaded, which raises the question: Did Lincoln really recognize the states independence? Lincoln next called for volunteers to invade the south and force them back into the Union. It should be noted that it was this action which caused Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina to Join the Confederacy.
Rebellion:
In order for the southern states secession to be considered a rebellion one must ignore the historical facts leading to the Revolutionary War, especially the lengthy Ratification process leading to the signing of our Constitution:
1. Declaration of Independence ( 1776): A fundamental question is what was the Declaration of Independence declaring? The fourth section of the Declaration makes the answer to this question very obvious because it states: the colonies to be “free and independent states”, and thus claimed the right to do everything sovereign free countries do.
2. The Articles of Confederation ( 1777 ):It began by saying “Articles of Perpetual Union between the states of…” and listed the states, from north to south. Article I said, in full, “The Stile of this Confederacy shall be The United States of America.” Article II added “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”
The definition of “perpetual” at the time simply meant that there was no built in stop date.
3. Treaty of Paris ( 1783 ): Article one says “His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, sovereign and independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, propriety and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof.”
Note: King George was required by the terms of the treaty not to admit that “America” was independent or that “The United States” was independent, but that the thirteen named states were independent.
4. Ratification of the Constitution ( 1787 ): The Federalists, knowing the only way to win approval of the Constitution, insisted during the ratification debates that the states were individual parties to a federal compact. Three states ( Virginia, Maryland, and Rhode Island ) specifically spelled out in writing their right to secede from the Union. The Bill of rights made this even more clear with the 10th Amendment. Because the Constitution does not forbid secession, and the 10th Amendment states that the power of secession like all other “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states,” is “reserved to the states.”
In fact many northern states called for secession when Thomas Jefferson won the presidency much earlier( This is just one of many calls for secession in American history leading up to the War of the States ). Shortly before Lincoln’s election several Northern congressman had proposed legislation that would limit the right of secession, which obviously concedes the right of secession. Logically the right to secede had to exist since the colonies could not have done so from the British Empire if this was not possible. Lincoln believed that secession was impossible because in his opinion the Union existed before the states ( this is like saying a marriage exists before two people even meet ). Lincoln said in his inaugural address that secession is an impossibility. Representative Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut must have been surprised at this, as he had only weeks before proposed an amendment to the Constitution forbidding secession without the consent of Congress, the President, and the other states. In my opinion if there was a rebellion it was Lincoln rebelling against the true American King, King Constitution. Our Republic was meant to be a nation of laws, not men or mob.
Furthermore you stated: “Should he have upheld every jot and tittle of the Constitution during the Civil War even if doing so would lead to the death of the United States and all of the liberties guaranteed by our Constitution?”
First off there was no danger to our liberties except for the lose of liberties due to Lincoln’s violation of his Constitutional Oath. Also their was no threat of death until the North invaded the South.
Absolutely Lincoln should have followed the Constitution. The constitution was written and RATIFIED by men who understood dire circumstances and they specifically wrote it with events like this in mind. It was due to the threat of tyrannical actions like Lincoln’s that the founding fathers sided with Liberty and severely limited the powers and separated those powers amongst three branches of the federal government.
According to Craig R. Smith, “Lincoln had concluded that the principles of the Declaration of Independence were more important than a strict construction of the Constitution.”
This is a direct contradiction since it should be blatantly obvious that the Declaration of Independence was the colonies letter informing the King that they were seceding from the British Empire. This is no different than a state succeeding from the Union. Nowhere in the language of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Paris Treaty, or the Constitution have the states given up their sovereignty. Somehow Lincoln failed to make this most basic connection.
Jason you raise a fundamental question: Was there a rebellion or invasion during the Civil War?
Invasion:
We can clearly rule out foreign invasion ( Im sure we can agree on this one ). Internal invasion? Well if you mean the North invading the South then yes their was an invasion. The south did not invade the north. After the 7 deep southern states seceded, Lincoln ordered a blockade of southern ports. Under the law of Nations, only a country could be blockaded, which raises the question: Did Lincoln really recognize the states independence? Lincoln next called for volunteers to invade the south and force them back into the Union. It should be noted that it was this action which caused Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina to Join the Confederacy.
Rebellion:
In order for the southern states secession to be considered a rebellion one must ignore the historical facts leading to the Revolutionary War, especially the lengthy Ratification process leading to the signing of our Constitution:
1. Declaration of Independence (1776): A fundamental question is what was the Declaration of Independence declaring? The fourth section of the Declaration makes the answer to this question very obvious because it states: the colonies to be “free and independent states”, and thus claimed the right to do everything sovereign free countries do.
2. The Articles of Confederation (1777):It began by saying “Articles of Perpetual Union between the states of…” and listed the states, from north to south. Article I said, in full, “The Stile of this Confederacy shall be The United States of America.” Article II added “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”
The definition of “perpetual” at the time simply meant that there was no built in stop date.
3. Treaty of Paris (1783): Article one says “His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, sovereign and independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, propriety and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof.”
Note: King George was required by the terms of the treaty not to admit that “America” was independent or that “The United States” was independent, but that the thirteen named states were independent.
4. Ratification of the Constitution (1787): The Federalists, knowing the only way to win approval of the Constitution, insisted during the ratification debates that the states were individual parties to a federal compact. Three states ( Virginia, Maryland, and Rhode Island ) specifically spelled out in writing their right to secede from the Union. The Bill of rights made this even more clear with the 10th Amendment. Because the Constitution does not forbid secession, and the 10th Amendment states that the power of secession like all other “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states,” is “reserved to the states.”
In fact many northern states called for secession when Thomas Jefferson won the presidency much earlier( This is just one of many calls for secession in American history leading up to the War of the States ). Shortly before Lincoln’s election several Northern congressman had proposed legislation that would limit the right of secession, which obviously concedes the right of secession. Logically the right to secede had to exist since the colonies could not have done so from the British Empire if this was not possible. Lincoln believed that secession was impossible because in his opinion the Union existed before the states ( this is like saying a marriage exists before two people even meet ). Lincoln said in his inaugural address that secession is an impossibility. Representative Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut must have been surprised at this, as he had only weeks before proposed an amendment to the Constitution forbidding secession without the consent of Congress, the President, and the other states. In my opinion if there was a rebellion it was Lincoln rebelling against the true American King, King Constitution. Our Republic was meant to be a nation of laws, not men or mob.
Furthermore you stated: “Should he have upheld every jot and tittle of the Constitution during the Civil War even if doing so would lead to the death of the United States and all of the liberties guaranteed by our Constitution?”
First off there was no danger to our liberties except for the lose of liberties due to Lincoln’s violation of his Constitutional Oath. Also their was no threat of death until the North invaded the South.
Absolutely Lincoln should have followed the Constitution. The constitution was written and RATIFIED by men who understood dire circumstances and they specifically wrote it with events like this in mind. It was due to the threat of tyrannical actions like Lincoln’s that the founding fathers sided with Liberty and severely limited the powers and separated those powers amongst three branches of the federal government.
According to Craig R. Smith, “Lincoln had concluded that the principles of the Declaration of Independence were more important than a strict construction of the Constitution.”
This is a direct contradiction since it should be blatantly obvious that the Declaration of Independence was the colonies letter informing the King that they were seceding from the British Empire. This is no different than a state succeeding from the Union. Nowhere in the language of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Paris Treaty, or the Constitution have the states given up their sovereignty. Somehow Lincoln failed to make this most basic connection.
As one of the Roanoke Tea Party leaders of the vetting process referenced in the article, I thought you raised some thoughtful questions and issues.
As for foreign policy, I can only speak for the Roanoke Tea Party…we just don’t really focus on it. Our focus is really on whether or not candidates follow the Constitution.
We also are focused primarily on the state level, as we feel the Federal Government is corrupted and the best outcome of the mid-term elections would be gridlock…if nothing gets done, the Feds can’t further violate the Constitution.
While the Commonwealth of Va. has it’s share of corruption too, we can have a much bigger impact politically here…and since every state legislator is up for re-election in 2011…this is a great time for us to get Consitutionally sound candidates into Richmond who aren’t afraid to stand up to the Federal Government.
Te Roanoke TeaParty is working with other Patriot and Tea Party groups on the Freedom For Virginians Act (FFVA) which we feel is the key to combatting an overreaching Fed. Please see more at freedomforvirginiasact.org.
Chip Tarbutton
President
Roanoke Tea Party
Leave your response