U.S. Foreign Policy Doctrines: An Overview

Thanks to Wikipedia and my other text resources, here is my best summary of the various doctrines (presidential or otherwise) that have defined and undergirded the United States' foreign policy throughout our history. This is intended as a reference guide.

Proclamation of Neutrality & Farewell Address (Washington): the US is neutral in the conflict between France and Great Britain; the United States will pursue legal proceedings against any American providing assistance to the warring countries; it is the true policy of the US to steer clear of permanent alliances

Monroe Doctrine: further efforts by European countries to colonize land or interfere with states in the Americas will be viewed as acts of aggression requiring U.S. intervention; the Western Hemisphere is not to be further colonized by European countries, but the United States will neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries

Roosevelt Corollary: a right of the United States exists to intervene in order to stabilize the economic affairs of states in the South America, if they’re unable to pay their international debts

Lodge Corollary: the US forbids any foreign power from acquiring any significant territory in the Western Hemisphere

Stimson Doctrine: the United States does not recognize international territorial changes executed by force; furthermore, the US cannot admit the legality of any situation de facto nor recognize any treaty between those governments which may impair the treaty rights of the United States

Good Neighbor policy (FDR): non-intervention and non-interference in the domestic affairs of Latin America to create new economic opportunities and to reassert the influence of the US in Latin America

Truman Doctrine: the policy of the United States is to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures; because totalitarian regimes coerced free peoples, they represent a threat to international peace and the national security of the United States

Eisenhower Doctrine: a country can request American economic assistance and/or aid from U.S. military forces if it is being threatened by armed aggression from another state, specifically the USSR in the Middle East

Kennedy Doctrine: the United States must focus on the containment of Communism and the reversal of Communist progress in the Western Hemisphere (“we shall pay any price, bear any burden”)

Johnson Doctrine: Communist dictatorship of a Latin American country is a priority concern of the United States and is no longer a local matter

Nixon Doctrine: the United States henceforth expects its allies to take care of their own military defense, but that the US would aid in defense as requested; the US will honor all previous treaty commitments and continue to provide a nuclear shield against threats on allied nations

Carter Doctrine: an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America; the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests there

Reagan Doctrine: the focus of the US will shift from keeping Communism from spreading to eliminating existing Communist governments, from containment to rollback; the United States also will encourage capitalism and democracy in these places; specific nations targeted for rollback are Afghanistan, Angola, Ethiopia, Iran, Laos, Libya, Nicaragua, and Vietnam

Clinton Doctrine: the United States has a national interest in preventing genocide; if it's within the United State’s power to stop genocide, the US will use military force to affect that end

Bush Doctrine: the United States has the right to secure itself against countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups; to prevent hostile acts by adversaries, the United States will act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense if necessary; the US must also advance the cause of freedom and democracy abroad

Obama Doctrine: I have no clue. Maybe we'll see something more definite come out in his next two years.

On the Tucson Shooting: MSM vs. Palin's Map

In other news - indeed, sometimes the only news being discussed on TV - we've seen Sarah Palin getting blamed for the tragedy in Arizona, largely by obvious lefty partisans. The theory is being forced to people's attention by the MSM who are treating it like it's an idea worth musing on. She is seen as culpable for this shooting because of her "violent imagery" and "vitriolic rhetoric" and the like. In specific, she is thought to be responsible for the shooting because of a map that was posted on SarahPAC's website in 2010. They say it is so terrible because it uses the so-called "violent imagery" of cross-hairs to target Mrs. Giffords' district as one ready to be taken by Republicans in the then-upcoming midterm elections.

Here it is, and you can see it for yourself:


























You can understand just by looking at the thing that it's not violent at all. I can't even get a little riled up looking at all that calming blue. Blue is the color they paint nurseries for crying out loud.

Plus, there's nothing inherently "violent" about cross-hairs. True, most people tend to think of guns, but really it has to do more with scopes than the actual gun. Many people have pointed out that cross-hairs are painted onto plenty of surveyor leveling instruments, so they aren't necessarily gun scopes. But for sake of argument, I'll assume that most normal people think of guns when they see the cross-hairs symbol.

Why do we assume that it was Sarah Palin's "targeting map" that set Loughner off? If "crosshairs" are all that's needed to set a psychopath on a killing rampage, maybe it was the creepily similar DNC map from 2004 that did it:

Wow, they even say "behind enemy lines"! Such violent rhetoric! Or maybe he was looking at the 2010 Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) map for "targeting" Republican congressmen:


My point is not that Democrats caused the tragedy. In fact, I think that the above two maps had nothing to do with Loughner's rampage. My point is that the so-called "violent imagery", which may/may not have supposedly pushed Loughner to violence, is not necessarily only Palin's doing. If targeting people (even metaphorically) is a cause for violence, then surely the DNC and DCCC are equally to blame.


I can agree that vitriolic rhetoric is not pleasant and doesn't have a place in modern, civilized political discourse. Yet, I might add that the use of targets and cross-hairs is nothing new or strange or extreme. Charles Krauthammer hit upon this in his column (actually, he wrote a lot of good things in that one; I recommend it). Political symbols and idioms have long included references to war and violence: we have primaries in 'battleground states', we take 'shellackings' in elections, we wage political 'campaigns', and our political spin doctors commit 'character assassinations' of opponents. Heck, President Obama himself even said of the political struggle between Democrats and Republicans that "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." Why can't this be the vitriolic rhetoric that set Loughner off? And why now and not two years ago?


The most damning part of this whole poor excuse for a theory is the fact that there is not a shred of evidence that Loughner saw any of these images. WTF? Are we supposed to believe that Loughner was driven to violence by things with which he was never in contact? He was no Sarah Palin fan, and we have records of a personal vendetta against Giffords since 2007, when no one outside of Alaska knew who Sarah Palin was. So would anyone care to explain how that works? And don't gimme anything about "contributing to a climate of hate." That's a cop-out, plain and simple. It's such a lame, vague excuse that it could apply to merely pointing with your hand like this:


This is akin to suggesting that violent video games like Doom were the primary cause for school shootings like Columbine, for you gamers out there. I'm sure you can relate. Except the situation is more like this: "the shooter may have previously viewed a screenshot from Doom and that caused him to be so enraged that he shot up a school". Or better yet: "the mere existence of the violent game Doom caused a teenager who had never played it before to shoot up a school."

Seriously, that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. You may not like Sarah Palin, but there's no way you can wish your way into blaming her for the tragedy.

I'd like to part with this quote:

"In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber."

- Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.

On the Tragedy in Arizona

This is a little late -- the shooting in Tucson occurred on January 8th earlier this year -- but I think that I ought to talk a little about it.

I'm very sorry for the victims of this shooting. Mrs. Giffords and her family deserve our prayers, as do the twenty other victims (6 of who died from their wounds) and their families. The man, Loughner, was clearly deranged and had no right to take away the lives of innocent people. In the meantime, I will pray.

On the Tax Deal

It seems alright to me. I'm not excited about it, but hey, a compromise is a compromise. Though when it comes to what we can take away from the whole thing, I agree with Rush: the Congressional leadership of us Republicans are terrible negotiators. We could have gotten quite a bit more; there was really no chance that Obama wouldn't come to any terms. He needs the support of the middle classes more than he needs the die-hard progressives in any case. There was no way that Obama would have sat the whole thing out about keeping all the tax rates in place.

What I'm least happy about is the return of the inheritance tax and the increased jobless giveaways for another 13 months.

From WaPo:

The Obama-GOP compromise would (1) extend all the tax cuts that are set to expire Dec. 31, including for the wealthiest households; (2) continue long-term unemployment benefits through the end of next year; (3) give businesses a major tax break to encourage capital investment; and (4) provide working couples as much as $4,200 in extra cash in 2011 through a one-year payroll-tax holiday...

Republicans were still pressing on the estate tax, demanding more generous terms that would exempt estates worth up to $10 million for couples and impose a rate above that amount of only 35 percent. On Monday, Biden made a counteroffer: The GOP could have a relaxed estate tax in exchange for a two-year extension of refundable tax credits created in the 2009 stimulus package that benefit college students and working-class families.

McConnell agreed, and a deal was struck late Monday that would give Democrats at least $100 billion more in middle-class benefits than the GOP would win for the wealthiest taxpayers, senior administration officials said.

We did get plenty, but I think that the unemployment goodies could have been pushed to fewer months and we could have kept the inheritance tax out of the picture entirely. Oh well. You can't win them all.

On the other hand, I must admit that the return of an inheritance tax isn't so bad in this crisis, provided it's low and temporary. I can certainly think of worse taxes (VAT, anyone?) and between a heavy increase in income tax and a mild increase in inheritance tax, I'll take the "death tax."

I don't buy the arguments about "we'll have a double-dip recession if this isn't passed". No, we'll have a double-dip recession if the tax rates suddenly sky-rocket, but it doesn't necessarily follow that this particular bill will be the only one that we'll ever agree on. But I digress...

Besides, this isn't indicative of a major failing for the GOP. Think about it. First people are unsatisfied with Congress' job, then we get a big win in Congress, and now we're changing how business is done in Washington by implementing pro-business legislation! Quite a turn-around, no? I might add that if we don't pass anything and the tax rates get hiked by inaction, the public might think that the GOP really is being obstructionist for obstructionism's sake and not thinking about the good of the country, which is the very opposite of our intentions.

For some of my fellow conservatives who are outraged, lighten up. This is a good deal. Not excellent, true-- not by a long shot-- but I'm not for pushing our luck all at once. Hold your nose and let it pass. How do I know that it's a good deal? The far-left progressive types despise it with all their might. That's good enough for me.

A Funny Picture