The right to not care is one of the most important rights we have. The world is full of troubles, demands, and needs. Each day, a thousand voices call for our attention, our interest, our concern, and our care.
It is impossible for one man to comprehend the whole world, much less give it the attention it deserves. There are too many problems and not enough time. We are mortal. This is the tragedy of life—and of politics. No human work lasts forever.
Given this fundamental limitation, we can either give up in despair or take a more hard-headed and rational view. We cannot do everything, but that does not mean we can do nothing. We can make real choices. We can make things that last, maybe not forever, but for a long time.
We can plant trees whose shade will shelter our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. That is not nothing. Our work in this life matters. Therefore, it is in our interest to stay away from utopian scheming and paralyzing despair. We must distinguish between what we can do and what we cannot.
In the realm of politics and war, we must be tough-minded as to what is possible and what is not. This means that there are times when we must simply say no to those who ask for our help. We must say no to care, say no to involvement, and say no to war.
We must use our limited political resources wisely. We must focus only on solving obvious problems. We must start with the most pressing problems first. Hardest of all is recognizing that some problems are too complex to solve—and that our intervention would only make them worse.
A friend of mine works in the emergency room of a hospital. One of his duties is to inform families when further medical intervention is no longer useful or wise. CPR is violent even in the best of circumstances. Restarting the heart takes force and pressure. On an elderly person, attempting to bring them back with these measures is violent and painful. Even if they survive, they will need to be heavily sedated to overcome the pain of a cracked ribcage and internal bruising.
Sometimes there is nothing more that can be done and to intervene is to inflict pain without purpose. The same is true in political life.
The war in Ukraine is such a situation. For decades, American policy planners and foreign policy insiders have been trying to “defend democracy” in Ukraine. This has meant launching political influence operations, overturning election results we didn’t like, and, ultimately, pouring massive sums of money and weapons into a years-long war with a nuclear power.
None of this was wise. America should have stayed out of Eastern Europe. Both World War I and World War II began in this region. The ancient rivalries, ethnic tensions, and political feuding of the boundary between East and West promise us nothing but pain, bloodshed, and loss.
The first goal of our foreign policy should be to defend our rights, specifically our rights to life and liberty. The second aim should be to preserve our way of life. This means that we should not wage wars that will undo the fabric of our Republic. We ought not only to preserve our rights, but also to defend the consent of the governed.
Americans deserve a say in what their government does abroad. This means that Congress and the president should never commit weapons or materiel to a foreign conflict without a declaration of war. The only time we should fight a war without a declaration is in the immediate aftermath of a direct attack on our homeland. Even then, Congress should meet as soon as possible to put the nation on a true war footing and to announce to the world the nation’s military goals and intentions.
This procedure was not followed in the Russo-Ukrainian War. The State Department, USAID, and the Department of Defense, along with American NGOs, spent the two decades prior to the 2022 outbreak of the war staging influence operations in Ukraine and seeking to interfere in the region. Eventually, Russia countered with hard military power. This conflict has been a complete disaster for the West.
And it was all avoidable. America should have remained neutral. We should have stayed out of Eastern Europe. The right to not care should have been invoked. Of course, there are problems with Putin’s government. Of course, there is suffering, injustice, and bloodshed abroad. Of course!
But that does not mean the United States should set itself up as a global supreme judge over all mankind. We have no right to do so, and it is bad for us that we have done so. Ordinary Americans pay the price of these stupid interventions abroad. We pay for sanctions through higher prices, for military aid through our taxes—and, if this conflict spreads, we may pay in blood.
Neutrality is a beautiful word. It is a relief. We should focus on doing the best we can here at home. We should focus on protecting our way of life and doing justice right here in our own communities and homes. Every single one of our politicians would be better off focusing on how to be more honest businessmen, fathers, husbands, wives, mothers, and friends than trying to rule the world in the name of democracy and human rights.
If each human being on the planet spent their time minding their own business, the world would be a better place. If the nations of the earth treated one another as true sovereigns—and if foreign wars remained contained—we would, in the end, have more peace. It would not be a perfect world, but it would be a better one.