salvation. The British Empire added the noble mythnof the white man’s burden. We have added freedomnand democracy. Yet the more that may be addednthe more it is the same language still. A language ofnpower.nEver since Woodrow Wilson set the disastrous course fornAmerica in the 20th century by intervening in Wodd War I,nthe global interventionists have proclaimed two resoundingngoals for U.S. foreign policy: in Wilsonian phrases, to “endnall wars” and “to make the world safe for democracy.”nPursuing, the latter aim meant imposing democratic institutionsnby coercion throughout the world, or, in practice,ninvading the realm of any dictator we don’t like in the namenof the democratic shibboleth. One leading Bush administrationnexcuse for the invasion of Panama — that it wasn”restoring democracy” there — rang particulady hollow. Forn. when did democracy ever exist in Panama?nAs America entered World War II and then the ColdnWar, the eminent historian and political scientist Charles A.nBeard prophetically warned that America was embarking onna program of “perpetual war for perpetual peace.” ThenBush administration’s newfound enthusiasm for the use ofnSoviet troops by a possibly “democratic” Soviet Union, innthe case of the march into Azerbaijan, stemmed from thenalleged Soviet goal of keeping peace between the Azeris andnthe Armenians. Indeed, it has become increasingly clear thatnthe liberal/neoconservative Establishment has reacted to thenend of the Cold War not by abandoning interventionism ornthe garrison state, but by moving to welcome the SovietnUnion into a junior partnership in a superpower condominiumnfor the rulership of the world, in the name of imposingndemocracy and keeping the peace.nThere is one striking characteristic of the cherished goalsnof Establishment foreign policy: that the wars for democracynand perpetual peace are both impossible to win. We live in anworld run largely by dictators, and there is no reason tonexpect that any of these countries are about to go democratic.nMoreover, the breakup of centralizing totalitarian communismnin the Soviet Empire has quickly brought to thensurface the deeper substructure of inter-ethnic hatreds. ThenAzeris and the Armenians, the Croats and the Serbs, andncountless other nationalities, have hated each other forncenturies, often with good reason. The fatuous and pervasivenliberal slogan of “world peace through understanding”nis given the lie by the fact that these peoples have longnknown each other only too well, with a consequent piling upnof grievances that seem to cry out for vengeance. For thenUnited States to attempt to impose settlements of all thesenconflicts is to take on a task not only impossible but alsoncounterproductive. Just as the Versailles Treaty sowed thenseeds of Worid War II and the Cold War, so the crusade fornperpetual peace throughout the world is indeed a recipe fornperpetual war. We have unfortunately forgotten the isolationistninsight of the Old Right: that intervening in everynlocal conflict in the name of internationalism or “collectivensecurity” only serves to internationalize and therefore tonbroaden and to maximize the conflict.nWhat could be the point, then, of a foreign policynguaranteed never to achieve its stated objectives? Perhapsnthe answer lies not in the official rhetoric, but in a desire tonperpetuate the interventionist process itself, to maintain angarrison and interventionist state for its own sake. Or rather,nfor the sake of the perks and the contracts and the jobs andnthe power that goes along with it. For it is human nature tonimpute economic determinism to our enemies, while convenientlynoverlooking the important economic motives thatnmay lure us at home. Take, for example, the massive foreignnaid program, which seems to expand every year regardless ofnconditions — threats or need for reconstruction or whatevern— that allegedly give rise to the policy. The foreign aidnprogram does not help the economy of foreign countries,nnor is it designed to do so. The purpose of foreign aid is tonmulct the U.S. taxpayer for the benefit of three favoredngroups: (1) the recipient government, which obtains the aidnand which acquires more power at the expense of its citizensnand the private sector of that country; (2) U.S. governmentnbureaucrats, who receive salaries for administering the aid;nand (3) first and foremost, the U.S. exporters upon whomnthe recipient showers the aid dollars. For dollars can only benused to purchase American exports. In short, foreign aid, ancrucial part of the policy of global intervention, is essentiallyna racket through which the U.S. taxpayer is conned intonsubsidizing U.S. export firms. As a side-benefit, statism isnfostered abroad as well as at home.nOnce again, one of the most perceptive explanations ofnglobal interventionism was written by another distinguishednOld Right journalist, John T. Flynn, who opposed bothnWorid War II and the Cold War. In his brilliant andnneglected work. As We Go Marching (1944), written in thenmidst of a war he had tried to forestall, Flynn traced foreignnintervention to the domestic failure of the New Deal tonestablish the corporate state in its National Recovery Act.nEntry into World War II, noted Flynn, reestablished thisncollectivist program, by means of “an economy supportednby great streams of debt and an economy under completencontrol, with neariy all of the planning agencies functioningnwith almost totalitarian power under a vast bureaucracy.”nAfter the war, Flynn prophesied, the New Deal will attemptnto expand this system to international affairs. The greatnemphasis of government spending, Flynn declared, wouldnnnMAY 1990/19n