Political Pistachio

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The fledgling United States existed in a world of empires.  Trade with the former English Colonies was highly sought, but the empires of Europe believed control over trade with the former English Colonies would be better.  While recognized as a sovereign and independent country after the Treaty of Paris in 1783, it was a common belief that the new system of government that lacked a wise and powerful aristocracy would never survive.  Britain was certain the wayward colonials would regret their separation from the empire, and waited patiently for the petulant Americans to beg for readmittance to British protection.  Other European powers sought building their own imperial influence in the New World, and convincing some of the States, if not all of them, in the fledgling union to join their ranks resided among their possible scenarios.  The attitude seemed to be, “if you can’t beat them, they won’t last long on their own anyway and when they begin to waver, control them through agreements, alliances, or an iron fist.”

George Nicholas, the first statesman of the Kentucky region, during his growth as a political figure, came to appreciate and defend the sovereignty of the western regions.  Influenced by the debates of the Virginia Ratifying Convention, where they argued against foreign influence, and treaties that might give European powers an excuse to tamper with American Sovereignty, the concept of localism and the opportunity for communities to grow and thrive with as little outside influence as possible became one of the major themes of his writings and political speeches.

During the Constitutional Convention in 1787 the importance of isolating the fledgling republic’s interests from the deep-pocketed old alliances in Europe served as a primary consideration.  While Alexander Hamilton argued that intertwining America’s system with the Europeans was a necessary action if the United States was to survive on the worldwide stage, others recognized the importance of remaining separated from Europe as much as possible, dealing with Europe only when necessary through situations like trade, or dealing with foreign influences and colonies residing in other parts of the western hemisphere.  

The Tories, during the Revolutionary War, and after the end of hostilities with Britain, served as a constant reminder of the dangers of foreign influence, and the reality of such a danger’s existence.  The Tories, or Loyalists, remained loyal to the British Crown, and while a majority of them fled to Canada, the Caribbean, or back to Britain upon the end of the war, some remained and were poised to do what they could to sabotage the young country’s internal political functions.  It was the Tories who encouraged the delegates at the Philadelphia Federal Convention to engage in heated conversations, calls for safeguards against foreign influence, to seek compromises, and determination that the President of the new country must be a Natural Born Citizen and a minimum fourteen year resident within the United States prior to election.

Anti-Federalists, a group that emerged who were wary of the Constitution and its creation of a larger central government than the one that existed under the Articles of Confederation, were extremely concerned about the corrupting forces that stalked outside the United States, and how they would endeavor to infiltrate the new federal government.  During the Virginia Ratifying Convention the Anti-Federalists argued that through treaties, due to the way Article VI. was written, the treaty process could be used to interfere with America’s sovereignty by foreign nations, or alliances and alliance organizations (polities) if allowed to be agreed to without checks installed to ensure that America’s sovereignty remained intact.  The Anti-Federalists even called for disallowing foreign buyers to own American real estate.  James Madison, at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, argued that State Sovereignty, and oversight by the States through many republican mechanisms, including appointing the U.S. Senators, would serve as adequate protection of the union against foreign influence.  The States appointing U.S. Senators allowed the States to maintain oversight over the federal government and highlighted the importance of establishing that the President could only negotiate and sign treaties with other countries, but it was necessary for the Senate to ratify treaties as spelled out in Article II, Section 2 (section that came to be known as the “Advice and Consent Clause”).  As long as Senatorial ratification of treaties remained intact, and the Senators remained appointed by the State legislatures, treaties would never pose as a significant threat to America’s sovereignty.  If ever the Senate was altered, and the Senators were voted in democratically rather than appointed by the States, then treaties may serve to be a dangerous weapon against the United States (a progressive goal that was reached and enacted with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913).

Madison also argued about the fact that the United States Constitution serves as the Supreme Law of the Land.  If ever there was a treaty that placed America’s sovereignty at risk, a constitutional crisis would emerge; allowing other countries or international polities to control America’s interests or actions would not be tolerated since the independence of the United States was protected by the Constitution, the sovereign states would protest, and since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land its provisions supersede any international provisions or desires by players on the world stage. 

The Framers of the Constitution understood the threat that foreign influence posed, having just broken free from a European empire as it was.  Allowing another empire to step in and grab the reins of America’s political structure, or even influence officeholders with gifts and gold, was a serious fear, and they worked constantly to ensure foreign influence was guarded against.

Many of the Founding Fathers were very familiar with European politics.  As diplomats, statesmen like Robert Livingston, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson watched first-hand the backroom deals, dramatic plot lines, gift-giving, bestowing titles of nobility on political friends, intermarriage to build alliances, and deceptive mercantilism to control the market.  If the United States was to stand apart, and not be sucked into the games of cross-line influence, they needed to make sure it was codified in a document that would protect the country against the corrupting influences of foreign money, foreign power, and foreign ideas like the utopian schemes of leveling, and the collectivistic ideology of the General Will.

The President, therefore, is not a king.  The Founding Fathers, fearful of the rise of an authoritarian figure that could rule over the country carefully crafted the role of the President of the United States so that the President is not only not a king, but provided checks against foreign influence.  The Presidency was intentionally not designed to carry the same kinds of powers as would a king, and his eligibility was intentionally established to protect against him having divided loyalties.  Dual loyalty would open the door for foreign influence to ravage America from the inside if allowed to infest a single person that resides at the top of the governmental hierarchy.  The Natural Born Citizen requirement meant that two citizen parents reared the individual who would be President, which would likely mean that the President was raised being taught American ideals, rather than the political ideologies of foreign powers.  The “Resident Clause” requires the President to have “been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States,” further souring the likelihood of foreign influence.  The emoluments clause in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution disallows any federal or State officeholder from receiving gifts, monies, favors, or titles of nobility from any foreign power.  Impeachment, the ultimate check against a President operating under the influence of foreign interests, could be used as well; but, the Framers also made impeachment difficult so that foreign influence could not easily unseat a President, as well.

Madison’s notes, the Father of the Constitution’s written record of the proceedings during the Constitutional Convention, states that Gouverneur Morris, the man who led the committee that crafted the Preamble to the Constitution, didn’t originally see the necessity of impeachment until he considered the specter of foreign corruption.

“[The Executive] may be bribed by a greater interest to betray his trust; and no one would say that we ought to expose ourselves to the danger of seeing the first Magistrate in foreign pay without being able to guard against by displacing him,” said Morris. “One would think the King of England well secured against bribery. Yet Charles II was bribed by Louis XIV.”

Bribery and the exchange of money and gifts among monarchs in the Old World was rampant, but with a President who could not have taken office unless a Natural Born Citizen (two citizen parents at the time of birth), a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years, the emoluments clause, and congressional impeachment powers in the Constitution, the Founding Fathers believed they had created a strong enough attack against foreign influence.  That said, it was understood that corruption is an incredibly powerful beast, and even the most well-crafted safeguards might not be enough.  

Edmund Jennings Randolph was confident in the guards provided, verbalizing his praise at the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788.  He said, “It is impossible to guard better against corruption.”

George Washington during his 1796 farewell address issued a stern warning, recognizing that despite the safeguards against the rise of the toxic influence of foreign governments on the affairs of the young country, said, “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence… the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.”

Washington was bombarded with enticing calls of foreign influence during his presidency but resisted the temptation.  However, the reality was, as the Framers of the Constitution recognized, the possibility of a corruptible American president was a reality.

The Founding Fathers understood the dangers of Human Nature, recognizing the biblical maxim that all fall short of the Glory of God.  We possess a sinful and lustful nature.  Therefore, they understood the reality that people’s private ambitions and thirst for more power or money were powerful motivators, and often foreign influence offered to feed those personal ambitions.  Human Nature demands strict structures to guard against the unfortunate existence of corruption in politics.

This does not mean that we are not to work with the world at all.  We are, after all, in the world.  The existence of the world, and our place in it, is a reality regarding our existence.  But, as I like to tell my Christian friends, family, and colleagues, while we are in the world, we are not to be of the world.

As a country, sometimes we enter into international treaties for very good reasons.  It is necessary to work with allies, and stand against those who stand against liberty, even if it means to be a part of an alliance to accomplish the task.  Sometimes, however, we either outlive the purpose of those agreements, the terms are no longer in our best interest (or were not in the first place when the agreement was crafted), or the other players do not honor it as well as we do.

During the presidency of Donald Trump he recognized the necessity of recognizing that international treaties are not to be taken lightly, whipping up questions regarding the validity of international treaty organizations like NATO, and our membership in the United Nations.  Trump channeled the voices of the Founding Fathers in a manner that could not be ignored, claiming that policies, agreements and treaties need to take an “America First” position, a timeless principle that dates all the way back to George Washington.  In Washington’s famous Farewell Address of 1796 the inaugural President under the Constitution shared his sentiment against foreign entanglements.

“Interweaving our destiny” with others, Washington explained, would “entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice.”  While America should pursue economic integration with the world, the United States must maintain strict neutrality in its feuds.

John Quincy Adams repeated Washington’s principles on July 4, 1821, reminding Congress that America “goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

In modern history, shortly after the end of World War II, President Harry Truman made a proposal accepted by the public and Congress that it was imperative “to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.”

As the country that launched liberty, and as a country the Founding Fathers believed would be a shining beacon on a hill to be emulated by the world, America took on the responsibility to stand in defense of that liberty throughout the Free World — alone, if necessary.  We are in the world, but we are not to be of the world, and when segments of the world is evil we are not to allow that foreign influence to dictate to us, or our allies, we are to ensure that liberty reigns, instead.

The Truman Doctrine established a leviathan of global military assistance on a scale never before seen, leading us into more foreign wars than any other country of the world.  America maintains large permanent bases throughout Europe and Asia.

Is that what the Founding Fathers intended when they established guards against foreign influence?  Is not the United States seeking foreign entanglements when we endeavor to be the policemen of the world?  While Truman’s policies may have seemed necessary in a dangerous world, are those policies still necessary today?  The conditions, one must admit, that gave rise to those doctrines no longer exist.  Europe and Asia has emerged beyond the chaos and destruction of World War II.  Territorial invasions on a continental scale as we saw during the first half of the twentieth century have largely vanished.  New conflicts have arisen, but the United States is no longer the sole prosperous country in a world bankrupted by war.

Washington’s advice feels relevant again.  Foreign entanglements may not be in our best interest.  While I support the idea of peace through strength, war has changed its face and putting boots on the ground may not be in the best interest of American interests.

Rather than a global conflict on battlefields across the oceans, we are faced with invaders at our borders, and Chinese communists marching down the halls of our technology infrastructure.  While we feed money into international polities like NATO and the United Nations, our citizens are being displaced in the workforce by globalization and illegal aliens.  A worldwide love of communism has risen out of the ashes of the Cold War, and a large segment of our politicians have bought into the enemy’s plot.  Yet, we continue to fuel international polities that no longer have purpose, but are populated by countries who are no longer our allies, and openly proclaim hostility against American ideals.  The Cold War has passed, and a new world war has emerged.

The Free World has fallen, and we have become the last bastion of liberty on the planet.  International polities and foreign influence, as it was nearly two hundred and fifty years ago, has become a primary danger, once again.  We live in a world of empires, but not European empires as was the case during the time that America was forged into existence, but technology empires and globalist schemes by people who continue to chase the communist dreams of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Stalin (even though they won’t admit it).  A Soviet Winter is on the rise, assisted by Islam and a new version of Sodom and Gomorrah.  If we are to survive, a return to the original foundational principles, as they were established, is necessary.  Otherwise, the American Experiment ends, and the bold thinking of the Founding Fathers will be lost.

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary