Any thoughts?
Posted on 08/07/2007 10:24:22 AM PDT by Contentions
Last Friday, RealClearPolitics ran in its lead feature spot an essay by Gregory Scoblete, a free-lance writer in New Jersey. The essay had the headline “The GOP, Ron Paul & Non-Interventionism,” and was subsequently commented upon by, among others, guest-blogger Stephen Bainbridge on Andrew Sullivan’s blog.
Scoblete’s premise is that, just as Barry Goldwater’s failed campaign for president led the Republican party to embrace a limited-government philosophy, so too Ron Paul’s presidential campaign today, doomed though it is, will cause the GOP to embrace his philosophy of “non-interventionism.” Scoblete goes on at great lengths to “distinguish non-interventionism from isolationism.” He writes, for example, “The former seeks a more rigorous and delimited definition of America’s interests, while the latter a walled garden that completely cuts America off from the world. Non-interventionists are not pacifists, but they do reserve war fighting for moments of actual national peril.”
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
It means 'new conservative'. Whatever connotations one wishes to put on that phrase is up to him/her. Obviously, there are differing connotations.
Neo-cons are those who believe that the US military should be a global nanny, keeping the peace, building kindergartens and hospitals, spreading goodwill, etc.
Old conservatives are more along the lines of Theodore Roosevelt's foreign policy of “Speak softly and carry a big stick...”. In other words, don’t tell people how to run their countries, but if they cross you, make them wish they hadn’t.
I don’t know which you are, but Bush is a neo-con while Paul is an old fashioned conservative.
exactly-—interventionism is more of the cause of problems than isolationism.
look at Iran-—if we hadn’t started messing around in Iran in the 1950s and helping the shah seize power from a democratically elected government, there would have been no Islamic revolution in 1979
What Long Island Pete said isn’t far off.
Of course Neocon doesn’t actually mean jew... however in the context it is today mostly used (in leftist or isolationist circles) it is an enigma for jewish Republican, jewish hawk or simply anyone supporting Israel and the WoT.
It is the Left’s new alibi to avoid being labelled antisemitic.
he is right.
how has helping the Islamic insurgents in Afghanistan in the 1980s helped America? or Americans? or did it just help lay the groundwork for the taliban and Al-Quaeda?
and Nicaragua? who the heck cares if Nicaragua was communist?
I don’t see what business it was of ours
But when Ron Paul says I would go back to the Wilson Doctrine. I'm to believe he really doesn't mean he'd go back to the Wilson Doctrine as he said, but in fact is laying our problem at the feet of Wilson's actions which laid the groundwork for WWII.
Either he has to say what he means, or his supporters have to make the code for the decoder rings available to all.
Why is it every time Ron Paul says something, he doesn't mean it according to his supporters?
That is a rather incoherent interview. My favorite
HE: Follow-up -- thank you -- follow-up question. [Laughter] Take two minutes and tell me the people that you would name to your cabinet or to your official family.RP: Probably, I won’t do a very good job of that because I haven’t thought that through and there are certainly a lot of friends and –
HE: Well, before you name the cabinet people, what cabinet departments would you want to have remain?
RP: Well I guess we could have a Justice Department. I guess we could have a State Department, and I guess we could have a Defense Department, and maybe one or two others more but not many more than that. I mean… We need to think about a Republican form of government. I believe in a republic -- little “R” republic -- and we don’t need a Department of Education and a Department of Energy. We used to win elections on that but not any more. We doubled the size of all those programs.
I won't do a very good job of that [selecting cabinet members], but I've got a lot of friends.
Presidential timber all right.
If you really believe this you are in need of an history lesson: Mossadegh (the prime minister) was an anti-semitic socialist cooperating with the Tudeh party (communists) and Islamists (Ayatollah Kashani) to topple the pro-American, pro-Western, pro-Israeli Shah. It was during the height of the cold War and his socialist agenda would have plunged Iran with all it's strategic significance into the arms of the Soviets. Mossadegh was abusing his power and had dictatorical ambitions. He overstepped the constitution and was amassing power. One of his first acts was also to revert the recognition of Israel. Thank God for the elegant and succesfull coup by the CIA, the Imperial Iranian Army and the Shah and General Zahedi. Without the 1953 counter-revolution Iran would have become an Islamist-Socialist Soviet pawn already 26 years before.
Current conventional wisdom regarding foreign policy isn’t right even that often. Indeed our current political leaders have shown an almost inhuman ability to be wrong 100% of the time.
BTW the saying is "even a broken clock is right twice a day." What you said doesn't make any sense.
Why don't they allow David Duke to write in their periodical? I forgot! They already have Taki Theocrapolus (sp).
“A clock that stops twice a day can only be right once” Mike Brady
Well you could listen to his speeches instead of a badly worded interview. But to listen to his speeches you may realize you've been supporting nonsense for much longer than you care to admit. Even the exchange you quoted was clear.
"Are you saying the Reagan Doctrine was wrong? No, I would go back to the Wilson Doctrine."
I don't see how anyone could take that to mean otherwise than the Wilson Doctrine was the first mistake and everything has gotten worse since.
Bwahhhaaa! Of course!
Of course this is all Eisenhower's fault, Carter's embrach of Khomeini had nothing at all to do with it.
RP: I don’t think that policy has served us well. I think that…
HE: The Reagan Doctrine hasn’t served us well?
In my mind, he clearly is saying the Reagan Doctrine didn't serve us well, and that he'd revert back to Wilson. The question involved Reagan policies, not a review of 20th century foreign policy.
You seem to be saying that Paul meant America's foreign policy has been going to *ell in a handbasket since Wilson, decaying further under Reagan. That would be more consistent with Paul's positions in my view, simply not what he said. I can't see him supporting Wilson's foreign policy any more than Reagan's.
When any lib mentions a Neo Con they always seem to mention a person who is Jewish. I for one am not the only person who has noticed this. Mark Levin mentions it all the time.
What does that make me? I became fully Conservative after 9-11.
A realist.
Heh. I was more a centrist, being Canadian, it’s difficult to stop the brainwashing. However, I don’t think I was sufficiently brainwashed to not see reality for what it was. 9-11 pushed me very hard to the right. Perhaps I was Conservative all along, but didn’t know it.
Exactly. And knowing Paul's stance as you do, I can't see how you would see it any other way. The problem however is that some who don't know his stance could see it as you first suggested.
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.