On April 30, 1789, George Washington took office as the President of a nation that had established itself as a new experiment in the world – a nation created by its citizenry. He would set the groundwork for what this nation was to become, as he ventured into the leadership that would establish the means by which man might rule himself.
In his Inaugural Address, he described "the foundation of our national policy [which] will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens and command the respect of the world."
He concluded that address with an explanation of the task ahead, and thanked "the benign Parent of the Human Race.., since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend."
Seven years later, after having experienced the challenges, provocations and temptations which would forever be hurtled at the new nation, he advised us, in his Farewell Address:
" The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."
" Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it."
" It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
* * *
" Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government…"
Human nature was the foundation of these remarks. Regardless of what we are told, today, human nature never changes. The truthfulness of these quotations is irrefutable. Even the best of the spin-doctors cannot dissuade a thinking person from this reality.
Now comes Bill Clinton. He is, perhaps, the best example of the fears that Washington perceived. His use of party politics, his immorality and his foreign policy (even after his expressed resentment toward the use of power in international matters, demonstrated by his artful dodging of the draft) and his more than enthusiastic exaggeration of the true circumstances to justify the murdering of innocent people. His press release of March 19, 1999 exemplifies the antithesis of the Washington philosophy, and the American principle. He said:
"We must also understand our stake in peace in the Balkans, and in Kosovo. This is a humanitarian crisis, but it is much more. This is a conflict with no natural boundaries. It threatens our national interests. If it continues, it will push refugees across borders, and draw in neighboring countries. It will undermine the credibility of NATO, on which stability in Europe and our own credibility depend. It will likely reignite the historical animosities, including those that can embrace Albania, Macedonia, Greece, even Turkey. These divisions still have the potential to make the next century a truly violent one for that part of the world that straddles Europe, Asia and the Middle East."
This is not a humanitarian crisis, it is a war. Was Vietnam a humanitarian crisis?
This conflict had national boundaries until we decided to force NATO into expanding those boundaries to include other nations of Europe, Asia and the United States. That expansion is only through assumption, but, if Clinton has his way, will soon be by action.
It DOES NOT threaten our (United States) national interests.
The presumption that it will ‘draw in neighboring countries’ has no foundation is reality. Refugees flee countries every day. The United States takes in thousands of refugees every day. These ‘flights’ don‘t result in ‘drawing in’ other nations.
It will undermine the credibility of NATO, but perhaps this should be looked upon as desirable, since NATO has gone well beyond its original scope as a mutual defense against perceived Russian aggression – which, by the way, never occurred and never will, since Russia is now a part of NATO. As far as OUR credibility, well, more on that shortly.
It will NOT ‘likely reignite the historical animosities’, it is the manifestation of those animosities ignited. The presumption that it will spread to other nations is ludicrous. If other nations attempt to establish governments of their choice (as we did), then they may follow the lead being established in Kosovo to achieve their desired end.
Nothing the United States or NATO has done in the last few decades leads anyone to conclude that violence will not be a part of the next century, as it has been for the past few millennia.
Is it possible that Washington was correct when he said that "it kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection"?
If this government is truly founded on the "consent" of the governed; if this country is to be a reflection of the morality of its People; if this country is to "win the affections of its citizens and command the respect of the world", then, perhaps, it is time for the willing minority to begin asserting the will of the people in such a manner as to have a positive effect on government policy and direct this nation, and its leaders, back to the design left us by more honorable men.
Perhaps the tactic proposed by Mr. Clinton is one that we might justify on an intra-national level. Perhaps the use of force – bombing, killing and maiming is the means by which we can influence the politicians in Washington to abide by the agreement creating their authority – the Constitution. Perhaps that threat – that fear – that Clinton wishes to use to impose his policies on Kosovo is the same means by which we can impose our policies on the government. Perhaps a greater sanity can be assured if a few are now willing to take what will surely by spun into ‘insane’ actions.