A dozen years after the Paris Peace Treaty, the Jay Treaty, as designed by Hamilton and endorsed by Washington, went a long way to resolving the lingering issues we had with Great Britain after the revolution. It led to a decade of decent relations and trade during the end of Washington’s, all of Adams’ and the beginning of Jefferson’s presidencies, until Jefferson rejected the replacement Monroe Pinkney Treaty, six years before the War of 1812.
Our voting was often raucous and, we’ve certainly been on both sides of electoral interfering over the years. Reporting the behaviors that regularly occurred in this period (and beyond)
would have a very different meaning before the FBI was established in 1908 or the Secret Service in 1865.
To me, the interesting thing is not the historical comparisons that can be found so much as the specter of behavior that was merely dangerous in the days before Twitter diplomacy now eroding all the work done since WWII to make a world that has averted looming annihilation despite thousands of ICBMs sitting in their silos.
We have come to rely on our belief in free, fair and impartial elections that select leaders up to the most powerful office in the world. Dissolution of this belief – whether by impuning the process as rigged or by its inability to select suitable candidates – is a grave danger to the process. More importantly in my opinion it is a grave danger to the organizations that implicitly rely on our leadership.
There is no shortage of fringe advocates for the abolition of the UN, the IMF, NATO, etc.. But, I don’t see any cogent arguments for how we keep the peace as we have since 1945 without them beyond braggadocio and bluster.. I would remind those wbo subscribe to such beliefs that ‘mutually assured destruction’ is not much of a strategy in a multilateral nuclear armed world.
A dozen years after the Paris Peace Treaty, the Jay Treaty, as designed by Hamilton and endorsed by Washington, went a long way to resolving the lingering issues we had with Great Britain after the revolution. It led to a decade of decent relations and trade during the end of Washington’s, all of Adams’ and the beginning of Jefferson’s presidencies, until Jefferson rejected the replacement Monroe Pinkney Treaty, six years before the War of 1812.
Our voting was often raucous and, we’ve certainly been on both sides of electoral interfering over the years. Reporting the behaviors that regularly occurred in this period (and beyond)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_intervention
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/10/13/rock-paper-scissors/amp
would have a very different meaning before the FBI was established in 1908 or the Secret Service in 1865.
To me, the interesting thing is not the historical comparisons that can be found so much as the specter of behavior that was merely dangerous in the days before Twitter diplomacy now eroding all the work done since WWII to make a world that has averted looming annihilation despite thousands of ICBMs sitting in their silos.
We have come to rely on our belief in free, fair and impartial elections that select leaders up to the most powerful office in the world. Dissolution of this belief – whether by impuning the process as rigged or by its inability to select suitable candidates – is a grave danger to the process. More importantly in my opinion it is a grave danger to the organizations that implicitly rely on our leadership.
There is no shortage of fringe advocates for the abolition of the UN, the IMF, NATO, etc.. But, I don’t see any cogent arguments for how we keep the peace as we have since 1945 without them beyond braggadocio and bluster.. I would remind those wbo subscribe to such beliefs that ‘mutually assured destruction’ is not much of a strategy in a multilateral nuclear armed world.