盧安迪's 的頭像

《信報》專欄作家

共和黨的反戰傳統

 
《信報》自由的國度:我在美國不時接觸到一些朋友,在經濟、文化議題上頗為右傾,但因為共和黨發起阿富汗戰爭和伊拉克戰爭,令他們無法接受,故只能「含淚」投票給民主黨。其實,回顧歷史,共和黨在外交政策上有着濃厚的「不干預主義」傳統,近數十年的「新保守派」(neoconservatives)對這一祖訓棄若敝屣,令人痛心疾首。

由於我以後會另文討論第一次世界大戰的背景和意義,所以現在由第二次世界大戰談起。珍珠港襲擊前,美國保守派對戰事態度紛紜。英國政府為了促使美國參戰支援,以間諜、賄賂、偽造民調等方式干預1940年總統選舉,支持民主黨的羅斯福連任,並確保共和黨唯一主張參戰的參選人Wendell Willkie取得該黨提名。【註】

珍珠港襲擊後,群情洶湧,美國國會通過對日本宣戰,而參眾兩院唯一一張反對票來自共和黨人Jeannette Rankin。有「Mr. Republican」之稱的參議員Robert Taft,雖然對宣戰決議案投下贊成票,卻於戰後強烈反對紐倫堡審判——他認為以追溯法令(ex post facto laws)進行成王敗寇的復仇式審判,是違反法治精神。雖然我不同意他這一見解,因為自然法(natural law)應該凌駕人為立法,但此事無疑反映了他在外交上的「鴿派」取態。

Robert Taft和不少其他民主、共和兩黨政治家,還有Albert Jay Nock、H. L. Mencken等文人,都可歸類為二十世紀上半葉的「舊右派」(Old Right)。他們既在經濟上反對新政(New Deal),又在外交上反對干預,甚至反對成立北約組織。

(節錄)
 

所有評論

巨浪 - 2017年09月28日 06:00

美國人有反戰傳統!?!?哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈!傻子才會信。請看 :

 

澄沉包剪搨 - 2017年08月30日 04:12

。。。。。哪知美軍屢攻不下最後退回三八線前,曾屠殺三百餘萬韓國人。。。。。 ?? 數字有何根據?

 

巨浪 - 2017年08月30日 05:35

文中 : "....五十年代初期的韓戰,今人大都知道杜魯門總統推翻麥克阿瑟將軍揮兵鴨綠江投原子彈的建議,有人因此以為這盡顯基督徒的慈悲心,哪知美軍屢攻不下最後退回三八線前,曾屠殺三百餘萬韓國人,並把北韓大城小鎮炸成韲粉,「三八線以北的國土崎嶇不平有如月球表面!」可見美國打起仗來心狠手辣──.."

 

幼稚低能的香江人(澄沉廢物) 大吃一驚。

 

 

巨浪 - 2017年09月28日 06:10

文中 : ".......豈料榮保羅非但沒有退讓,更堅定重申基督教的正義戰爭理論(Just War theory)....."

 

基督教何來正義戰爭?請看 :

 

“他們就照耶和華所吩咐摩西的、與米甸人打仗、殺了所有的男丁。”《民數纪》31:7

“以色列人擄了米甸人的婦女孩子、 ….” 《民數纪》31:9

“所以你們要把一切的男孩丶和所有已嫁的女子、都殺了。”《民數纪》31:17

“但女孩子中、凡沒有出嫁的、你們都可以存留他的活命。”《民數纪》31:19

“女人共三萬二千口。都是沒有出嫁的。”《民數纪》31:35

照耶和華所吩咐摩西的,殺了所有男丁,擄奪未出嫁女的。此乃戰爭罪行

 

“我必使他們在圍困窘迫之中、就是仇敵和尋索其命的人窘迫他們的時候、各人喫自己兒女的肉、和朋友的肉。”《耶利米書》19:9

人吃人。萬軍之耶和華,以色列之神,要使城中窘迫,人吃人。

 

文見亂 - 2017年09月28日 06:18

哈哈!
哇哇!
巨浪條粉腸給Trump Card technical knockout完全沒有還擊之力,屁也不敢放一個,真是羞家.
 
 
"Trump Card - 2017年09月27日 09:29
Giant Wumao,
You are disgusting and a lying sack of shit. You should be ashamed of yourself. Everything you post in this blog is nothing but a load of crap and everyone knows it. The only thing you have proven is that you are a nasty mendacious turd. Every time you open your dirty mouth, you make a bigger fool out of yourself with each passing day.
I understand that a wumao has to do what a wumao has to do; but you are a lot worse than a wumao. You act like a masochistic moron who needs help. For a moron like you, drinking some piss and eating some shit might help relieve your mental retardation.
Good luck!"

PBrega - 2017年09月28日 15:53

未見過美國總統反對戰爭,不論共和民主,有些更加好戰。

PBrega - 2017年09月28日 15:55

不過,美國現在不會主動開打,只會在受襲擊後,才回應。

择法 - 2017年09月28日 16:53

For the first one and a half century after its independence, the USA mostly followed an isolationist strategy, unless its national interests/ dominane in the American continent was threatened (as demonstrated by wars with Mexico, Spain...).

It was a wise strategy to follow since the US mainland was protected by 2 great oceans and the white settlers with far superior means faced almost no resistance from the natives. Such isolationist foreign policy was also mirrored by its protectionist trade policy which shielded its economy from (then) more advanced European competitors.

As the world became more integrated in the 20th century, and as US companies grew into world class, and as US commerical interests started to spread around the world, it was only logical that US strategy changed accordingly. That was when US started to intervene heavily around the world, advocating free market, freedom and democracy. Its proclaimed universal ideology and its own narrow national and commercial interests were often interwined which not only confused outsiders but also its own citizens!

I therefore propose that you should analyse from the stand point of motive -- for narrow national interest or for spreading universal values. 

I think the early isolationists (they are not restricted to the Republican) are not very different from the later Republican realists, who were exemplified by the masters of realpolitik such as Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. While thet might have adopted different tactics (isolationist versus interventionist), they share the same motives of serving their national interest. In fact the Democrats in the 60's such as Lyndon Johnson were no different.

However, the neocons who advocated for Iraq invasion was a different creed. Your article didn't differentiate these two different types of Republicans and simply labelled all interventionists as neocons.

The neocons were true believers of universal values. They wanted to bring democracy to the Arab world in 2003. (I don't buy the arguement that US invaded Iraq with the main motive to secure its oil supply. While that might be secondary objective, the exercise was simply too expensive to be the only reason)

In that respect neocons had ironically shared the world view of liberal Democrats (who were themselves very different from the early day Democrats). Perhaps a whole generation of US policy makers got carried away by the West triump over the communist bloc after the Cold War. What's more triggered by the 911 attack in 2001, they thought they had a duty to spread democracy around the world.

Steve Bannon, the brain behind Trump, represented a return to Kissinger's style of realpolitik, where US national interest comes first. Whether to withdraw from the world or intervene more heaviliy is just a matter of tactic.

From this, we could therefore deduce that if it suits US interests to support say HK independence, US would eagerly do so (remember how Trump hinted to ditch One China policy just before taking office?).

But when it becomes more advantageous to abandon HK, say in order to strike a deal with China, the current US administration will change its face faster than anyone could have possibly imagined.

JKwok9 - 2017年09月28日 17:26

現在最想南北韓打得成的是老美。
最唔想打的卻是南北韓。
誰會想在自己國家發生戰爭?
南韓總統在美國威權下做了軟性反抗,確是有政治智慧及胆色。與北韓小金有得比。
南韓主動提出以人道為理由援助北韓,披着正義外衣美國佬無得出聲反對。
"800萬美元 南韓人道援助北韓
.......這是文在寅政府成立後,南韓首次決定對北韓提供人道援助。保守派的前總統朴槿惠因閨密門遭彈劾,自由派領導人兼人權律師文在寅在5月就任總統後,對北韓就採取雙軌路線,包括經濟制裁與主動接觸,希望逐步緩和兩韓緊張。....."
https://tw.news.yahoo.com/800%E8%90%AC%E7%BE%8E%E5%85%83-%E5%8D%97%E9%9F...

 

L

Liberphile - 2017年09月28日 18:52

"But when it becomes more advantageous to abandon HK, say in order to strike a deal with China, the current US administration will change its face faster than anyone could have possibly imagined."

 

The current US administration does not operate the same way your masters in Beijing do.  In case you don't know, there is one branch of the US government known as Congress.  The current US administration under Trump will need congressional support to do anything that goes against the US-Hong Kong Policy Act.  His chances of success in getting the lawmakers to go along with him in nullifying the US-Hong Kong Policy Act are next to zero.  Besides, Trump may soon find himself busy dealing with Special Prosecutor Mueller, who is in charge of an ongoing investigation, which is likely to open a can of worms leading to Trump's possible impeachment.

 

So dream on and feel free to counsel your masters in Beijing with your "expert" knowledge about American politics.  All Hongkongers who support freedom and democracy would very much like you to do just that because they understand perfectly well what is meant by the saying "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." !   

择法 - 2017年09月29日 11:11

Dear Liberphile,

The US-HK Policy Act treats HK as an independent economic entity in US trade relationship with HK. It's important for HK prosperity. But it doesn't support HK independence, if that's what you have in mind.

 

Therefore I don't follow your arguement. Why should any deal between Trump administration and China require the Act to be nullified?

 

On the other hand, in my limited understanding of US politics as you've said, the executive branch has the prerogative to lead and conduct foreign policy. And the exectuive branch controls the resources for foreign policy implementation, mainly through the State Department. But Trump is cutting the State Department down in case you didn't notice!

 

Let me reiterate my arguement. Those who advocate for HK independence should harbor no illusion that they could count on US support.

 

US national interest always come first. If it serves US interest to support HK independence (which I don't see now), for say over NK or trade issues with China, it will do so. If it serves US interest to ditch HK, it will do so too.

 

Such thinking is not limited to Trump administration. Any hope for Congress support beyond sound bytes are just wishful thinking. Congress, especially the House where members are on 2 year term, panders heavily to their domestic base. Any success to garner US support depends on convincing the US electorate why HK independence is important to them. Do you think they care?

 

Lastly I recognise you and I have different political views. I respect your opinion and won't resort to name calling, as that doesn't help to win arguement and doesn't show HK has the capacity for greater democracy.

只有登入後或登記成為會員才能發表意見

版規:

  1. 網站編輯或網站作家開題,網友可回應。回應必須貼題,請勿重覆;勿發表誹謗,人身攻擊或不雅內容。
  2. 網站編輯有權發表或不發表網友張貼的內容。(請參閱議論守則)
  3. 開題之網友可編輯其在過去7天內發表之論題,或刪除相關回應。

查閱 FAQ

信報簡介 | 服務條款 | 私隱條款 | 免責聲明 | 廣告查詢 | 信報會議中心租賃 | 加入信報 | 聯絡信報

股票及指數資料由財經智珠網有限公司提供。期貨指數資料由天滙財經有限公司提供。外滙及黃金報價由路透社提供。

本網站的內容概不構成任何投資意見,本網站內容亦並非就任何個別投資者的特定投資目標、財務狀況及個別需要而編製。投資者不應只按本網站內容進行投資。在作出任何投資決定前,投資者應考慮產品的特點、其本身的投資目標、可承受的風險程度及其他因素,並適當地尋求獨立的財務及專業意見。本網站及其資訊供應商竭力提供準確而可靠的資料,但並不保證資料絕對無誤,資料如有錯漏而令閣下蒙受損失,本公司概不負責。