Come home, America.
Now would be the time.
Al Qaeda has been decapitated. The seven dwarves of wannabe Bin Ladens are hopeless.
The Cold War is over in Europe. As over as leisure suits.
We get most of our oil from the Western Hemisphere. No real reason to import it from the psycho-political Middle East.
Libya is not our problem. The chaos in Mexico is.
Time to come home, America.
We are a New World nation.
We started dabbling in Old World politics in McKinley’s administration with the “White Man’s Burden” and the Philippines. It was a slippery slope. 110 years of adventure with a ton of heartache.
Now is the time to realize the great promise of the New World.
The founding fathers warned us against “entangling alliances” in the Old World.
We ignored them.
And we have paid.
And paid.
And paid.
In gold and blood.
We had no business in World War One. None. No one is even sure what the war was about, almost a century later. Why send our young men into that meat grinder?
And had we never messed around in the Philippines and taken over Hawaii in a sleazy way there would have been no Pearl Harbor. Russia would have eventually defeated the Nazis without us (do the math). There may not have ever been Nazis in the first place if we had not tipped the scales of WW1 so that Germany was crushed.
It is time for America to come home.
If Europe cannot defend itself without our help, then that’s their problem. Why did they need us to straighten out Kosovo?
If Korea is hopeless without us, then Asia has to band together to subdue the nut case pariah nation of North Korea.
We are obsessed with the Middle East. As Dr. Phil would say: How’s it workin’ for you now? Israel is plenty able to kick the pooey out of anyone who messes with them. And last time someone fired scuds at them it was because our soldiers were shooting up Mesopotamia. We get the Israelis in more trouble than anything else.
These fights are not our fight.
Our natural GNP level is 20% of the global total (with 4% of the population), this has held steady for a century. We had a short percentage spike in the 1950’s while the rest of the world rebuilt after the disaster of WW2. It’s time to go back to our “natural” sphere of influence of 1/5 of the globe. Right now, we are acting like we own the whole enchilada. Imperial over-reach has killed more empires than anything else.
It is time to:
- Pull our troops out of Europe.
- Pull our troops out of Korea.
- Leave the Eastern Hemisphere, militarily. 100% withdrawal.
- Help Mexico fix Mexico.
- Establish a free trade zone in the Western Hemisphere, the New World.
- Stop worrying about trade with India and China. If they won’t play nice (which they will), then transfer those jobs to North and Latin America.
- We won’t even start with the schizophrenic nation of Pakistan, our worst ally…ever.
- Build a world-class freight railroad system from Alaska to the tip of Chile.
- Re-align the military to protect the Western Hemisphere. Seamlessly. With big oceans on both sides and no natural enemies, we are easy, and cheap, to defend.
- Develop a joint Western Hemisphere Navy (like NATO was) to which we would supply 3, not 12, carrier groups.
- Thus save trillions in military expenditures and foreign aid, all the while enhancing our security. Oh, by the way, this would balance the budget.
- Be on good terms with the Old World, but stay out of their un-solvable feuds.
- Have every student in our hemisphere learn English and Spanish in addition to his/her native tongue. No exceptions.
- Create a national volunteer service throughout the hemisphere to build the infrastructure. Mandatory two years after high school. Get our young people out from in front of screens with video games and Simpsons reruns and out doing some good.
- Eliminate drug cartels.
To resurrect a term, it is our manifest destiny to be the leading nation (with great partners) in the New World.
Come home, America.
This vision made it into the epilogue of The Blackberry Bush, my 2011 novel.
Please pass a link to this article to everyone you know. Thanks.
PS: Just was reminded by a friend that McGovern’s acceptance speech in 1972 was entitled, “Come home, America.” 8-track, flashback! Here are the closing lines:
So join with me in this campaign. Lend me your strength and your support, and together we will call America home to the ideals that nourished us from the beginning.
From secrecy and deception in high places; come home, America
From military spending so wasteful that it weakens our nation; come home, America.
From the entrenchment of special privileges in tax favoritism; from the waste of idle lands to the joy of useful labor; from the prejudice based on race and sex; from the loneliness of the aging poor and the despair of the neglected sick — come home, America.
Come home to the affirmation that we have a dream. Come home to the conviction that we can move our country forward.
Come home to the belief that we can seek a newer world, and let us be joyful in that homecoming, for this “is your land, this land is my land — from California to New York island, from the redwood forest to the gulf stream waters — this land was made for you and me.”
So let us close on this note: May God grant each one of us the wisdom to cherish this good land and to meet the great challenge that beckons us home.
And now is the time to meet that challenge.
Good night, and Godspeed to you all.
-George McGovern, 1972, who lost to Nixon, who resigned in disgrace shortly thereafter…
David Housholder Essays 
25 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 20, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Mike Wagner
You’re making a lot of sense to me! Thanks stirring things up (in a good way!) with this post!
May 20, 2011 at 7:28 pm
russell
Dave: This is so right. A couple of years ago I moved from Savannah to Yuma AZ; I work in a clinic on the Mexican border. Since moving out to the frontera I have become overwhelmed with the insanity of our obsession with middle east adventures coupled with our distainful neglect of our southern neighbor (and primary oil supplier(!)) (not to mention the rest of central and south America). How crazy is that? This is mostly gut feeling kind of stuff as I’m no history scholar (although I have taken the time rediscover Mexican history). Many people have noted who the drug cartel’s #1 customer is and who actually derives the most benefit from our huge migrant labor force. I’ve also noticed that a rather hefty percentage of our population is of “Hispanic” ancestory. I’ll cut it off here, but I hope this post generates some fire.
R. McNair
May 20, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Kevin Gilmore
I can’t disagree with any of what you’ve said. 10 and 11 I found especially interesting. This would balance the budget? Really? What are we waiting for?
May 20, 2011 at 8:42 pm
wendyhous
I like #14 especially! Give the kids a chance to a) grow up before they go off to school, b) do some good in the meantime, and c) learn that it’s all of our responsibility to serve society in some positive way. You’ve got my vote!
May 20, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Jim Kranick
The best way to make this happen is bring back the draft with no deferrments for education or family obligation. Truly make military service a universal obligation throughout our society and not exempt the social and financial elite as was done during Vietnam. The Vietnam deferrements were the start of major divisions in our society- remember that ’70’s song: a rich man goes to college, a poor one goes to war. Institute the draft and it will then follow that only matters of true national security are dealt with thru military solutions.
May 21, 2011 at 7:17 am
Lakeville
I find it interesting and disturbing that Christians justify military service. I have been greatly influenced by the positions of the Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, and Christian Anarchists (Tolstoy, Dorothy Day, etc.) and question the efficacy of forceful resistance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kingdom_of_God_Is_Within_You)
May 21, 2011 at 7:02 am
Lakeville
I certainly agree with many of your talking points. Brazil and Chile seem to be doing pretty well on their own. Considering some of the “help” that Nixon, Kissinger, and Reagan provided South and Central America — we may just want to keep our energies directed towards our own issues.
May 21, 2011 at 10:13 pm
Jim Allmann
Right on David!!! Every point made sense and is right on the money, pun intended. With your suggestions we can cut the military schools by at least 2/3 and cut the Pentagon by up to 2/3. The excess money can finance health care, social security, and help the “New World”. Keep up the good work.
May 22, 2011 at 10:55 am
David Lund
If your neighbors are being oppressed, raped and murdered, and you have the means to stop it, and you choose not to, are you in any way culpable? (Lev. 19:16 “Don’t just stand by when your neighbor’s life is in danger.”) I think we need clarity on this basic moral principle first.
Now one may argue today that the USA does not have the means to stop it– that we simply can no longer afford it. Is this your argument? Or are you saying more broadly that it is not our problem, even if we could intervene? (Let Rwandas run their course, it’s not our fight).
I think the USA is too big. I would like to see 5 or 6 smaller countries based on regional affinity and logical shared concerns with differing, even competing, interests. No one of the countries would be able to project power so far, and this issue might largely go away. European countries don’t try to project power all over the world because they can’t. Negotiated coalitions of countries, with limited budgets, will always be more modest. We have increasing decentralization in everything else. Why not politics? As is, I don’t see the USA in its current form pulling back from these entanglements. The pot of money is too big and federal power too vast for most leaders to resist the temptation, and voluntarily pull back and restructure. Even Obama for all his rhetoric, couldn’t resist intervening in Libya. We need limitations on national government power and resources. Then it would be easier to make the case that we cannot help everyone out there.
May 22, 2011 at 3:00 pm
David Housholder
If someone on earth is in trouble, are we morally obligated to do something about it?
1) We, the peeps of the USA, are not able to fix all problems and right all wrongs. We simply don’t have the capacity. The world, collectively, has more than enough capacity.
2) We are indeed able to help some of the time.
3) Each hemisphere, or you could cut it in three “thirdispheres” (The Americas, Asia, and Europe-Africa-MidEast) has the required resources and is best positioned to aid its own region.
4) Crossing into another mega-region half a world away creates expenses of its own that could better be used on more local-hemisphere issues with shorter supply lines.
5) Rwanda? South Africa, Europe, and the Middle East should have intervened. Could have easily ended the problem in 48 hours. And they understand the region a whole lot better than we do.
6) “If we don’t do it, no one will” is deep political codependency, and is simply not a long term solution. In fact, the more we act like this, the less likely others are to help. Try paying for everything for your 20-something kids and see if they ever lift a finger… 🙂
Kennedy needed to intervene in Cuba. But he blundered into Vietnam, where, of course, we had no business being. Vietnam almost shipwrecked our nation, on many levels.
We also tend to stay on way after the work is done. Troops in Europe still, decades after WW2. Troops in Korea 60 years after the war there. We will have boots on the ground in the Middle East until Jesus comes back if we don’t get more decisive about real withdrawal.
Our entanglements in Taiwan, Okinawa, Diego Garcia, Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf, etc., mark my words, are going to get us in a lot of trouble some day.
Not to mention when the first nuke-tipped exocet takes out one of our carriers poking around the Old World. We’d go to war for 15 years over something like that.
With an ocean on each side and no natural enemies, US security can be guaranteed for a fraction of the current cost.
May 22, 2011 at 5:53 pm
David Lund
Very persuasive. It would take quite a politician to scale our defense establishment down to the defense of the Western Hemisphere, with only intelligence services abroad– a return to the Monroe Doctrine, I guess. Are there any out there made of stern enough stuff? Politicians don’t seem to be able to resist the temptations of the size and power of the federal behemoth. Does anyone know of any?
Couldn’t agree more about Mexico and Latin America. Obama seems no different from Bush in thinking the US has to be the big dog in the Middle East.
It would certainly free up up hundreds of billions to pay down debt, etc.
Perhaps this will just happen over time, when U.S. credit is downgraded to the point of requiring massive cuts in everything. I wish we could be more proactive, however, and not just react to economic necessity.
May 22, 2011 at 6:11 pm
David Housholder
It would be much better to do this proactively and as a part of a positive vision for the New World, rather than having to do it because we are broke.
I don’t even think people see it as a problem at all; there is no working memory of a time that was different. Think of the chain of events that happened as a result of our sending half our military over to rescue Kuwait’s sovereignty. Trillions of dollars later… It would be like China protecting El Salvador with everything they’ve got. They are smart enough to stay in their region, militarily. Have never left it in 3 millennia.
First thing we need to do is get out of NATO.
May 23, 2011 at 6:01 am
Tiffany
I would have to have to disagree!!!!! Just because Osama is dead does NOT AT ALL mean this fight is over. I am so honored by all of the service men and women (and intelligence agencies!!!) who so often do thankless jobs!!! And I would love to see them back with their families. But, this small victory over evil does not mean that the war has been won and we should pull out. Look at what happened in Afghanistan in 1980’ish…..we had the same overconfidence when we “beat the Russians” and again were selfish and said “look at all the $ we have put into this….” and pulled out; when who knows of what another couple of $100 thousand into community transformation and schools would have done (it was from that pullout that Al-Quida emerged!).
I have lived among the Kurdish in war-torn Northern Iraq and though the media never shows it they are beyond grateful for the US troops; and the president of Iraq, Jalla Tallibani, a Kurd himself, does not want us to leave just yet!! Thousands of additional lives would have been lost if we had not stepped in (Saddam was in the middle of a genocide against the Kurds). There is not a single family who did not lose someone during those years. They are grateful, they want our help!!
Yes, there are ways I disagree with how we as America play a part in the global story – but we are humans, we live in a global world. America is not the be all end all.
I believe there is a fine line between meddling in other countries business and then on the other side helping out other humans in need. Sometimes we are too quick to step in. And there are issues right here at home that need addressed, that much is true. But to say that we should never help is the ditch on the other side.
And then there is the whole other perspective to look at as Christians……helping our fellow brothers and sisters (in Christ) and helping those who are not yet in the kingdom, because God is on the move and building his kingdom and when we stand around the throne there will be Afghans and Iraqi’s and Egyptians and Lybians and Iranians and Chinese and Europeans!! And for that very reason we should be going (Matthew 28!)
I could go in much more depth but this is already long enough. Just a thought from the other side!
May 25, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Jolene Anderson
LOVE THIS! TY.
May 23, 2011 at 7:22 am
Lakeville
“The third kind of answer, still more subtle than the preceding, consists in asserting that though the command of non-resistance to evil by force is binding on the Christian when the evil is directed against himself personally, it ceases to be binding when the evil is directed against his neighbors, and that then the Christian is not only not bound to fulfill the commandment, but is even bound to act in opposition to it in defense of his neighbors, and to use force against transgressors by force. This assertion is an absolute assumption, and one cannot find in all Christ’s teaching any confirmation of such an argument. Such an argument is not only a limitation, but a direct contradiction and negation of the commandment. If every man has the right to have recourse to force in face of a danger threatening an other, the question of the use of force is reduced to a question of the definition of danger for another. If my private judgment is to decide the question of what is danger for another, there is no occasion for the use of force which could not be justified on the ground of danger threatening some other man. They killed and burnt witches, they killed aristocrats and girondists, they killed their enemies because those who were in authority regarded them as dangerous for the people.” Leo Tolstoy http://www.kingdomnow.org/w-inyou02.html
May 23, 2011 at 9:05 pm
David Housholder
Just got accused of being an isolationist.
Hardly.
Since when is focus and investment on a whole hemisphere isolationist?
Minding our own business (the New World) is just plain common sense.
May 24, 2011 at 11:37 am
John V
Why not start with “15. Eliminate drug cartels.”? Would do a world of good for us and Mexico. But how do we do this? Make drugs legal (as they are in The Netherlands)? or through enhanced law enforcement (and put even more people in prison)?
May 24, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Brian Zahnd
David, my friend, I couldn’t agree more.
Military adventurism is the calling card of empire and we don’t need to follow that path. As it’s been sung…
Went down the road to Damascus,
The road to Mandalay
Met the ghost of Caesar
On the Appian Way
He said, It’s hard to stop this binging
Once you get a taste
But the road to empire
Is a bloody, stupid waste
And it’s a long road out of Eden
-The Eagles
God loves nations…but is dead-set against empires.
And what are empires?
Empires are rich and powerful states that think they have a right to rule other nations and shape the world according to their agenda.
Imperial ambition puts a nation in opposition to the will of God because the right to rule the nations and shape the world according to its own agenda is a privilege God has promised to Jesus. Empires claim for themselves what God has promised to Jesus. And those nations that succumb to the temptation of empire will eventually be subject to the prophetic denouement…
Babylon is fallen, is fallen.
If a nation won’t stay at home,
Within the boundaries set,
It will eventually be put in its place,
With a great cost of lives, fortune, and honor.
Ask Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, Turkey, Germany, Spain, Russia, England, etc., etc. There are no exceptions.
American Exceptionalism…
(If applied to military adventurism) is a ruse.
There are no exceptions to the fate of empire.
Stay at home or fall.
Brian Zahnd
May 24, 2011 at 9:15 pm
David Housholder
As Lincoln said, we need to listen to the better angels of our nature….
What are we doing here in the New World….?
Let’s live up to our best ideals….
May 25, 2011 at 12:25 pm
David Housholder
We make a better Republic than an Empire…
May 25, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Yoseph
You have a good vision here. The direction America is going is drastically different however..
A Bill is being worked out that would activate our military to go into any country without authorization to hunt “al-Qaeda leaders”
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/180929.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/11/secret_order_to_target_al_qaed.asp
or google search the concept of “House Bill to Hunt Al-qaeda”
It seems that Americas leaders are subtly taking the path of many other past imperialistic regimes.
May 25, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Jolene Anderson
Tiffany, I am so with you! What about the innocent missionaries that go abroad risking everything to spread the word of Christ? Without some sort of presence in many of these countries, it would be more hazardous than ever. I have family in military service. They totally condone what Tiffany said about the grateful people. We can’t police the entire world, but we have a responsibility as Christians to aid the helpless. Our country was founded on Godly principles. As for our becoming a “fallen empire” where is the faith that God is in control? Those empires fell because He willed it. Our obsession with oil & advancement of other countries (Middle East, etc)is the wrong reason for war. Genocide is EVERY reason to go to war. On another note, if my husband, son, daughter or other family member died in this war on terrorism & human atrocities I would want them to finish the job. These lives should not be taken in vain & certainly an early bailout would seem to make it so. I detest war…truly I do. But I detest genocide worse. The brutal raping; beheading; public executions of Saddam should have been dealt with, whether WMD or not. The one great hope I have in all this is that the women of these countries stand up & make a united voice for their personal rights & independence. Salama Oman & Jumana Shaker Aabood of the radio talk show on Radio Dijla, Iraq brought thousands of women together in protest, but paid for it with their lives..they were murdered. In America for a short time to learn the expertise of radio talk shows from noted NY women, they went home & launched a movement that is still igniting.
Why must we learn Spanish. This is America & people coming here to make it their home or growing up here with parents from another country should learn to speak English. An alternative language should be mandatory for high school curriculum, but not just Spanish. There are many, many immigrants that would like to see different language classes; with Rosetta Stone & many on line programs, it could be adapted for foreign languages in the classroom. I have Spanish & Asian members in my family now. I harbor no racism toward anyone. As I mentioned before, my family descended from Germany many yrs. ago. They spoke broken English but they learned & became fluent in it; growing up we were exposed to fragments of German language but English was dominant. “Once again, when in Rome”.
July 4, 2011 at 7:59 am
gewell
David,
I don’t always agree with everything you say, but can understand the logic, which I believe most people are lacking nowadays. Reading everything, including that which you are not sure you will agree, is the only way to really learning about our world. Censorship, with the exception of age appropriateness, is a mark of stupidity!
As pertains to isolationism, I do agree with you. Although I am not sure that I am ready to include Mexico and South America in all that we do quite yet, I do agree that we need to scale back and look at our own “world”. We have too many pots on the fire. We are burning too many of them, as we can’t even begin to take care of them. Those that aren’t already burning are on the verge of doing so!
As pertains to the Middle East….I do not agree at all with their religion, and see it as a major diversion to the expansion of Christianity. We are so busy putting out fires, being politically correct to the point of fault, we don’t get around to solidifying our own beliefs. In fact, our beliefs have been put on a back fire where they are not even visible most of the time. To return to the former analogy….they are smoldering, and will soon burn out!
I don’t believe God told us to take care of the whole world. I believe that He expected us to take care of ourselves so that we could be an example. Only when we were strong in our beliefs, could we show them to the world as the way! We are now spread so thin that there is no core reason for doing any of what this country does, anymore. I keep coming back to a basic tenet of what I remember from somewhere in my teaching…..unless I take care of myself, I will not have the energy and ability to ever shine God through me.
I think our Founding Fathers knew that. They believed that our idea of inalienable rights also pertained to the world they came from. Europe, etc., could live the way that they wanted (that was their right), but we didn’t have to! We were not to be governed by men. God gives everyone the right to be in charge of themselves. It is only because we have people who are in love with power that we have governments that believe they can tell us what to do, usurping our (Gods’) power.
A true Godly government would protect only those who are truly unable to protect themselves (and don’t have families that could do so), and would let everyone else learn to provide for themselves and their families, through good example.
In my thoughts, massive entitlement programs are a form of ungodly progress. True Godly progress entails teaching people to be self-sufficient so that they, too, can feel empowered in themselves, and hence Christ!
As to the military, and a need for it: I challenge anyone to show me where God says we have to NOT fight for Him and a life in Him. I see many churches (including my lifelong Lutheran denomination), that say pacifism is the right way. “Be humble!” they say! I, however, see that as taking Christianity to a fault. If we were all to lie down and let others win, the Kingdom of God would never exist in the future, as more warring, ungodly peoples would take over the earth, effectively ending it!
We, as Godly people, should be constantly working ourselves out of a job (which will never happen because of our humanity). Like good parenting, the process is one of taking care of others until they learn to take care of themselves. If we never help others learn to take care of themselves, then we are aiding and abetting their helplessness…..truly an un-Godly practice.
Come home is a battle cry. Only in taking care of ourselves first, can we take care of the rest of the world!
July 5, 2011 at 10:59 am
Doulos
I seem to remember that US got involved in WWI because it learned that Germany (fearing we would get involved) had asked Mexico to invade the US promising them lost land. I also do not think it fair to say we only got into WWII because of how we cruelly seized Hawaii. That seems to miss the point that the US was going to get involved (was already helping England massively with supplies for example) and the attack on Pearl Harbor was meant to cripple our Pacific Navy, were they at port somewhere else I am not necessarily convinced that would have changed or we would never have gotten involved (I’m not sure leaving Europe essentially to Russia would have been wise either whether they would have won or not).
I guess I dispute some of your history, which makes me wonder on the claims. There is a lot of good reason to pull away, in many ways that would be my foreign policy, but I’m not altogether convinced, and I do believe that history does at times show the call to respond to the evil of this world.
My 2 cents.
July 5, 2011 at 11:38 am
David Housholder
Mexico had zero chance of succeeding in an invasion of the US in WW1. It would have resulted in our capture of their capital in about a week’s time. They were not and have never been a credible threat.
My point about Pearl Harbor is that it was our imperial over-reach around the turn of the 1800/1900 century in the Philippines and Hawaii that caused Japan to see us as a threat to their region. We had a whole army (MacArthur and Co) in the Philippines, and a navy capable of patrolling all the waters around Japan. It would be as if China were to station a naval fleet in the Gulf of Mexico.
No over-reach–no threat–no attack on us.
And we never would have been headed into WW2 had we not fought in WW1 (where we had no business) which tipped what WAS a stalemate (and should have ended that way) and ended up crushing the German economy which gave rise to Hitler. And we all know how that story ended.
“Stay out of entangling alliances in the Old World.” -The Founding Fathers.
It’s never too late to listen…