I remember that time in history when everyone got along, nobody found the need to hurt themselves, and greed and hate were not a part of people’s vocabularies. I remember that time… then I woke up from my childish dream and realized such will never happen in this Earthly world.
This doesn't mean everyone on Earth is evil, but rather that evil prevails if left untargeted.
This is true on the personal and on the collective levels. Man finds ways to make conflict, inflict injury, and use one another as tools for and of revenge.
When objective moral reasoning is left to humans to define, the fruits will always be painful.
The reasons for such rooted pestilence boil down to a simple one: when objective moral reasoning is left to humans to define, the fruits will always be painful. Societies change and cultures vary depending on factors such as size, location, language, religion, and others. This makes defining a single set of moral codes almost impossible.
The inability to construct a universal set of moral codes can be clearly demonstrated with issues like respect for women.
There are many societies and parts of the world where women are treated as second-class citizens. Places where the concept of equality between genders is a non-existing venture. Many countries in the Middle East or Latin America, for example, have this type of philosophy on womanhood not because they lack any intelligence or access to knowledge, but because their own cultures have created such concepts about women that become the rule and the norm.
[caption id="attachment_177842" align="alignnone" width="3000"]
Via Steenaire, Flickr[/caption]
Moral pluralism has also caused much heartache over abortion.
Unfortunately, there have been significant gains at the hands of worldwide abortion groups to get the practice approved and increased. An example of this is the legalization of abortion in Ireland in 2018 or the passing of laws in American states to allow late-term abortions.
In order for evil to take root in societies, all it takes is the passiveness of those not willing to fight for goodness.
When one analyzes why some find this valid and lawful, we see it comes down to a lack of belief in the intrinsic value of humanity: the rejection that what grows inside a woman’s body is a human being and not a tumor or parasite as some claim.
Because most of these arguments are less founded on a scientific standard and more on an emotional one, if a person refutes such views they are labeled as a bigot or misogynist.
These examples give us perspective of the dangers of moral relativism. All evil needs is the passiveness of those not willing to fight.
[caption id="attachment_177838" align="alignnone" width="1792"]
President Reagan at a Reagan-Bush Rally in New York via White House Photographic Office.[/caption]
The idea of “peace through strength” was first introduced to the modern American conservative movement by President Ronald Reagan during his candidacy for office against Jimmy Carter in 1980.
Then-candidate Reagan blamed Carter for his lack of resolve in the international theater, which he saw as the cause for American enemies to feel emboldened against the nation.
Reagan was once quoted saying: “We know that peace is the condition under which mankind was meant to flourish. Yet peace does not exist of its own will. It depends on us, on our courage to build it and guard it and pass it on to future generations."
"If we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war." - George Washington
While Reagan made this concept famous, its beginnings are rooted in America's fabric.
George Washington, America’s first president, also believed that in order to be effective in the presence of foreign forces, strength was an incredibly useful tool.
In his 1793 State of the Union Address, Washington stated: “There is a rank due to the United States among nations which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war."
One of the clearest examples of this was World War II.
As the world faced threats of domination by the evils of Germany and Japan, the United States took an isolated position to the suffering of other nations. The Nazi Party continued its efforts to control Europe, exacerbated by weak policies and a weak European resolve. Unfortunately, it wasn't until that evil knocked on America's doors at Pearl Harbor that our government and our president mustered the courage to counterattack.
The rest is history, as they say.
[caption id="attachment_177846" align="alignnone" width="3000"]
Allied military personnel in Paris celebrating V-J Day, End of World War II.[/caption]
What we can infer from past experiences is that when evil arises, it does not have motivation to try its luck with us.
By having a clear foreign policy, which includes sanctions, military targeting, and a well-trained force, our foes are forced to think twice.
The sharp contrast between Obama-era foreign policy and that of President Trump’s is a clear example.
During Obama’s eight-year reign America became the joke of the world.
During Obama’s eight-year reign America became a global joke. North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un launched long-range missiles and conducted nuclear tests without a care in the world.
It was not until President Trump started to get tough with evil regimes that they realized he was not “playing around.”
His exchange with the North Korean dictator, which included giving the nickname of “Little Rocket Man,” may not have been the most orthodox diplomacy, yet were found to be far more successful than Obama's methods.
[caption id="attachment_177844" align="alignnone" width="1725"]
President Trump and North Korean Leader Kim Jong-un at summit in Signapore[/caption]
There has always been resistance to peace through strength and it doesn't always come from the left.
When it comes to putting a strong front on those that victimize others, the Democrats like the naive idea that “negotiations” should be the only standard. What they fail to realize is evil fronts could care less about “peace talks” and for the most part only use them as a tool to extract cash from the American taxpayer.
There has always been resistance to peace through strength and it doesn't always come from the left.
We know these things about Democrats, but what about libertarian thought on peace and foreign affairs?
I am no a “war-monger,” for I also think military actions, especially putting troops on the ground, should be a last resort. I served in the U.S. Marine Corps, and I am sensitive to that concept. What libertarians get wrong, however, is their foolhardy notion that “if we leave them alone, they will do the same”.
[caption id="attachment_177845" align="aligncenter" width="960"]
U.S. Marines[/caption]
There is also moral, human imperative.
Remember what took place in Rwanda in 1994 when two tribal groups, the Hutu and the Tutsi, decided to kill each other over sectarian interests? The conflict, which only lasted about three months, brought about the death of around 900,000 people.
What was the international response? Nothing.
Cowardly politicians refused to take decisive action prior to or during the attacks. Aid did not arrive until the genocide was over.
Cowardly politicians refused to take any decisive action prior or during the attacks.
Then-President Clinton received criticism for his actions against Somalia, causing him to hesitate over making the same mistakes in Rwanda. This was a preposterous conclusion, as the Somalian disaster alone was also caused by weak military intervention and action. Not at the hands of the brave members of the military who sacrifice much there, but by the cowardly mentality of the people making the decisions.
Since the election of President Trump we have seen the de-escalation of North Korea, the slow down of Russian expansionism, the reduction of Iran’s control of the Middle East, and the swift elimination of the ISIS caliphate. We may also about to see collapse of the socialist tyranny in Venezuela.
All with fewer shots fired than Obama and his predecessors. Not everything is "boots on the ground" or "full scale invasions". Trump is showing the world how to defeat evil at a minimum cost, financially, and to life.
These things weren't achieved by slick diplomats or the foreign policy career class, but an administration headed by Trump, taking a strong stance on the fight against evil.
