WWSD (What Would Switzerland Do)

What bugs me about politics is that it so often boils down to these stupid binary either or type questions. This past election the question was essentially do you want fries or rice pilaff with your free sandwich?

And the thing that greatly frustrates me as a Republican is having to defend Bush. I am not a Republican in the same way that some are say Canadiens fans or Maple Leafs fans. I do not even try to draw co-relations between trends and events and whether a D or R was in the White House. That is just way too simplistic. The fact is both parties have been the party of Keynesian economics since the Hoover administration. And by Keynesian economics I mean activist government intervention in the workings of the economy. Hoover was the prototype for Roosevelt in terms government intervention in the economy much as Bush was the prototype for Obama for deficit spending.

Like I said, do you want fries or rice pilaff with your free lunch?

But I want to focus on foreign policy. This is another area where I differ from many Republicans.

The question we should ask ourselves when we confront issues overseas is analogous to WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) and that is WWSD, What Would Switzerland Do?

When was the last time Switzerland attacked anybody? The 1600s? I dont even know though I am sure I could find out. But I am sure if they wanted to they could if someone pissed them off enough. They have a strong military. They are a clever people. If they made it their national ambition to hit back at somebody, even on the other side of the world, I am sure they could pull it off.

For the many who would immediately scoff at this I say game it out. Think dynamicly, not staticly. Pretend you are Switzerland and you want to attack Afganistan. How would you do it? I will save that mind experiment for a future post.

My point is Switzerland does not attack other countries. And the question we should ask ourselves is if Switzerland wouldn't attack a country in a given situation, why should we?

I ask this question to a lot of my fellow Replicans and the answers I get are interesting. They basically assume that it's still World War ii and that we are saving the world and, heck, the world should be greatful.

Recall Romney's own words: we do not "dictate to other countries, we liberate them!" Those words may have cost Romney the election. How about leaving countries alone for a change?

The fact is for four long years Switzerland stood alone surrounded on all sides by armies threatening invasion before a single American soldier appeared on their border.


I exaggerate only a little but the reaction of some conservative when a crowd burns our flag in say Pakistan is not much different from how muslums in Pakistan react when someone somehow disrespects their prophet.

Get over it. It's not their flag and he is not our prophet!

The fact is, even if the U.S. did not have a single soldier stationed beyond our borders (something that was for the most part true right up till World War II), the other countries of the world would still find ways to confront threats. Small countries unite in alliance to confront threats from large countries. That's the way it's been for centuries. While Georgia alone can't defend itself against Russia, an alliance of countries along Russia's periphery can. The U.S does not need to pledge itself to war on behalf of any of those countries. How would we feel if Russia made such pledges with Mexico? The USSR was so pledged to Cuba and guess what, we didn't like that and justifiably so.

This is essentially Ron Paul's position. He does not say we should never attack another country. Only for good reason. And Ron Paul's position is that we are far too quick to drop the gloves and start pounding.

I have often said the Ron Paul would take us back to the 1890s, buy in a good way. We didnt attack other countries much in 1890. And we were a more powerful country because of it.