There's an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times today denouncing the Brexit vote as an "isolationist catastrophe". It's an amazing piece (of garbage). The two liberal authors equate a British withdrawal from the EU as a move by the UK into isolationism. The only responsible question after reading the article is to decide whether or not to seek to have the authors committed to an institution for their own protection.
Think about it. Isolationism is a very American point of view. For the first 150 years of our nation, our general world view was to stick to the Western Hemisphere and to keep away from the major world powers. We could do that because we had two things that no other important world power had: the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean that protected us. Any European power that wanted to take on the USA in those days would have had to transport an army across thousands of miles of ocean and then resupply that army as the fighting went on. It was a logistical challenge that was beyond the power of any country at the time. The USA stayed isolated from the big power conflicts behind our wall of ocean water. Then came World War I and America's first major venture into the world of major power conflicts. As soon as that war ended, however, the American people demanded that the USA retreat back behind the two oceans and to stay out of further involvement with world powers. World War II saw another episode of American world involvement. When that war ended, however, there was a strong push to go back to isolationism. There was, however, a difference that quickly developed. The Soviet Union joined the USA as a power with nuclear weapons. Combining nuclear bombs with Soviet air power meant that our two oceans could no longer save us from an enemy. Isolationism died in the face of that logic.
The British have never been isolationists. They cannot be isolationists. After all, they are just 30 miles or so from the rest of Europe. Indeed, they are now connected very closely to the rest of Europe by rail and ferry. London functions as the financial capital of the continent (some would say the world.) There is no way to separate the future of Britain from that of the continent. The UK has to be vitally interested in what happens (and does not happen) all across Europe.
Brexit was not about isolating the UK from Europe. It was, rather, an attempt by the British people to regain control of their own destiny. How many people can immigrate into Britain? That is a question that the Brits want to answer for themselves rather than to get a regulation from the EU bureaucrats directing the answer. On what terms can the UK trade with its fellow member of the British Commonwealth, Canada? That is also a question that the Brits want to answer for themselves rather than to be given a directive from Brussels. What about many taxes that get levied? Again, the Brits want to answer that themselves. How about the requirements for the production of British beer or sausages sold in the local pub? The Brits say that they should set those rules themselves, rather than just receiving an order from Brussels. Remember, all of these rules from Brussels are not the product of an elected government. The EU bureaucrats are not subject to political change; they just get hired and that's it. Simply put, Brexit is about the British people reclaiming their ability to govern themselves.
So how could these two libs tell us that Brexit is an "isolationist catastrophe"? Obviously, they are wrong, but that is not enough. The authors of the article clearly do not even know what isolationism is. It appears that it is a word that they learned as part of some talking point once as being evil. As a result, they use it without regard to whether or not it applied. They are not alone. For example, the moronic liberal commentator Sally Kohn today in effect said on social media that Brexit was roughly the first step to the return of the Nazis. Obviously, she doesn't even care if she is close to reality. We're back to the "say anything" type of response that liberal commentators love.
Think about it. Isolationism is a very American point of view. For the first 150 years of our nation, our general world view was to stick to the Western Hemisphere and to keep away from the major world powers. We could do that because we had two things that no other important world power had: the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean that protected us. Any European power that wanted to take on the USA in those days would have had to transport an army across thousands of miles of ocean and then resupply that army as the fighting went on. It was a logistical challenge that was beyond the power of any country at the time. The USA stayed isolated from the big power conflicts behind our wall of ocean water. Then came World War I and America's first major venture into the world of major power conflicts. As soon as that war ended, however, the American people demanded that the USA retreat back behind the two oceans and to stay out of further involvement with world powers. World War II saw another episode of American world involvement. When that war ended, however, there was a strong push to go back to isolationism. There was, however, a difference that quickly developed. The Soviet Union joined the USA as a power with nuclear weapons. Combining nuclear bombs with Soviet air power meant that our two oceans could no longer save us from an enemy. Isolationism died in the face of that logic.
The British have never been isolationists. They cannot be isolationists. After all, they are just 30 miles or so from the rest of Europe. Indeed, they are now connected very closely to the rest of Europe by rail and ferry. London functions as the financial capital of the continent (some would say the world.) There is no way to separate the future of Britain from that of the continent. The UK has to be vitally interested in what happens (and does not happen) all across Europe.
Brexit was not about isolating the UK from Europe. It was, rather, an attempt by the British people to regain control of their own destiny. How many people can immigrate into Britain? That is a question that the Brits want to answer for themselves rather than to get a regulation from the EU bureaucrats directing the answer. On what terms can the UK trade with its fellow member of the British Commonwealth, Canada? That is also a question that the Brits want to answer for themselves rather than to be given a directive from Brussels. What about many taxes that get levied? Again, the Brits want to answer that themselves. How about the requirements for the production of British beer or sausages sold in the local pub? The Brits say that they should set those rules themselves, rather than just receiving an order from Brussels. Remember, all of these rules from Brussels are not the product of an elected government. The EU bureaucrats are not subject to political change; they just get hired and that's it. Simply put, Brexit is about the British people reclaiming their ability to govern themselves.
So how could these two libs tell us that Brexit is an "isolationist catastrophe"? Obviously, they are wrong, but that is not enough. The authors of the article clearly do not even know what isolationism is. It appears that it is a word that they learned as part of some talking point once as being evil. As a result, they use it without regard to whether or not it applied. They are not alone. For example, the moronic liberal commentator Sally Kohn today in effect said on social media that Brexit was roughly the first step to the return of the Nazis. Obviously, she doesn't even care if she is close to reality. We're back to the "say anything" type of response that liberal commentators love.
No comments:
Post a Comment