English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

- not to get involved in European affairs
- he warned us to avoid making "permanent alliances" in foreign affairs
- not to form political parties
- avoid sectionalism
:)

Do you think we would have been better off if we listened? Why or why not?

2007-02-04 13:59:47 · 12 answers · asked by uglyvanity 3 in Politics & Government Politics

12 answers

Washington was a real Mason.
We have unfortunately been off the Masonic Honor Code for some time now, ever since the name Bush crossed the threshold of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

2007-02-04 14:06:41 · answer #1 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 0 2

The world has changed in the past 200 years. In Washington's time, we could afford to be isolationist. Then it took weeks to get from NY to London, now it takes hours. Now we can communicate worldwide instantly. We have missiles that can reach any point on the globe. Isolationism is no longer an option. We tried as recently as the 1930 to avoid European affairs. The world is even more dangerous now. His aversion to political parties was naive. I can't think of a single democratic country that does not have 2 or more political parties.

In his day, he was right. In our day, he would not be. We are better off not trying to avoid alliances around the world.

2007-02-04 14:15:30 · answer #2 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1 0

My first impulse is to say yes. But after thinking about it for awhile, all he was against was inevitable. He, himself, was a federalist even if he wasn't a member of the party. There were basic differences between 2 factions concerning how much power the federal Government should have.which was the basis for the formation of the first political parties. Without France, we would have lost the Revolution, so when they needed help against our common enemy, it was seen as our duty to help them out. The Monroe Doctrine was established, trying to keep European politics out of the Americas. And slavery ( & economics) guaranteed the eventual split between the North & South.

One thing we need to remember: The Law of Unintended Consequences. We will never know what today's world would be like if we had followed Washington's advice. Would our country even exist? We will never know. One thing is certain. We would not be the world's Superpower with that kind of foreign policy. Maybe that would have been a good thing. Again, we will never know.

2007-02-04 14:29:30 · answer #3 · answered by bob h 5 · 0 0

IF IT WERE POSSIBLE (Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, 9/11 come to mind) I would support it 100%, but it's not the world we live in anymore, I regret that. It's one small world, one nuclear mushroom cloud travels the globe, pollution and sand from the Gobi desert/China can be measured in air samples taken from lighthouses on the Maine coast. Desperate conditions in distant lands cause people to do anything to come to the fabled "land of milk and honey" in the USA, so our choice becomes "feed them there or feed them here", the rest of the world stands by as we spend ourselves 18 trillion in debt. There are more people in teh EU than USA, but you will recall after the Christmas tsunami in Indonesia we were criticized by Europe, which gave far less, for being stingy and not giving more. I have a real simple plan for the Middle East, teh USA withdraws to the West, and the Middle East leaves the West and goes back to the Middle East, and let China, France and Russia fight for control over there. The only problem will be the nuclear fallout and nuclear winter if the Middle East nations do go to war either with Isreal or each other, or between the sects of their own religion. but we are lead to believe by all these "experts" and thugs like presidents of Iran and Venezeula, that the USA causes all the problems in the world, so withdrawing, according to them guarrantees world peace, or rather, they get to carve the rest up into pieces among themselves, and then all the oppressed, overun nations would all come whining to the USA for help, before the invasion and conquest of the USA begins, with our now nuclear armed enemies surrounding us threatening destruction to all areas or cities that don't surrender. Then it comes down to the people with the nukes in our military, launch and devestate the world, or slavery? Tough choices,, no easy answers. But then again George Washington also said "property rights are the cornerstone of freedom." Go try selling that in city hall or Washington DC. So it would be a nice Utopia, if only those who want to conquer the rest of the world didn't figure the USA has to be destroyed first. Living here, I have a problem with that.

2007-02-04 14:20:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Well, even in his time, we had political parties, just not professional politicians. Had we not gotten involved in two world wars, we would have become isolated and surrounded by a foreign government, kinda like Islam, who wanted us dead.

You cant stick your head in the sand and hope the bad old world will go away. We tried Isolationism prior to both world wars, and what did it get us??? The sinking of the Lusitania, and Pearl Harbor.

America has, to a certain degree, a responsibility to help countries who want democracies. France did help this fledgling country in its battle for Independence from England. So, we always have tried to help others.

I think we need term limits at all levels of government, not just for President, but EVERY one on Capitol Hill. If we get rid of career politicians, maybe we can do something good for this country.

2007-02-04 14:08:41 · answer #5 · answered by bigmikejones 5 · 2 0

No because the world George Washington lived in and todays world are totally different.

2007-02-04 17:15:38 · answer #6 · answered by firetdriver_99 5 · 0 0

I can relate. George Bush President of the United States is a man who has flushed all honor and integrity down the toilet. He has spread shame on America, it's Constitution, and it's People. It is a highly embarrassing situation for every Good American. This Man has spun completely out of control and he needs to be stopped immediately. President Bush has discounted himself to nothing more then a mere "War Criminal."

2007-02-04 14:09:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

GW never imagined globalization like we have now. Hell, he never imagined air transportation! In today's world, it is impossible to isolate, even for Australia.

He was right on political parties, though.

2007-02-04 14:15:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

He also said, "its impossible to rightly govern without God and the Bible."

If your going to remember G.W., remember ALL of what he said. Not just what you want to hear.

2007-02-04 14:09:04 · answer #9 · answered by Chester's Liver 2 · 1 0

It's a brave new world as Bush put it "new world order" globalism is coming wither we want it or not...

2007-02-04 14:06:38 · answer #10 · answered by no one here gets out alive 6 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers