[ek_hornbeck]

I agree with some of your points (to me, Clinton and the Bushes are more or less equivalent on policy if not on rhetoric), but I don't consider either interventionist foreign policy or free trade to be necessarily conservative positions. Bill Clinton's interventionism had less to do with national security and more to do with "nation building" and globalist ideology.

The same is true of free trade agreements. It wasn't too long ago that conservative Republicans were the party of tariffs while Wilson/FDR liberals were free traders.

[Vaden]

We are actually in full agreement. I did not state those things because I endorsed his policies. I was just saying that he was more in line with the “rightist” establishment than people realize. What Clinton did wasn’t really radically different than what R dogma espoused at the time.

I agree that interventionism and “free” trade religious fervor are flawed dogmas.