Moral Unilateralism
By: Anthony Galli
Tags: History, Politics, Government, Woodrow Wilson, Foreign Policy

Rambo in Action | Edited by Author

Moral Unilateralism

In my opinion, the United States of America shouldn’t go to war (economically, digitally, or militarily) just to save people from oppression. I think there needs to be additional parameters, such as America being attacked first.

But nonetheless, I wonder… where are the idealists? Where are the people who say, “We are all human,” “I want to make the world a better place!” If that’s your philosophy and objective then why aren’t you supportive of fighting to protect human rights — regardless of nationality?

There’s a justifiable distrust of our military-industrial complex, but that doesn’t mean our might hasn’t and can’t be used for good. Where are the idealists who say, “Never again!” in reference to today’s genocides — Rohingya in Myanmar, Nuer in South Sudan, Yazidis in Syria, Christians in the Central African Republic, Darfuris in Sudan, Uyghur in China? I hear your silence.

Are you the type of person who stands up to bullies? Do you do what’s fair even if it goes against your self-interest? If a husband hits his wife would you say, “Oh, that’s none of my business! She chose to be with him.” And yet when a government abuses its people so many people say, “Oh, but who are we to judge? We got our own problems!”

If “we’re all human” as the slogan indicates then imagine being an Iraqi boy who witnessed his family gassed to death for simply being the wrong type of Muslim. Wouldn’t you wish for someone, anyone, even an American, to swoop in and save you from the genocidal maniac Saddam Hussein?

Where are the idealists?

I think they’ve been squashed into an ever polarizing political spectrum. On the right, we have a mix of non-interventionists, neoconservatives, and an “America First” approach to trade. A more idealistic approach to foreign policy would have traditionally fallen on the left as exemplified by President Woodrow Wilson’s entrance into WW1 and fight for the League of Nations.

Official White House Portrait

But today there’s virtually no young leftists arguing for foreign intervention because by extension they’d have to view America as a potential source of good, which of course, is a no, no. They’d have to point out the multitude of times America used its might for what’s right, which is blasphemy to the followers of Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky.

There’s a lot we could do that doesn’t require all-out war, such as increasing sanctions on totalitarian states and providing oppressed people with information via pamphlet drops and breaking down censorship. Let freedom ring, ring, ring! Hello? This is a Public Service Announcement from the U.S. Government informing you that you can get free food and water at our nearby military facility.

Joe Biden’s foreign policy platform doesn’t even mention the word “genocide” and is likely to be similar to the Obama doctrine of “moral multilateralism,” which emphasized “negotiation and collaboration,” or as it was put by former National Security Advisor John Bolton, “appeasement,” i.e. handing over billions of dollars to totalitarian regimes in exchange for promises of good behavior. Here’s our lunch money!

But if negotiations fail, where are the moral unilateralists? Where are the people who don’t look for consensus in order to do what’s right? Where are the people who put protecting human life over maintaining good relations with those willing to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses? Where are the idealists?

According to the Moral Foundations Theory, Democrats put much more weight on the values of “kindness” and “fairness” (Republicans give more equal weight to kindness, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity, and liberty) and so if you are so kind and fair, instead of kind of fair, then consider extending your kindness beyond the 1%, which is America, and to the other 99% of the world who have to make do with less. You don’t have to be an idealist, but you do have to leave utopia.