I suspect Galt's answer would be "yes" - not that he himself was necessarily a Trotskyite but that his foreign policy was dominated/"hijacked" by "neocons" who as we all know are just Trotskyites. ;-)
I grew really weary of all that "neocon"/"Trotskyite" garbage last year and I think I just have very little energy to debate the nonsense at this point. Suffice it to say that I'm pretty sure that even Trotsky himself wasn't a "Trotskyite" according to the way today's anti-neocon crowd uses that term. To them the term seems to mean little more than, "willing to use military force to oust autocratic regimes, sometimes". (Apparently all that "communism" stuff was just a side issue for Trotsky... LOL ;-)
But if that's what a "Trotskyite" is then call me a "Trotskyite" (*rolls eyes*)
Dr Frank, understand that some in the isolationist-crackpot worldview have to declaim the 'pro-democracy' concept as "trotskyite" because they have to demonize the idea. This is demonizing a concept through bad association.
Obviously. And what's even more pathetic is that the so-called "association" is built on a house of cards. What the hell is supposed to be the lineage from Trotsky down to George W. Bush, again? ;-)
Seriously, I really question the basic assumption here, that Lev Trotsky was in favor of "global democratic revolution". I don't believe that for a damn second. He was in favor of nothing of the sort, if anything he was in favor of socialist revolutions. Or, where necessary, partially-democratically-inspired anti-autocrat revolutions that (when they succeed) get co-opted and hijacked by international socialists. (You know, like *cough* the RUSSIAN REVOLUTION perhaps??)
Again, what the hell all that's got to do with George W. Bush is beyond me. Is George W. Bush secretly planning to co-opt the new Iraqi regime into an international socialism, and declare an end to private property in Iraq?
And why on earth the anti-neoconners feel the need to gin up this whole ridiculous theory to begin with, is also beyond me. Sometimes I simply do not understand depth of the iso-con opposition to finishing our ten-year war against Saddam Hussein's regime. It seems all out of proportion to me. *shrug*
Like, this guy Galt is now worried about the cost of the war, it puts us into debt. Better to keep enforcing "no fly zones" and stationing troops in Saudi Arabia to (not really) "contain" the Hussein dynasty, FOREVER?? That costs money too... the whole isolationist opposition just doesn't make too much sense sometimes.