-
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
Forgive me if I’m arriving a little late to the debate, but this gripping discussion of the tenets of neoconservatism has prompted my comment…with due deference to the erudite opinion already at play.
For many Americans, nationalism is a basic element of our native soil. We tend to subscribe to a virtuous self-awareness, particularly after decades of Cold War tensions crisply delineated the United States in opposition to the evils of the “Soviet Empire.” After the fall of communism, this sense has been reinforced by a decade of unipolarity and the emergence of a new global threat in the wake of September 11, 2001. Fundamentally, neoconservatism has capitalized on this attitude, both with respect to domestic initiatives and what we, as Americans, might offer the world; as David Brooks and Irving Kristol wrote, “Our nationalism is that of an exceptional nation founded on a universal principles, on what Lincoln called ‘an abstract truth applicable to all men and all times.’”
Such sentiment revels in American dignity and purpose and bursting with this special zeal it is understandable that neoconservatism might boast of “hard-Wilsonianism,” a term coined (if I remember correctly) by Max Boot. Certainly, President Wilson shared the impression that the United States was to define its legacy through its mission, as it assumed the role of the “Sir Galahad of nations.”
As it happened, President Reagan offered the first and best opportunity for neoconservative theory to be put into action. Considerable attention was paid to the aggressive containment of Soviet states, the near bottomless support of Israel as a strategic asset in the Middle East, and the implementation of the “Kirkpatrick Doctrine” in Latin America. Ultimately, such foreign policy schemes came to represent the bullet points of the ideology’s international agenda, characterized by an emphasis on substantial military spending.
The valuation of Israel as a vital tactical outpost for American influence remained at the forefront of policy initiatives, even as a general distaste for multilateral institutions and alliances developed. The comparable efficacy of unilateral action presented to the lone superpower seemed all the more inviting.
Following the perceived retreat of communism as an international threat, one could make the argument that some neoconservative Cold Warriors found new life and fresh opportunity during the second Bush administration. Can we call it a neo-neoconservatism? They discovered and defined the new threat to the American way of life. Arisen from the ashes of the communist menace, the hazy specter of “Islamofascism” now satisfies the movement’s demand for diametric opposition. While neoconservatives have continued to push an agenda that they endorse in the best interests of a safer world for the their particular sense of democratic ideals, others — such as Ron Paul or, say, foreign policy heavy-weight Francis Fukayama — have persisted in warning that “The problem with neoconservatism’s agenda lies not in its ends, which are as American as apple pie, but rather in the overmilitarized means by which it has sought to accomplish them.”
Thus, the export of democracy and American values has become the star luminary purpose of a neo-neoconservative movement. And while the true neoconservative may not want to conquer the world, the desire clearly exists to — in the words of Ben Wattenberg — “influence it so that it is hospitable to our values.”
Either way, we’re a long way from Monroe, and our presence in “Iraq or anywhere in the Middle East” and our forever war against the phantasmal menace of “jihad” (or whatever else you want to call it) can easily be construed as “Neocon,” if it concerns preventive war, nation-building and reconstruction.
C Bowen | 12.13.11 @ 5:32PM
Mr. Smith;
You have to admit, it was a little much to have such former starts like Richard Perle and Ollie North, the very guys who thought it was a good idea to arm Muslims to fight the Soviet--Muslims like Osama (see Charlie Wilson's War--the book) be part of the neo-neoconservatism.
We can blame public schools or media for not pointing out the absurdity--I mean, at least Ollie bothered to tie up loose ends from the Contra's like Barry Seal--this general area got Mr. Tyrell in some trouble as Clinton was wrapped up in it--but it's the general lower Bell Curve, or worst aspects of American culture that the propaganda leans for.
That is, the present agenda as corrupted and destroyed likely for good, the political system here at home.
Good post though.
Jack in Wi.| 12.13.11 @ 7:30PM
The historical hero's of the Neoconservatives are Leon Trotsky, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR. What the hell is conservative about that gang? The Hero's of us real conservatives are people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Grover Cleveland, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Robert Taft, Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul. Herbert Hoover when he fought American entrance into WW2 is also a real conservative hero. So is Dwight Eisenhower when he ended the Korean War and attacked the Military Industrial Complex. Ditto's to Ronald Reagan when he pulled the troops out of Lebanon and warned us about ever getting involved in the Middle East. He also ended the cold war by meeting wwith the Soviets and agreeing to huge arms reductions. He hated nuclear weapons and wanted them eliminated from the face of the earth.
C Bowen | 12.13.11 @ 8:01PM
The government under Kennedy--whose family was Old Right--decided to use the apparatus of the State to do away with the Rightwing.
This is easily documented. They said they would use the FBI, the IRS, the FCC, and the media-corporate complex to put them out of business.
The neocons alterted their rhetoric a little, Buckley succumbed--Buckley a chap who use to defend Brown graduate, George Lincoln Rockwell's right to free speech--and considered him friend (another weird moment in rightwing history after the war), and then the Neocons filled a vacant playing field. (Though more should be written about Scoop Jackson and the Russian Mob.)
It's no wonder our people are confused.
Reid Smith| 12.13.11 @ 8:03PM
My next post will cover the Trotsky/Shactman angle.
C Bowen | 12.14.11 @ 4:59PM
Any hint of attempts by the central state to manage 'permissible' ideological and policy discussion within the context of the American political system, and some acknowledgement of the unique media operation of the post-war time period, would be welcome, and might add, start building your cache with the Remnant.
C Bowen | 12.14.11 @ 5:09PM
Another angle--neocon ranking of threats: the tendency to want to mess with Russia even over 'Islam', yet its willingness to engage in low-grade Islam baiting.
For example, support for the Kosovars and working with Osama bin Laden against Orthodox Serbia--obviously Albanian organized crime (drugs, white slavery, apparently organ smuggling) 'influenced' Bob Dole and McCain's thinking, so that is one thing, but did Russian expat mob have anything to do with neoconservative alignment?
Support for Chechnya Islams against Russia, at the same time, the Islam baiting is tolerated (Daniel Pipes at CFR of all places) at one level, but 'democracy building' does seem like a nice ideological, all purpose cover.
MikeN| 12.13.11 @ 6:04PM
The argument over interventions abroad are not neo. There were calls to assist in the French Revolution and other places. The general conclusion was that is was better for America to stay out and be an example for other countries, rather than risk losing everything.
JP| 12.13.11 @ 6:14PM
We invaded Canada multiple times, and "INtervened" against the French position there. Including during the Revolutionary War and again not long later on. Lastly in the late 1800's
Paul's FP is all about how any "Interventionism" is wrong, it does not fit the Rothbardian philosophy. They think Reagan was a warmonger for crying out loud
C Bowen | 12.13.11 @ 6:24PM
JP--
Is your basic position that the Constitution and Washington's Farewell Address were Noble Lies?
And will you be lying when/if you respond, nobly of course?
JP| 12.13.11 @ 6:55PM
Isolationist take Washington's farewell address out of context and don't want you to learn any further. For one, Washington's administration made multiple alliances. One famouse, the jay treaty.
Hamilton wrote Wsahington's speech, that was inserted as a Political attack against Jefferson. Who idiotically wanted to ally with france, against Britian at the time.
C Bowen | 12.13.11 @ 7:46PM
The Constitution itself was a coup d'etat against the Articles--I already know this stuff, though I don't go as far as you to assume the worst about the fore fathers--which you call heoric in sickening fashion.
I was referring to a grown man on this board who will hype a Skull and Bones chickenhawk as a serious historian, here at AmSpec.
Go over to New Repulic where you people belong.
MikeN| 12.14.11 @ 3:30PM
If you think war in Canada is the similar to a neocon position, or even what I described in my post, then you are being dense, or just trying to stretch to get an analogy.
Quartermaster| 12.13.11 @ 9:48PM
There really is nothing conservative about Neoconservatism. It is actually a very left of center position that has its roots deep in the french Revolution, as every form of modern leftism does.
jp| 12.13.11 @ 6:11PM
The only thing "Neo" about a Interventionist Foreign Policy is Ron Paul's utopia foreign policy he writes at length about.
Scary how ignorant people are of American Foreign Policy? Have we never read say, Jefferson's "Empire of Liberty" speech and what he actually did in office, and against Jihadist for that matter?
C Bowen | 12.13.11 @ 6:20PM
Weren't you just pimping liberal Skull And Bones chap, Robert Kagan on the other thread?
Quartermaster| 12.13.11 @ 9:50PM
Ron Paul is a utopian only to a leftist. I have no doubt he would do the same thing Jefferson did under the same circumstances. Frankly, you haven't been paying much attention and you need to make an effort to keep up.
sovereign| 12.13.11 @ 6:12PM
These preventative wars are killing us economically and creating more terrorists. We need someone like Ron Paul more than ever.
Everyone on the fence with Ron Paul needs to check out whyronpaul.com and ronpaulmyths.com
JP| 12.13.11 @ 6:36PM
people need to actually read Paul's books and many video's online and realize how dishonest and Utopian he is.
His foreign policy has no relation to the Founders or Conservativism. It is most definitely Neo-Liberal
Clint| 12.13.11 @ 6:55PM
You Wouldn't Know Real Conservtism If It Jumped Up And Bit Ya.
Read George Washington's Farewell Address, Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, The Old Right And Get Back To Us.
" George Will, "Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush Doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?"
William F. Buckley, " It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative. It’s not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn’t invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is …”
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
GW| 12.14.11 @ 11:51AM
You conveniently leave out George Will's criticism of Ron Paul's isolationism. Or Paul's insistence that if we left the Middle East alone it would turn peaceful. That isn't "coming to terms with the world as it is," is it?
Quartermaster| 12.14.11 @ 9:15PM
Reagan said that we shouldn't get involved in the middle east. I guess he was just an isolationist that couldn't handle the real world. Just like Ron Paul, eh?
Anybody that confuses George Will with a conservative needs to go into rehab. Neoconservatism, as I pointed out above, is not new or conservative, and George Will is a Neoconservative. He abandoned conservatism many years ago.
Clint| 12.13.11 @ 6:51PM
Rich Lowry,
" Neoconservatives are less skeptical of government than other conservatives. They are less worried about reducing the size of government, less enthusiastic about tax cuts, more concerned about forging national crusades that can tap either the American public's patriotism or its desire for reform. You saw this in McCain with his campaign finance proposal and a little bit in his foreign policy.
And with the war on terror, you saw neoconservatives emerging as a distinct tendency within conservatism, mostly on foreign policy; its hallmarks being extreme interventionism, extremely idealistic foreign policy, and emphasis on democracy building and spreading human rights and freedom and an overestimation, in my view, of how easy it is to spread democracy and liberty to spots in the world where it doesn't exist currently."
NeoCons Are Not Real Conservatives.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Wayne| 12.14.11 @ 8:20AM
They want to use US blood and fortune to clear the marketplace for globalist corporations who don't will do whatever they can to avoid paying the taxes. Case in point - GE.
Dan Phillips| 12.13.11 @ 6:53PM
David Brooks and Irving Kristol wrote, "Our nationalism is that of an exceptional nation founded on a universal principles, on what Lincoln called ‘an abstract truth applicable to all men and all times.'"
This is exactly the kind of neocon nonsense that I mentioned in the Kaplan post that suffuses "conservative" interventionist thought and makes so many interventionists think like neocons whether they realize it or not.
This quote, besides illustrating the Lincoln fetishism that infects neoconservatism, propagates the "creedal nation" myth that is instrumental to the whole neocon mindset and project. America was not founded ON a principle universal or otherwise. America was founded BY settlers and colonists. Per neocon "creedal nation" dogma, since America is an ideological nation and not a blood and soil nation like others then we have ideological interests beyond our national blood and soil interests. (Kristol the Elder said exactly this. I'll find the quote when I have time.) Hence we get global crusading for democracy. Since we are a country unlike all others (exceptional) then we can’t behave like all others, meaning only looking out for our national interests and otherwise minding our own business.
If people want to buy this "creedal nation" foolishness then I can't stop them although I can ask them to quit plunging my country into war on behalf of it, but please stop connecting it in some way with conservatism. Creedal nation dogma is quintessentially liberal. The original neocons themselves understood this. If people don't recognize this then they don't understand the terms they are using.
Quartermaster| 12.14.11 @ 9:19PM
The "Proposition Nation" stuff has always been nonsense on stilts. We have the ability to admit a small number of people and assimilate them as we did, more or less successfully, up until 1965.
Wilsonian crusades, where we spend blood and treasure to spread "democracy," usually one man, one vote, one time, is idiocy. WE can't afford it, and our own society is the end result of 2500 years of civilization beginning ancient Greece. None of that works in a tribal/clan based society such as you see throughout the Arab and Persian middle east.
Wilsonianism is at the core of neoconservatism. It isn't new, nor is it conservative.
JP| 12.13.11 @ 6:58PM
Bucking Montesquieu and most other theorists of republicanism, Madison argued that the American system required a large rather than a small territory to operate effectively: “Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult to feel it . . . to act in unison with each other.”
A year before he articulated his “Doctrine,” Monroe offered a similar perspective in an address to Congress, though with a different rationale: “The greater the expansion, within practical limits, and it is not easy to say what are no so, the greater the advantage which the States individually will derive from it. . . . It must be obvious to all, that the further the expansion is carried, provided it be not beyond the just limit, the greater will be the freedom of action to both Governments, and the more perfect their security; and, in all other respects, the better the effect will be on the whole American people.”
JP| 12.13.11 @ 7:01PM
“As early as 1832, the United States sent a fleet to the Falkland Islands to reduce an Argentine garrison that had harassed American shipping. The Mexican War was, of course, the greatest example of American intervention [in Latin America], but by the Civil War, American forces had seen action in Haiti (1799, 1800, 1817-21), Tripoli (1815), the Marquesas Islands (1913-14), Spanish Florida (1806-10, 1812, 1813, 1814, 1816-18, 1817), what is now the Dominican Republic (1800), Curacao (1800), the Galapagos Islands (1813), Cuba (1822), Puerto Rico (1824), Argentine (1833, 1852, 1853), and Peru (1835-36). Between the Civil War and the Spanish-American War, marines were sent to Cuba, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Haiti.”
- Walter Russell Mead, "Special Providence"
JP| 12.13.11 @ 7:02PM
From the Very earliest of days America was "Intervening" abroad, and were by no means "Non-Interventionist"
Go back and see what Washington did during the French-Indian wars for more here.
Clint| 12.13.11 @ 7:17PM
Dr.Ron Paul,
“Our military’s purpose is to defend our country, not to police the
Middle East.
“As the President prepares to send even more support to Egypt, we should
be reminded that it was our foreign aid that helped Mubarak retain power
to repress his people in the first place. Now we have to deal with the
consequences of those decisions, yet we keep repeating the same mistakes.
“I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign
policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies.
Most Americans know that makes no sense.
“We need to come to our senses, trade with our friends in the Middle
East (both Arab and Israeli), clean up our own economic mess so we set a
good example, and allow them to work out their own conflicts.”
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Clint| 12.13.11 @ 7:22PM
George Washington,
" My policy has been and will continue to be ... to be on friendly terms with, but independent of, all nations on earth. To share in the broils of none. To supply their wants, and be carriers for them all; being thoroughly convinced that it is our policy and interest to do so; and that nothing short of self-respect, and that justice which is essential to a national character, ought to involve us in war."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Quartermaster| 12.13.11 @ 9:52PM
If you really consider self defense as intervention, then you have a very serious delusion, or a very bad addiction to a serious drug. Sorry, but there is a very large difference between the incidents you cite and the Neocon's Wilsonian crusades.
JP| 12.14.11 @ 2:23PM
Most of these were not Defensive, they were Interventions and promoting our values as the Founders envisioned from the Start.
Iraq and Afghanistan were both Defensive, the nation building after removing the hostile regimes was not THE reason for the wars.
http://husseinandterror.com
Quartermaster| 12.14.11 @ 9:22PM
What I said above you still stands. The old Republic engaged in self defense. It was after Lincoln the trash started and really started getting bad with the rise of Wilsonianism.
Clint| 12.13.11 @ 7:09PM
Paul Weyrich,
" They are mostly ex-liberals, by and large out of the intellectual community. These are people who came to the realization that modern liberalism was not the kind of liberalism that they had subscribed to. They are a fairly small group of people, both in and out of government. Those who are out of government are in either the media or academia. They are influential because they promote each other. They are very skilled at that."
NeoCons Are Not Real Conservatives.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
JP| 12.13.11 @ 7:55PM
“However our present interest may restrain us within our own limits, it is impossible not to look forward to distant times, when our rapid multiplication will expand itself beyond those limits, and cover the whole northern, if not the southern continent, with a people speaking the same language, governed in similar forms, and by similar laws; nor can we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on that surface.”
- Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1801
Clint| 12.13.11 @ 9:48PM
Thomas Jefferson
First Inaugural Address
In the Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, March 4, 1801
"Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Tom| 12.13.11 @ 8:19PM
Der Kult Fuhter’s disciples often are more open and forthright with their opinions than Dr. Nutjob is, especially during election season. Here is what one Paultard had to say today on lewrockwell.com. Lew Rockwell, by the way, has to be on the short list of “Most Despicable People Currently Living on Planet Earth.”
Anyway, Paultard David Kramer says under “Terrorists to Receive Preferential Treatment from the TSA” :
“The real terrorists in the world, the men and women in the United States military who murder innocent people around the world in order to bring about the One World Government plan of the Banksters, will soon be getting preferential treatment from the Terrorist Scam Administration when being screened at airports. Well, considering how successful this phony "War on Terror" has been going these past 10 years (since the False Flag 9/11 operation), these terrorists certainly deserve this perk—thanks to their great contribution to the "cause."
“So, let's see: The vast majority of air travelers—especially business air travelers who produce peaceful products and services for humanity—still have to put up with these meaningless, time-wasting "security" delays when traveling. But the air travelers who bring death and destruction to the world will now have some time saved for them in order to get back sooner to bringing death and destruction to the world.
“Welcome to The New World Order, folks.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo.....00655.html
How do you feel about Paultards who think like that being responsible for this country’s national security??
realCon| 12.13.11 @ 8:22PM
So Ron Paul is responsible for what some dude writes on lewrockwell.com. ?
You're a genius, Tom.
Tom| 12.13.11 @ 8:34PM
Hey Paulatrs, where did I EVER use the word "responsible."? I said,:
"Der Kult Fuhter’s disciples often are more open and forthright with their opinions than Dr. Nutjob is, especially during election season."
Like your Kult Fuhrer, you are both a liar and a fool.
But considering that Rockwell and Der Kult Fuher have been the closest of friends nad associates for DECADES, the ideas and positions on that cyber garbage dump of a website are very pertinent to Dr. Nutjob's campaign; because--if by some national calamity--he were to win the elections, those are the type of people Ron Paul would have surrounding him.
Clint| 12.13.11 @ 9:53PM
Uh Oh !
Israel Firster Propaganda Squad Tommy Plays The Dog Eared Nazi Card Again.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is here And In Iowa.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Quartermaster| 12.14.11 @ 9:26PM
methinks you need to learn what disciple really means. many of those published on Rockwell's site are truly fringe people that Paul would have trouble with. I have to agree with realCon above, Paul isn't responsible for what Rockwell prints. If you want to continue to think that's the sort of people Paul would surround himself with, who am I to disillusion you.
Catonian| 12.13.11 @ 8:42PM
My goodness Tom, what an insightful statement, terms like "paultard", along with "moonbat" or "crazy" sure does make me want to rethink my positions. I guess I should support more wars and militarism which have only contributed to ongoing social experimentation and centralization of power. As a good "conservative"
, I should support the notion that all cultures and societies are equally capable of supporting liberal democracy, I should support any and all Jacobin movements around the world, including women's lib. Particularism, which teaches us that different societies are different (and unequal) and there is no such thing as a universal, successful political template, is so "leftist," and bigoted. If it weren't for a few bad Islamofascist apples, why the Middle East would be a democracy overnight. Let's ignore unpleasant realities such as since the days of the Sumerian temple-dominated city states that region has been characterized by poor governance, nepotism, and other sundry cultural pathologies. No, if only we deal with the bad apples, it'll all work out.
Tom, you've done a good job, now off you go to Uncle Rupert's family-friendly media consortium for some more agit-prop.
Sigh,
low-brow bellicosity, low-church Protestant jacksonian manichean jacobinism, and a dynamic and committed horde of civilian and military apparatchiks have largely succeeded in killing the old republic. What the founders foresaw has come to pass, the mob, urged and led by amoral oligarchs and sociopaths, are destroying our ancient liberties. All in the name of "freedom", a horrible and dangerous term as it is vague enough to be of use to demagogues and ideologues.
Tom| 12.13.11 @ 8:28PM
Oh, here are some comments from 1948 by a genuine "Israel Fisrter (sic)".
http://news.google.com/newspap.....rael&hl=en
Quartermaster| 12.13.11 @ 9:58PM
There is a big difference between what Taft called for, and what you are calling for my young ignorant friend. I have no trouble with giving Israel aid, but we shouldn't be fighting her battles for her.
Paul does not want foreign aid for anyone at all. I disagree with him on military aid for Israel, and perhaps other countries that we need to be able to help us. I am, however, dead set against general foreign aid such as we send to Africa. WE can't afford it, and it doesn't help anyone except the corrupt "leaders" who line their pockets with our money.
Clint| 12.13.11 @ 10:00PM
Oh, here are some comments by a genuine American Veteran Officer.
Dr.Ron Paul,
" While President Obama’s demand that Israel
make hard concessions in her border conflicts may very well be in her
long-term interest, only Israel can make that determination on her own,
without pressure from the United States or coercion by the United
Nations.
“Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how
Israel runs her affairs. There can only be peace in the region if those
sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect
Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Herb Tarlek| 12.13.11 @ 11:21PM
It is looking like Paul is going to make serious problems for the status quo in Iowa & New Hampshire. His ideas are appealing & he has an impeccable character. The best the bankster apologists can hope for is some sort of accident to keep Mr Paul out of contention. Better not make it too obvious or I anticipate serious social problems. Stay thirsty my friends.
Clint| 12.14.11 @ 12:29AM
"Paul closes in on Gingrich
There has been some major movement in the Republican Presidential race in Iowa over the last week, with what was a 9 point lead for Newt Gingrich now all the way down to a single point. Gingrich is at 22% to 21% for Paul with Mitt Romney at 16%, Michele Bachmann at 11%, Rick Perry at 9%, Rick Santorum at 8%, Jon Huntsman at 5%, and Gary Johnson at 1%."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iow
Wayne| 12.14.11 @ 8:17AM
Neo-conservativism has NOTHING to do with nationalism and everything to do with GLOBALISM. The neo-cons have squandered US wealth and resources for globalist ends - hence Paul is right, it has made the US the policeman of the world, and may I add, also the taxpayer of the world.
GW| 12.14.11 @ 12:36PM
I hate the term "neoconservative" because it is mostly senseless and malleable. For one, very few people use the handle to describe their own position, and those that do aren't very influential despite what their detractors would argue. The problem with the wars in the Middle East doesn't come from the fact hawks think American ideals are superior--they are--but from the Marxian idea that all people are equal.
My position, which I think lies within mainstream conservative thought (although is oftentimes poorly articulated), is that the actions of Americans should be geared toward the interests of the United States. While which policies suit our interest best is up for debate, it becomes apparent that the education of Afghanis should be very far down the list. And while Sadaam posed at least a minor threat to our interests and was justifiably removed, fighting insurgents in Iraq for 8 years hence has been counterproductive and costly. Only peace-loving Iraqis can maintain and stabilize their society, but many are too cowardly or inept to do so.
So where does the Ron Paul clique come in? Interestingly, while they recognize that the intervention of American forces cannot change the culture of Afghanistanis or Iraqis, they take it one step further. You see, they believe that human nature isn't to blame for the world's ills, but the institution of government. So, despite all evidence to the contrary, it is the US's foreign policy that is to blame for chaos in the world. To them, the Muslims would be laudable practioners of the religion of peace if we would leave them alone. Thus attacking civilian institutions in the US while using civilian jets as suicidal projectiles is no different than the American military aiding defenseless groups in war-torn countries. In fact to them, if anything, the latter caused the former so Americans have no grievances against terrorism.
But this too is cultural Marxism. American values are truly superior. However, ideas like liberty and freedom become only words if they aren't defended. Because some practioners of the religion of peace don't care about American sovereignty and the liberty/freedom we get from it, we have no duty to leave them alone if we fear attack. 9/11 confirmed this is a possibility.
So what should be American foreign policy? Simple, do what is in the interest of the United States citizenry. This would include restricting immigration from all non-Western countries, prohibit the immigration of Muslims, demanding reparations for freeing the Iraqis through oil payments, preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb via F-22 attacks, an oil blockade (we can out-wait them), and covert ops if necessary; quit wasting money and precious American lives propping up corrrupt governments in Kabul and Baghdad, save money by removing troops from bases in Germany and S. Korea--and put them on the mexican border to prevent the dillution of Americans with hispanics in the American Southwest; remove the US from the UN and remove the body from American soil, place crippling tariffs on Chinese-made goods unless China opens up its markets fully, end NATO, end NAFTA, and above all else try and convict Gitmo terrorists to be executed within 30 days of being captured.
JP| 12.14.11 @ 2:23PM
“As early as 1832, the United States sent a fleet to the Falkland Islands to reduce an Argentine garrison that had harassed American shipping. The Mexican War was, of course, the greatest example of American intervention [in Latin America], but by the Civil War, American forces had seen action in Haiti (1799, 1800, 1817-21), Tripoli (1815), the Marquesas Islands (1913-14), Spanish Florida (1806-10, 1812, 1813, 1814, 1816-18, 1817), what is now the Dominican Republic (1800), Curacao (1800), the Galapagos Islands (1813), Cuba (1822), Puerto Rico (1824), Argentine (1833, 1852, 1853), and Peru (1835-36). Between the Civil War and the Spanish-American War, marines were sent to Cuba, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Haiti.”
- Walter Russell Mead, "Special Providence"
JP| 12.14.11 @ 2:31PM
As early as 1812 the Spanish minister in Washington warned his government that the United States intended eventually to take Texas, New Mexico, California and some of the northern provinces of Mexico as well. “This project will seem delirium to any rational person,” he mused, “but it certainly exist.” He saw the workings of “Manifest Destiny” long before it became an expansionist rallying cry: “The Americans believe themselves superior to all the nations of Europe, and see their destiny to extend their dominion to the isthmus of Panama, and in the future to all of the New World.”
- Dangerous Nation, "Manifest Destinies"
JP| 12.14.11 @ 2:35PM
Jefferson Letter to Madison, "Empire for Liberty"
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/149.html
I would immediately erect a column on the Southernmost limit of Cuba & inscribe on it a Ne plus ultra as to us in that direction. we should then have only to include the North in our confederacy, which would be of course in the first war, and we should have such an empire for liberty as she has never surveyed since the creation: & I am persuaded no constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire & self government. as the Mentor went away before this change, & will leave France probably. . .
JP| 12.14.11 @ 2:36PM
again:
I am persuaded no constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire & self government. - Thomas Jefferson
Dan Phillips| 12.15.11 @ 12:00AM
JP, as I said in the Antle thread below, I don't doubt that people in the late 18th and early 19th Centuries held opinions that were common to people in the late 18th and early 19th Century. Meaning they might have help imperialist pretensions. Some may have wanted to be more like the mother country England and the other European powers. It would be surprising, given the time in which they lived, if many didn't. But wanting to be an Empire in 18xx is not analogous to modern style interventionism with it pretense of the US as benign global hegemon.
You should listen to your boy Kagan. He points out instances of American acting abroad to try to establish a precedent for modern neoconservatism, but he readily admits that neoconservative foreign policy is not conservative. In fact, he identifies the conservative (or republican) impulse as the chief opponent to this. I'll try to find the quote.
Will you at least concede that Kagan's is correct in his assessment that neoconservatism is not conservative?
Clint| 12.14.11 @ 4:44PM
Major General Smedley Butler,
" I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
" By the end of his career, Major General Smedley Butler had received 16 medals, five for heroism. He is one of 19 men to twice receive the Medal of Honor, one of three to be awarded both the Marine Corps Brevet Medal and the Medal of Honor, and the only man to be awarded the Brevet Medal and two Medals of Honor, all for separate actions."
The Good Twin| 1.6.12 @ 2:28AM
Vote down!
If the neoconservative philosophy were to be taken seriously by its adherents, then its defeat would be the neoconservative's most crowning achievement. The fundamental premise that evil must exist to promote the advancement of civilization, evil that neoconservatism purposefully embodies to achieve this end, becomes fulfilled when that evil is fully subdued and put permanently to rest.