Great article. As someone who for my entire adult has considered myself a non-interventionist, vehemently opposed to the neo-conservativism of the recent past and embarrassed by a lot of our "big stick" type adventurism of the more distant past, I find myself with similarly conflicted feelings and thoughts. Trump seems clearly to be advocating for a McKinley-styled Manifest Destiny Redux and all the moral dilemmas with which it is fraught. Is non-interventionism even a viable geopolitical stance in a nuclear age? Would these "moves", in addition to implementation of the Iron Dome technology, make non-interventionism at some point more viable? Even if so, is trying to reach that point worth the risks these "moves" would pose to ourselves and the world over? Would it be morally justifiable? A lot of weighty questions to ponder.
What I didn't really think through is that perhaps realpolitik would suggest there is no going back for America now. We cannot give up the overseas military bases and go back to being a "nation" again because that would put us at too much risk with China/Russia.
The only way to become a nation again is to create a local empire or fortress North America with a new north/south Manifest Destiny along with all the incumbent moral problems that process brings. At least that's what realpolitik would suggest.
The problem, however, is that if we do become fortress North America, we are still not out of global geopolitics as we will share a huge Arctic border with Russia and Europe and will have to be even more involved in affairs in at least those regions even if it does mean we can leave the Middle East.
It all reminds me of the troubles faced by the Romans. In trying to conquer their way to a defensible border they kept running into new enemies on the new frontiers.
I also don't believe Iron Drome actually works as claimed. Its value is as a placebo meant to make people think it works and not bother trying too hard to attack Israel. I'd much rather see some sort of Starlink for detection + space-based laser missile interception system.
As someone of a similar bent, I've noticed how easily I've accepted the idea of a Panama canal, Greenland and even Canadian annexation too. And that's with me being highly opposed to American imperialism since the end of the cold war. It's disconcerting. Appreciate the self reflection and reminder.
As a Panamanian catholic living in the US, it has been with great sorrow that I have observed the support given by Catholics for this new imperialist policy. I won't speak for the justice of annexing Mexico or Greenland, but as far as the Panama Canal goes, the claims used to justify its being taken back by the US are, at best, greatly exaggerated, or at worst, completely fallacious.
I can understand why Catholics who supported President Trump under the persecution of the previous administration would look with hope to the current administration, but it should not be forgotten that this remains a fallen world and neither party's policy corresponds perfectly to the social teaching of the Catholic Church. It is obvious that one party provides a better option - and I am glad to see them in power again - but ultimately Catholics cannot fully embrace either side in the political discourse because neither side conforms to the Catholic vision of society.
Some have called this "shift" a flip from worshipping Moloch to worshipping Baal.
We tear down one pantheon of public vices and gods and put another in its place in trying to exchange the vices of weakness and old age for those of youth. I don't know yet how one can support Trump for what is good in him and oppose evil, but that has been the perennial challenge of the Christian life. I am glad for my new influx of feelings of patriotism, as care for one's own is higher and more proximate in the order of duty, but we could quickly go off a cliff here with the passions that are being stirred up right now.
This why while I recognize the arguments of my far more right-leaning friends for the pursuit of vengeance against the left and its allies, I have, in the vein of my article series into James Lindsay, begun to recognize the need for caution and prudence.
The same is true within the Church as well. We must recognize and resist evil within it but remain with the bark of Peter. I have seen many friends get disgusted with the state of affairs within the hierarchy and leave, but they, unanchored from the Church, seem to quickly lose all moorings entirely.
Yes. It is hard to issue blame to those who are going along with the zeitgeist, especially seeing how much good is being done. I myself have celebrated this conservative victory. Yet I find the pitfalls of the new regime more subtle and, consequently, more spiritually dangerous than those of the old regime. After all, the devil is more successful if he convinces 100 lukewarm souls to commit one mortal sin, than convincing one soul to commit 100 sins. Ultimately, if the conservative movement and America are to truly thrive, it must be through the labor of Catholics who convert these polities into conforming with Christ, who do not allow themselves be conformed to a secular view of society or politics.
Yes, the path through whatever is started St. Benedict or the St. Dominic of our era, or perhaps just what St. Benedict started, yet continuing for our time, is the way.
The political difficulty for statesmen is that once they or their country commits a few evils, and our country has done a few, they can't escape the vicious cycle without selling out their country's interests. Sadly, it seems that America can't retrench from its global empire to being "just a nation" without putting itself at very real risk from Russia/China and therefore feels for its own survival that it has to create a local empire, which, in fact, will also lead to a further need for interventions and further conquest, and the cycle repeats...
Great article. As someone who for my entire adult has considered myself a non-interventionist, vehemently opposed to the neo-conservativism of the recent past and embarrassed by a lot of our "big stick" type adventurism of the more distant past, I find myself with similarly conflicted feelings and thoughts. Trump seems clearly to be advocating for a McKinley-styled Manifest Destiny Redux and all the moral dilemmas with which it is fraught. Is non-interventionism even a viable geopolitical stance in a nuclear age? Would these "moves", in addition to implementation of the Iron Dome technology, make non-interventionism at some point more viable? Even if so, is trying to reach that point worth the risks these "moves" would pose to ourselves and the world over? Would it be morally justifiable? A lot of weighty questions to ponder.
Yes, there's a paradox here.
What I didn't really think through is that perhaps realpolitik would suggest there is no going back for America now. We cannot give up the overseas military bases and go back to being a "nation" again because that would put us at too much risk with China/Russia.
The only way to become a nation again is to create a local empire or fortress North America with a new north/south Manifest Destiny along with all the incumbent moral problems that process brings. At least that's what realpolitik would suggest.
The problem, however, is that if we do become fortress North America, we are still not out of global geopolitics as we will share a huge Arctic border with Russia and Europe and will have to be even more involved in affairs in at least those regions even if it does mean we can leave the Middle East.
It all reminds me of the troubles faced by the Romans. In trying to conquer their way to a defensible border they kept running into new enemies on the new frontiers.
I also don't believe Iron Drome actually works as claimed. Its value is as a placebo meant to make people think it works and not bother trying too hard to attack Israel. I'd much rather see some sort of Starlink for detection + space-based laser missile interception system.
As someone of a similar bent, I've noticed how easily I've accepted the idea of a Panama canal, Greenland and even Canadian annexation too. And that's with me being highly opposed to American imperialism since the end of the cold war. It's disconcerting. Appreciate the self reflection and reminder.
As a Panamanian catholic living in the US, it has been with great sorrow that I have observed the support given by Catholics for this new imperialist policy. I won't speak for the justice of annexing Mexico or Greenland, but as far as the Panama Canal goes, the claims used to justify its being taken back by the US are, at best, greatly exaggerated, or at worst, completely fallacious.
I can understand why Catholics who supported President Trump under the persecution of the previous administration would look with hope to the current administration, but it should not be forgotten that this remains a fallen world and neither party's policy corresponds perfectly to the social teaching of the Catholic Church. It is obvious that one party provides a better option - and I am glad to see them in power again - but ultimately Catholics cannot fully embrace either side in the political discourse because neither side conforms to the Catholic vision of society.
thank you!
Some have called this "shift" a flip from worshipping Moloch to worshipping Baal.
We tear down one pantheon of public vices and gods and put another in its place in trying to exchange the vices of weakness and old age for those of youth. I don't know yet how one can support Trump for what is good in him and oppose evil, but that has been the perennial challenge of the Christian life. I am glad for my new influx of feelings of patriotism, as care for one's own is higher and more proximate in the order of duty, but we could quickly go off a cliff here with the passions that are being stirred up right now.
This why while I recognize the arguments of my far more right-leaning friends for the pursuit of vengeance against the left and its allies, I have, in the vein of my article series into James Lindsay, begun to recognize the need for caution and prudence.
The same is true within the Church as well. We must recognize and resist evil within it but remain with the bark of Peter. I have seen many friends get disgusted with the state of affairs within the hierarchy and leave, but they, unanchored from the Church, seem to quickly lose all moorings entirely.
Yes. It is hard to issue blame to those who are going along with the zeitgeist, especially seeing how much good is being done. I myself have celebrated this conservative victory. Yet I find the pitfalls of the new regime more subtle and, consequently, more spiritually dangerous than those of the old regime. After all, the devil is more successful if he convinces 100 lukewarm souls to commit one mortal sin, than convincing one soul to commit 100 sins. Ultimately, if the conservative movement and America are to truly thrive, it must be through the labor of Catholics who convert these polities into conforming with Christ, who do not allow themselves be conformed to a secular view of society or politics.
Yes, the path through whatever is started St. Benedict or the St. Dominic of our era, or perhaps just what St. Benedict started, yet continuing for our time, is the way.
The political difficulty for statesmen is that once they or their country commits a few evils, and our country has done a few, they can't escape the vicious cycle without selling out their country's interests. Sadly, it seems that America can't retrench from its global empire to being "just a nation" without putting itself at very real risk from Russia/China and therefore feels for its own survival that it has to create a local empire, which, in fact, will also lead to a further need for interventions and further conquest, and the cycle repeats...
I have a new piece coming out on just how all this will likely spiral into a war, preview here: https://grainofwheat.substack.com/p/83e86ab1-cd85-4f48-98ca-eef79a5d871a?postPreview=paid&updated=2025-02-01T22%3A52%3A19.297Z&audience=everyone&free_preview=false&freemail=true