Posted on 02/05/2006 1:01:08 PM PST by NapkinUser
Neoconservatives
Want the US to be the world's unchallenged superpower
Share unwavering support for Israel
Support American unilateral action
Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security
Promote the development of an American empire
Equate American power with the potential for world peace Seek to democratize the Arab world
Push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies
Historical neoconservative: President Teddy Roosevelt
Modern neoconservative: President Ronald Reagan
Isolationists
Are wary of US involvement in the United Nations
Oppose international law, alliances, and agreements
Believe the US should not act as a global cop
Support trade practices that protect American workers
Oppose liberal immigration
Oppose American imperialism
Desire to preserve what they see as America's national identity and character
Historical isolationist: President Calvin Coolidge
Modern isolationist: Author/Commentator Pat Buchanan
Me too.
"Neoconservative" is a meaningless label. I would also argue that there are very few, if any, who believe America is, let alone should be, an empire.
Just because Pat Buchanan says something doesn't mean it's true.
Isolationists may be wary of US involvement in the United Nations, oppose international law, alliances, and agreements, and desire to preserve what they see as America's national identity and character.
However, just because you are wary of US involvement in the United Nations, oppose international law, alliances, and agreements, and desire to preserve what you see as America's national identity and character . . . it does not make you an Isolationist.
I agree. Neocons don't even want to promote the development or sovereignty of the USA.
Re-read the "definition" at the top of the thread, and try to reconcile it with your opinion. LOL
Support for trade practices that insulate American workers from global competition is classic Isolationism, not that some protection isn't a good thing if global competition is playing unfairly.
Allowing hords of illegal immigrants ain't exactly helping this nation.
Neocons are in favor of illegal immigration? Name one.
Dick Armey.
Fair enough. Now prove it.
It's set up like a CNN poll... meaning it's bullsh_t.
And who can forget Armey's failed attempt to get the republicans in the house of representatives to pass a resolution that would give the republican party's national platform a more lax view on border security?
With the Democratic Party still hiding in the tall grass, the GOP establishment is beginning to split over the issue of war on Iraq. Majority Leader Dick Armey was the first to speak out against it, followed by Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to Bush I.
--Pat Buchanan, August 21, 2002 [emphasis added]
Your link does not support your position. If it does please point to where, exactly. Thanks in advance.
The whole thing Armey wrote on immigration sounds like a more liberal view on immigration.
"Let me just mention one. More and more these days, immigrants are being viewed as if they were the source of America's problems. It seems the old Malthusian notion that people are a drain is making one of its regular revivals. Well, it's good to know Cato has always held fast against that misguided teaching. At a time when some are turning against immigrants, you continue to view them as human beings, in Julian Simon's beautiful phrase, as the ultimate resource.
Anti-immigration has always been ironic, because throughout our history newcomers have been a source of strength, not weakness. America still
attracts the world's best talent. And surely that is no liability. Think of it. We can avail ourselves of much of the world's intellectual wealth simply by opening our doors. America never has to grow old. We can always take in new talent and new ideas and new blood. No ruling elite can dominate us for very long, because we always have younger, smarter, more entrepreneurial spirits willing and eager to move up.
The impulse to limit immigration is really a manifestation of the protectionist impulse. And it's misguided. It's a desire to use government's monopoly of coercive power to benefit oneself at the expense of somebody else. And that, as Hayek taught us, is self-defeating. But the biggest problem with the closed-border idea is that it embraces the liberals' world view. And thus it leads logically down the path to bigger government.
Should we have an orderly immigration policy? Of course. Should we give the Border Patrol the appropriate tools? Of course. But in so doing, should we infringe on the personal liberties of law-abiding Americans? Absolutely not.
We need immigration reform. But our goal should be to make immigration more orderly, not more restrictive.
We have too many immigrants coming here to get on welfare. But the reasonable response is not to build a police state. It's to shrink the welfare state.
We have an educational system that no longer promotes assimilation. But the sensible response is not to exclude foreign children. It's to scrap multiculturalism in the schools and give parents real school choice.
Should we reduce LEGAL immigration? Well, I'm hard-pressed to think of a single problem that would be solved by shutting off the supply of willing and eager new Americans. If anything, in the spirit of Hayek, we should be thinking about INCREASING legal immigration.
Should we turn private employers into auxiliary border guards? I think unfunded mandates are bad enough without that."
Good post but I think CSM misleads.
Reagan was more of a realist than a neo con. I really believe the term neo conservative has been invented by the media to cover the fact that democrats have not had a foreign policy since the end of the Vietnam war.
I think the competing streams of thought are:
post colonialist: capitalism is the root of all evil-- globalization bad
realist: strategic thinking should exceed idealism
neo- conservative: America is a global ideal reality that should be defended
Neo cons are right. America is now a post sovereign concept. Humanity increasingly defines itself in terms of what America represents-- freedom, democracy and equality. The massive immigration globally to the United States is but a small testament to the awesome power of this nation as a signifier. The debate over American control is over. We are the world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.