As we write, Congress is considering whether to send a large tranche of military aid to a faraway country under attack by a powerful neighbor. What follows is a short guide to some of the talking points favoring this aid that seem particularly unconvincing. We don’t pretend this discussion is comprehensive and stress that intelligent people can disagree on foreign policy. But, we fear many Americans are swept up in groupthink. We encourage everyone to think the issue through for themselves and hope the following catalog of arguments helps.
1. Proponents struggle to justify aid in terms of national interest. But the Christian worldview (and the philosophical heritage of Greece and Rome) reminds us to act only on self-interest — ideally construed as narrowly as possible. Appeals to reputation, deterrence, long-run stability, and so on only confuse this clear principle. Much of such talk is anyway just cover for motives of honor or generosity.
2. Aid proponents forget that the truth of a claim depends on the character of the person making it. We would excuse a knifing reported by a shoplifter, discount criticism of abortion from someone who once had one, and dismiss arguments for freedom made by slaveholders. Aid advocates blatantly violate this rule by condemning aggression and atrocities against civilians despite our own nation having also done bad things.
3. Cheap talk about “aggression” often ignores the imperfect moral record of victim states. In reality, departures from perfect governance justify force or invasion even if unrelated, wildly unnecessary, or disproportionate. Historians accept this justification for attacks by Barbary corsairs on ships of the (slaveholding) United States in the 1790s or Napoleon’s invasion of (autocratic, corrupt) Russia in 1812.
4. Aid proponents forget that the truth or rightness of something depends on who requests it. No one would answer an adulterer’s plea to help a drowning child. Similarly, the aid proposal is heavily favored by Democrats and the Democratic presidential administration. Since those people favor other harmful policies, this policy is also wrong.
5. Advocates talk endlessly about the high benefit/cost ratio of aid while ignoring the federal deficit. They ignore the proper either/or framing of financial tradeoffs. Families on a budget choose between heating the house, feeding their children, or buying clothing. Similarly, nations choose between foreign aid and (say) border security, police protection, maintaining Social Security, etc.
6. Aid proponents bleat that without our help the defending nation will lose, forgetting that the attacker is currently winning. They don’t recognize that weaker parties deserve to lose. Which of us, seeing a family savagely assaulted in their home, would send help before verifying the help was unnecessary?
7. Aid proponents deal one-sidedly with the risk of escalation, focusing exclusively on the risks of inaction. They forget that abandoning a friend now, while it may indeed strengthen and embolden our adversaries (especially in the Pacific), will likely sate the ambitions of the aggressor, buying us peace in our time.
8. Aid proponents don’t understand the complicated origins of the war. They harp simplistically on who invaded whom and committed widespread atrocities against civilians. Sophisticated observers, by contrast, understand the moral right of stronger nations to dominate their spheres of influence. History severely judges the Jews of Masada, the American colonial insurgents against Britain, and the few hundred Spartans who resisted benevolent Persian hegemony in the fifth century B.C.
9. Space precludes a longer list of arguments, so we end by invoking Winston Churchill. Many Americans cannot help but admire his soaring calls to resist domination by a brutal, chauvinistic aggressor. Some might even allow him to influence their thinking about the aid package. We sincerely hope this little essay has helped readers think about his words in a new way — namely, by not listening to them. Demand that Congress approve no Lend-Lease aid for Britain in this troubled year of 1941.
Why, what did you think we were talking about?
