-
ObamaCare Rate Spikes Revealed
May 13, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Quick CISPA Survey
April 18, 2013 | 1 comment
-
To Each His Own Audience (…or Enemy)
March 29, 2013 | 11 comments
-
They Say They Want a Revolution
March 20, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Senate Access Shutdown
March 12, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
Last night, GOP presidential hopefuls paused ever so briefly to discuss foreign policy, American security and discuss the future of our military adventurism at Wednesday evening’s debate. My esteemed colleagues here at the Spectator have already done a bang-up job covering the ins and outs of last night’s talking points, but I wanted to drop my two cents before it’s all said and done.
Expanding on Joseph Lawler’s thought…perhaps, when Quin Hillyer hosts my former senator from Pennsylvania on his radio show tonight, he might ask what Rick Santorum meant when he accused Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul of embracing a “a very isolationist view of where the Republican Party should be headed.” Are they isolationist because they want to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan? Is he suggesting that bringing American troops home after 10 years at war is somehow is defeatist? I was left slightly unclear.
In contrast, he offered an impassioned call for Republican voters to “stand in the Reagan tradition” of spreading American values around the world. The audience in attendance at the Ronald Regan Presidential Library decided to sit on their hands despite the Gipper shout-out. Perhaps hoping to stir his sluggish spectators, Mr. Santorum went on to accuse Obama of “only [going] along with the Libyan mission because the United Nations told him to get involved.” Well, that’s not exactly correct.
In fact, he’s got it totally backwards.
The United States requested UN resolution 1973 to achieve international backing for the NATO-led airstrikes. Does his bold endorsement of the Libyan mission, in contrast to Bachmann and Perry’s respective refusal and reticence of Operation Odyssey Dawn, suggest he thinks they’re equally isolationist?
The former senator needs to understand the critical difference between “isolationism” and what I would term “strategic non-interventionism” advocated by some of the other candidates up on stage. First of all, isolationism more appropriately pertains to international trade and immigration, as opposed to Neville Chamberlain’s laissez faire take on the rise of National Socialism in Germany. Economic protectionism is a hallmark of traditional isolationism — it’s generally defined by import quotas, export bans and obscene tariffs on foreign goods.
In contrast, non-interventionism refers to the government’s abstinence from interfering in the affairs of other countries. (See, for instance: Washington, George; Jefferson, Thomas; Adams, John Quincy, etc. throughout America’s earliest statesmen.) Classic, American non-interventionism combines a robust disillusion with entangling alliances and bellicosity with the advocacy of free international trade and the free movement of people. Detractors’ use of the isolationist slur has always been, and will remain, inappropriate.
Something for Mr. Santorum to consider if he decides to stay in the race.
rssg| 9.8.11 @ 2:20PM
I would add that wanting less immigration (legal and illegal) does not make one an isolationist. They USA accepts more imigrants than all other nations in the world combined, each and every year. Furthermore, we have a weak economy. In addition, immigration is not a constant, "force of nature". Immigration is man-made law and policy. It can be increased or decreased. Throughout US history, we have usually had periods of high immigration followed by periods of low immigration, each phase lasting 20 yrs or so.
Exept today, we have ever growing immigration, more, more and still more. And mention of reducing immigration, even a little, even for just 10 years brings out charges of "isolatioist", "racist", "xenophobe" and "nativist".
Rubbish. High immigration is a function of liberal (small "l") political theory. Our country needs lowered immigration for at least ten years. The United States belongs to the American people - not to the people of the world and certainly not to the political class, who gain favor by bringing more and more people here. The political class prefers foreign born "Americans" to native born Americans. They are easier to accept their useless government programs, which keeps the political class in power.
Simon Templar| 9.8.11 @ 2:25PM
Yeah, that is a great definition of strategic non-inteventionism but in reality it does not always seem to work out that way....nor does the motivations and reasoning behind this non-interventionism, which seem to be overlooked by the barrage of rhetoric that surrounds it.
Take a good look at Ron Paul's basis for this 'non-interventionism.' When he slips up and lets out that he thinks that we were responsible for 9-11 and that the war on terror can be boiled down to our boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia, you see what this is really all about. Let alone the anti-semitism that his paulbots spew on a daily basis.
Everyone wants strategic, nation interest oriented involvements and not adventurism or involvements that we can not win, are not necessary, and not in our national interest.
It is the real motivations and the real reasons behind this non-interventionism that we should exposing and concerned with that drive our foreign policy and our survival.
WilliamR| 9.8.11 @ 2:55PM
Michael Sheuer who ran the CIA's Osama bin Laden Unit on 9/11 and Ron Paul
http://non-intervention.com/99.....-ron-paul/
Simon Templar| 9.8.11 @ 4:47PM
Did he or did he not say the following,
“I don’t see Islam as our enemy,” Paul said. “I see that motivation is occupation and those who hate us and would like to kill us, they are motivated by our invasion of their land, the support of their dictators that they hate.”
WilliamR| 9.8.11 @ 6:06PM
NeoCons like you want to make it about Islam. Radical Islamist yes.
Simon Templar| 9.8.11 @ 7:26PM
My lord, just like a frigin liberal..that was a classic. You return volley with a name calling and misdirect the charge and claim to an irrevelancy and something that was not the point of the charge.
I am not making it about Islam. I am making it about his idiotic, sophmoric understanding of what is motivating those that hate us, the radical islamist, to kill us.
Clint| 9.8.11 @ 7:44PM
Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor Michael Scheuer, Former CIA Chief of The bin Laden Unit,
On Iran, The President Should:
2.) Publicly state that there will be no U.S. surprise attack on Iran, and no U.S. attack at all on Iran unless the president asks for a formal declaration of war and the Congress votes its approval in a constitutional manner.
3.) Call in Israel's ambassador to the United States and tell him that we understand that Israel believes Iran is a threat to its survival, and that we agree that Israel has every right to defend itself. If Israel believes it must go to war with Iran, then so be it. But also tell the ambassador that if Israel attacks Iran, the U.S. administration will declare U.S. neutrality in the war and immediately cut off military and financial support to all combatants in the war."
Simon Templar| 9.8.11 @ 7:32PM
By the way, this is exactly the response that liberals and yourself like to use when you are caught with nothing to say and no leg to stand on.
His kind of understanding of this war and world is not only stupid but dangerous and shows he is not ready to lead anything.
There are a deal greater number of reasons to limit our involvements and interventons than this shoddy thinking.
Clint| 9.8.11 @ 7:47PM
Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor Michael Scheuer,Former CIA Chief of The bin Laden Unit,
On Ira, The President Should:
4.) Speak to the American people and tell them to expect to be brutally propagandized by U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters through AIPAC, their ubiquitous media shills, and the men and women they own in the U.S. Congress and federal bureaucracy. Urge Americans to ignore this effort by U.S. Israel-Firsters to get them to send their soldier-children to fight in a religious war in which the U.S. has no genuine national interest at stake, and in which U.S. participation would further bankrupt the country, require the reintroduction of conscription, and put America at war with all of the Muslim world -- Shia and Sunni -- for the foreseeable future."
Simon Templar| 9.8.11 @ 4:59PM
How about this....
"We’ve supported Musharraf and it’s created civil strife over there. If it’s al Qaeda that did this, the Al Qaeda resents the fact that we support military dictators, just as they resented us supporting a dictator in Saudi Arabia. And they resented that at one time we supported Saddam Hussein. It’s just a perfect example of how interventionist foreign policy drags us in. And I’m just frightened that we’re going to be dragged into another civil war over there because we’re in the middle of that already.'
This sophmoric understanding of foreign politics and Islamic fundmentalism is what bothers us conservatives not his non-interventionism per se. ALL of us want more careful and strategic foreign policy and we ALL damn well want limited occupations and interventions.
Clint| 9.8.11 @ 7:56PM
"After the attacks on 9/11, Congressman Ron Paul introduced a bill in the Congress, which would have specified the scope for a mission to take down the terrorists responsible for the attacks on 9/11. First and foremost, the proposal was Constitutional and secondly, it was highly targeted and wouldn’t have resulted in thousands of Americans being killed senselessly. Had Congressman Ron Paul’s proposal for letters of Marque and Reprisal, HR 3076, been passed by the United States Congress in October of 2001, trillions of dollars and thousands of lives would not have been lost in the search for Osama bin Laden."
Simon Templar| 9.8.11 @ 2:42PM
Another thought. The more you big L Libertarians talk, the more I am convinced that you are just left wing anarchist. You love to use words and distort their meanings to confuse issues and belittle opponents.
I am convinced that we conservatives have nothing in common with you. You are trojan horses and would be the first to betray us. No doubt about it. Your arrogance, hostility, deception, hatred for religion, moral depravity and relativism, historical revisionism, smarmy attitudes, name calling, thuggery, anti-semitism, blame America first, anti-military, anti-war, abortion, and homosexual agenda identifying positions prove that beyond a doubt. You would find your real home in the Democratic Party.
Al Adab| 9.8.11 @ 2:58PM
There is Simon a great divide between Libertarians and Conservatives although the two merge on certain matters. While they are small government allies, our Libertarian friends fail to understand that there exists a moral order which government is established to maintain i.e. to conserve.
Isolationism becomes one of those issues as there do, rarely but from time to time, arise matters of international import where the United Staes can and should act. This is not to espouse "nation building" which fails to recognize cultural factors, but does imply a case by case examination. The isolationism of many Libertarians obfuscates an anti-Israel bias in their thinking. While you may assume I am not a great fan of Israel, I nonetheless adhere to the position that allows them, like other nation states, to pursue their own interests and policies as regards their friends and enemies.
Clint| 9.8.11 @ 3:06PM
Ronald Reagan,
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
Rise Up.
Simon Templar| 9.8.11 @ 5:00PM
Well stated. Good points.
Clint| 9.8.11 @ 3:03PM
Read The Founding Fathers & The Old Right.
"Michael Scheuer, who was the head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit, Alec Station, and authored the books Through Our Enemies Eyes and Imperial Hubris, said “I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it’s based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World – because ‘we’re over there,’ basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate.”
Scheuer also agreed with Dr. Paul’s statement in the debate that the war in Iraq was a diversion from capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and that bin Laden was “delighted” that the U.S. is occupying Iraq as it has become a training ground and recruiting tool for new jihadists joining the movement."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
Sean| 9.8.11 @ 4:07PM
So according to Santorum Ron Paul is an isolationist. This is the same Ron Paul that voted to go into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden. Of course Obama has pretty much the same foreign policy as Santorum, while Paul's is the same as most of the founding fathers.
Occam's Tool| 9.8.11 @ 4:44PM
I seem to recall a certain Thomas Jefferson who took on the Barbary Pirates, and why he did so.
Clint| 9.8.11 @ 5:32PM
George Washington,
" The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."
Clint| 9.8.11 @ 5:35PM
Thomas Jefferson,
March 4, 1801 inaugural address: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
Sean| 9.8.11 @ 5:33PM
Thanks for making my point. Congress authorized Jefferson to go after the pirates. Just like Paul voted to authorize Bush to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.8.11 @ 5:03PM
Doctor.
..."to the shores of Tripoli..."
I would rather have a Marine as a friend ...than a Paul-bot.
Al Adab| 9.8.11 @ 5:30PM
Ken, Occam:
You two have that one right.
Sean| 9.8.11 @ 5:33PM
Thanks for making my point. Congress authorized Jefferson to go after the pirates. Just like Paul voted to authorize Bush to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
WilliamR| 9.8.11 @ 6:07PM
That comic book must not be selling
Clint| 9.8.11 @ 5:20PM
Ronald Reagan,
"Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have.
In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
Quartermaster| 9.8.11 @ 6:02PM
I'm not a Paulbot, but I have to say that Paul's views on foreign policy are far more nuanced that the smear bund will admit to. The founders would be regarded as "isolationists" by the neocon Republican party of today.
There is nothing wrong with defending the country, and Paul has voted to do just that in the past, just as Jefferson went after teh Barbary pirates and Madison took us to war over impressment of our sailors. Such things are a basic function of FedGov, and why the states founded FedGov. Wilsonian crusades to spread our values, however, is not within the authority of FedGov. That's just warmongering, and we can't afford it.
Many of old cold warriors were against going into Iraq, and if were going to go, we needed to go in with extreme violence, crush them, then leave another man in power with a warning about making us return.
With the Afg, only paving the entire country would have solved the problem. And, you would have to start at Karachi and move north. Afg's problem is not separate from Pakistan's. Yet, FedGov has stupidly treated the Paks as allies.
Simon Templar| 9.8.11 @ 7:38PM
But the fact is they are not nuanced but rather are sophmoric. His aims of more cautious and strategic involvement are fine and held by most conservatives but his understanding of the world and this war and basis for his non-interventionism is say the least very flawed and ridiculous.
axbucxdu| 9.8.11 @ 8:18PM
"...we can't afford it."
Game, set, match.
Clint| 9.8.11 @ 8:59PM
Ding ! Ding ! Ding !
Give That Man A Cigar.