Herschensohn on Isolationism

As a conservative, I would like to respectfully disagree with Bruce Herschensohn’s comments (“Conservatism Doesn’t Mean Isolationism,” Column Right, Feb. 21). Herschensohn is a bright, honest and honorable man, but he has lost touch with mainstream America.

The United States was correct, I believe, in amassing the most powerful arsenal in the world in order to facilitate the dismantling of the ominous Soviet Union. We paid a heavy price in dollars, but it was well worth it.

Now, however, to think that we can roam the world with our armed forces and nip-in-the-bud the ambitions of every aggressive foreign leader, regardless of his impact on our “national interest,” is ridiculous. We are not capable of securing liberty for the entire planet, much as Herschensohn and most Americans would like.

Places like North Korea, Iran, Iraq and a very few others are examples of hot spots which warrant our participation because they are in “our national interest.” Haiti, Bosnia, Somali (except for humanitarian benefits), do not. Too many of these areas of aggression involve nation-building to achieve the “liberty” that Herschensohn desires. This we are not able to do.

Being selective in how we participate in world conflicts is not being “isolationist.” It is being realistic.

RON WALKER

Huntington Beach

The first paragraph of Herschensohn’s column states, “Since the birth of the nation, one single word has taken precedence above all others: liberty .” That might have been true up until Feb. 7, when the House of Representatives passed overwhelmingly HR 666, the Exclusionary Rule Reform Act, 289 to 142, the object of which was to eviscerate the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. This is part of the Republicans’ contract with America. One wonders what other constitutional liberties will be sent to the guillotine.

HANK ALBERTS

San Luis Obispo