Saturday, May 1, 2010

Culturism, the Tea Party, and Foreign Policy

The Tea Party is in danger of being torn between the Ron Paul’s constrictive and Sarah Palin’s expansive foreign policy wings. Culturism can help us move past both of these hurdles.

Culturism is the opposite of multiculturalism. Culturism is defined as “the philosophy which holds that majority cultures have a right to define, protect, and promote themselves domestically.” This philosophy supports sovereignty.

On foreign policy culturism provides a third path between Palin and Paul. From a culturist point of view, both sides are misled by avoiding the subject of culture.

Paul’s view that Jihad is a backlash against an expansive foreign policy ignores culture. Islam is an expansive theocratic thought-system that has been at war with the West for 1400 years. Withdrawing our troops from the Middle East and apologizing for America’s behavior will not win us friends and allies in that region.

Palin’s Neo-Con friends take the view hat we can turn Muslim nations into believers in western values. This also ignores culture. Islam is fundamentally hostile to the solely western values of freedom of speech, any separation of church and state, women’s rights, and democracy. From a culturist perspective, nation building in that region is doomed to failure.

Two foreign examples will outline culturist foreign policy towards Islam.

Using Iran as an example, culturists believe that we need to militarily destroy their nuclear weapons making ability. Culturism believes in cultural sovereignty, but nuclear weapons are not a part of Iran’s traditional majority culture and they are developing these weapons to attack western nations. We cannot allow them to have nuclear weapons. Yet, after destroying their weapons building infrastructure, we should not try to rebuild their civic and political infrastructure with the hopes of turning them into an America-loving democracy.

Afghanistan hit us by harboring the terrorists that did such tremendous damage on 9 – 11 that we have a right and duty to inflict pain upon them in self-defense; thus teaching them -and the world - a lesson. The perpetrators’ being killed cannot be so pretty, but the al Qaeda forces attacked us and we must be done, that is war. But after we inflict pain in Afghanistan and kill those who attacked us, culturists insist that we let Afghanistan be the nation it wants to be, even though we realize they will not uphold western values or be strong western ally.

From a Tea Party consistent vantage, wanting smaller government and expanding American dominion to an entire other hemisphere lacks consistency. “Smaller” and “world” government are near opposites. And every penny put into the Afghani and Iraqi economy, does not go into ours.

Thus the culturist point of view combines the hawk message of protecting the US with the anti-expansionist view of the doves by including cultural information. If a nation harbors terrorist that hurt us, we must inflict serious pain on them and then leave. This policy is fiscally conservative. This policy protects us from terrorism. This policy is compatible with smaller government. This culturist foreign policy should be the Tea Party position.

www.culturism.us

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Culturism is a clever way of selling an interventionist agenda. I don't buy your basic premise, that the majority culture has the right to use force to entrench itself. That makes no more sense than a government-dictated political party or government-dictated religion. The Tea Party is at heart about the Constitution, and the Constitution does not privilege cultures.

Culturist John said...

Anonymous,

You are completely wrong in your assertion that culturism sells an interventionist agenda. I hoped in the article it was clear that culturism, apart from acts of aggression, advocates letting other nations be.

Your second point, about the Constitution sanctioning cultures is more interesting. At the time of the Constitution, this was an overwhelmingly Christian - European (even Protestant) nation. Many founders considered an ethical disposition essential to sustaining a republic.

Other nations and cultures have not been able to maintain or create democracies. Mexico, Iran, and China provide three great examples. Culturism agrees that culture is that important. They do not need to have democracy; they have other organizatioal systems.

Whereas separation of Church and State is possible,separation of Mosque and State proves much more difficult. American culturism holds that we have a right to only allow cultures in to the nation that seem compatable with democracy. Your apparent indifference to culture and our Constitution seems a good argument for blurring borders and globalism. From a culturist perspective, that way lies intervention.

Thanks! www.culturism.us

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

No. Culturally you cannot "fight" Islam nor can you "convert" Islam. It is inconsolable and unchanging.

America IS a culture itself when those who wish to join -- in fact -- DO SO. And this would include speaking the language and immersing in the culture itself, a thing called "assimilation."

BZ

Anonymous said...

I think this blog raises some excellent points. We can't simply cut off our participation in world affairs, dig holes and bury our heads in the sand. Taking an isolationist approach to foreign policy is dangerous. At the same time, the Bush Doctrine adn the need to spread democracy is equally dangerous and expensive. It too is based on the false assumption that all people crave democracy and by creating democratic governments we will create allies. That simply is not the case and in most instances where democracy has been imposed by foreign powers, it has been subverted (Weimar Republic for one). Democracy is fragile and must always be protected for forces of evil. That is a job for citizens, not foreign powers.

I agree with the concept of a culturalist foreign policy. Our policies for the past 60 years have failed in most instances because we did not have a solid understanding of our enemies culteral and theological world view. This is certainly true when it comes to the growing Islamist menace. The Islamist menace has excisted since the days when Mohammed walked this earth and grows increasingly bellicose in recent years. We must be prepared to stomped out all forms of Jihadism, whether it layws in pseudo "peaceful" organizations that seek to subvert our culture and government from within by joining with the far left to purge our country of American values--or the equally virulent form that seeks to physically destroy us. We must know and understand our enemy so that we can defeat it.

Stop Obama and the left wing agenda. No surrender!!!