Are Lodge’s arguments relevant today, especially in discussions pertaining to the United Nations?
I assume that you are talking about Henry Cabot Lodge and his arguments against the League of Nations. If so, I think that his arguments do remain relevant today and are typically used by people who do not like the idea of the US being involved with the United Nations. Lodge’s basic argument is that becoming a part of an organization like the League of Nations leads to a loss of American sovereignty. America could (he feared) be forced to do things it did not want to do. This is a major argument by those who favor a unilateral approach to foreign affairs. They argue (as when Pres. Bush was planning to invade Iraq) that trying to get UN approval for things limits American freedom of action and takes away from our sovereign ability to act as we choose. The link below is to an essay by Ron Paul arguing that the UN destroys American sovereignty (not in military matters, but the point remains).
