Real conservatives, unlike paleopantywaists, can distinguish easily between a military policy of unilateral decision-making for our own purposes with the support of nations choosing to follow our lead and without bowing and scraping to the United Nations or other multilateral nuisances and the internationalism of the Woodrow Wilsons.
Isolationism (a humble foreign policy of crawling in the dirt and begging your enemies for the opportunity to smooch their backsides and begging them to ignore us while we continue to appease them with "trade," to sell them the rope to hang America and Americans (or the swords to behead both) died on that wonderful day when paleoNeville Chamberlain crawled out of the PM's office in Britain to be replaced by a real man like Winston Churchill, and died again at Pearl Harbor and died again on 9/11/01. One, two, three strikes yer out, paleoPaulie! Only so many American residents are denizens of Rio Linda and not enough for more than 1% or so to remember shameless appeaser El Ron the Al Qaeda propaganda drone in five years or so.
While slashing social spending schemes and chopping State Department enemy butt-smooching budgets and eliminating regulatory agencies and cabinet departments like Edumakashun, Energy, and numbers of others would be both patriotic and conservative, slashing the Pentagon, gelding the military and letting the enemies of our nation and our civilization run wild when we are perfectly capable of killing them en masse and breaking their things is, generally speaking, NOT conservative or patriotic.
Fortunately paleoPaulie will soon enough be left with nothing but delusional paleos and antiwar leftists as supporters (because of the pathological hatred of both groups for all things military and patriotic).
What are you, twelve?
A humble foreign policy is a conservative foreign policy, not because of juvenile names you come up with, but because we have a unique view on the role of government.
We are humble in all things government can accomplish. Domestic policy and foreign policy.
Perhaps if more freepers were actually alive when Reagan was president, they would understand this concept.
Dr. Paul is not an enemy of real conservatives. He doesn’t take jihad seriously enough, but most republicans don’t take conservative views serious enough either.
I’m not at all happy about the direction the GOP is going, and seeing the behavior of people towards Dr. Paul is a reminder of the real problem. Republicans just aren’t very conservative any more. They care more about policing the world then they do limiting government.