Washington Business Daily

Did George Washington want America to mind its own business?

George Washington, first president, said: "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world." Why has America defied the words of one of the Founding Fathers and first president?

Public Comments

1. hailll yeh!
2. yes, and for other countries to mind theirs. we have defied it because people know no history, so it is bound to repeat itself
3. There's a poem by Martin Niemoller that holds a bit of bearing on this. "First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me-- and there was no one left to speak out for me." Well, this is just one version of the poem but all versions have the same thing in common, the person speaking does nothing until it's too late and there is no one left to help them. Washington's words were good for a young nation, but eventually such isolationist views would have led to the country becoming the speaker of the poem.
4. At the time of Washington's presidency America was out of money. The colonists wrongly believed that the world market place would welcome with open arms the new country. It did not. In fact, even the French who'd help fund the revolt turned its back on America. Why? Because America had revolted against a monarchy. And what were ALL of the other countries around the world ruled by? Monarchies. America was so incredibly poor by the end of the war, that the British Army refused to leave North America having lost the war. They opted to stick around and agitate AND there was nothing America could do to stop it. Americans had, while being a colony of the crown, enjoyed the comfort and protection of the English Navy. During Washington's tour as President, they did not have that luxury and American citizens were being kidnapped and held for ransom while traveling abroad, most notably in the Mediterranean, by the pirates of Tripoli Washington opted to scrape up the money and pay the ransom rather than risk an international military incident which he feared would cost even more money (which he simply did not have). You then run into that little problem known as The Articles of Confederation which gave the individual states extreme rights and the federal government very few. It was written with the idea of acknowledging the diversity between the states. With that in mind, each state had its own treasury, mint, banking system, postal service, taxation system and policy on foreign trade. The Constitution had not yet been thought up, nor had the Bill of Rights. But Washington knew well the restraint placed upon him by the AoC. If you look up the Latin root words for Diverse, you will find Dis meaning To Turn and Vertere, meaning Apart. Together they are To turn apart or to tear apart. either way you interpret it, there was no unity in THESE United States under the AoC. Now, imagine being a country trying to actually do business with America. Each state has its own foreign trade policy and agreement. It's be a royal pain in the neck dealing with each individual state. And then there's the problem of currency. another pain in the neck -- even for Americans doing interstate commerce. Without considering any of these facts, quoting Washington's farewell address is quite literally taking a quote out of context. Washington as President, was given very little option but to be isolationist. And could not afford the luxury of projecting militarily our interests over seas. Really, if you want to look at our Founding Fathers and some of their views, consider Jefferson and his Declaration of Independence. The American economy was so great that at that time, America was financially supporting England . Not the other way around. The "Freedom" of which he wrote was actually money. In his view, those who have it are far more free and have a greater selection from which to choose than those who have little or none. Those in the latter, are then, enslaved to their creditors. American had money (before the war) and was opting to no longer be enslaved to the King. And so, Jefferson was serving him due notice. All of this being the case, what are social programs but reconstituted slavery? Those who are on programs such as Welfare, are like children, completely dependent (read: enslaved) to their parent (government). They have no choice presented to them. This being the case, does this not fly directly contrary to that which Jefferson wrote about? So, socialism goes contrary to the founding prinicples of America. Still, you will hear very little in regards to this when you talk to Democrats. Hmmm... Valid argument? Try and reason through it. Even Jefferson commented about fearing a government so large. Most of those same people who would argue in favor of these programs would also argue in favor of diversity. I ask you then, what good is choice without consequence? Welfare removes consequence from the equation of people's life decisions. We are all given equal opportunity under the law for "Free" education (K-12) and reduced tuition rates for anyone choosing to go on to higher levels of education. But the Dem.s want a socialized medicine program, etc.. People must be weened from mom some day.
5. Well, it could be argued that he said that because he believed his nation was too weak at the time. The United States was young and an experiment, and it would be a shame to fail that experiment by simply fighting a messy European conflict. He tried to keep America out of war, out of siding with either England (whom the Federalist party generally supported) or France (whom the Democratic-Republican party generally supported). But the U.S. grew stronger and stronger, and after the World Wars it was entering the global stage to defend its liberties abroad.