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.

Post a Comment