Tag Archives: Foreign Policy
Chicago, March 28, 2013 - One week after the ten-year anniversary of the Iraq War and twelve years into Afghanistan, neoconservatism yet remains the dominant foreign policy influence within the GOP. With its embrace of big government and unlimited spending on interventionism, neoconservatism has to a substantial degree, taken the GOP away from the Republican Party’s roots in conservatism and back towards its own Trotskyite utopianism. It remains to be seen whether there is anything other than the public’s aversion to more foreign policy quagmires, budget busting debt, or defeat in national elections that will make the GOP self-correct its foreign policy.
Neoconservatism is a loosely defined ideology, which in its most consistently expressed terms as it relates to foreign policy holds that democracy should be spread to all parts of the world and that doing so will result in peace. It advocates global military intervention and unilateralism over diplomacy and statecraft. The theory being that western democratic and capitalist states are peaceable. This works when you think of Canada or Australia, but from a longer historical perspective, this belief is unsupported by any depth of historical evidence. Historical proof is not necessary however as the enthusiasm for ideologies are rooted in faith - in the case of Neoconservatism, it is a belief that commitment to world-wide revolutionary change that will bring peace, can only be achieved by the spreading of that democracy to all nations even if by global intervention. This is precisely what the Communists tried to achieve in spreading Communism across the globe until they were fiscally exhausted and ideologically isolated. They shared the same belief in a revolutionary ideology.
Michael Scheuer former CIA Head Director of the Bin Laden Unit and author of several books including Imperial Hubris joins Daily Paul Radio with Kurt Wallace for ‘U.S. Foreign Policy Failure and Iran’s Threat of Blowback’ to discuss the real threat by Iran and how they are already implanted in North America to follow through with their recent terrorist threat. He also talks about the imperial extremism in the United States against other countries and the correct position Ron Paul has on America’s role around the world.
Andrew Napolitano recently showed a clip in which Rick Santorum explained his views on libertarianism. His comments are also instructive in understanding his animosity (politically) towards Ron Paul. Santorum said:
“One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”
As David Boaz pointed out in the interview with Napolitano, Santorum seems to oppose a basic American principle- the right to the pursuit of happiness. I agree with him on this, but there is something even more fundamental here than that. It has to do with the conservative philosophy itself. One of the statements that Santorum makes is true. “That is not how traditional conservatives view the world.”
There is a great disconnect between average Americans who refer to themselves as “conservatives” and the small group of politicians and politically-connected businessman who likewise refer to themselves. The members of the former group believe in the founding principles of the United States, including the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They believe that these rights are endowed by their Creator. In other words, they preexist the government. They are not created by the government. It is the government’s one and only job to protect those rights and when the government fails to protect them and instead violates them, it is the duty of the people to alter or abolish the government.
American politics in the 21st century is about soundbytes, image, and spin. That’s the only way for candidates to try to reach 300 million people in the time that they will likely be in front of them on any given day. For some candidates, the soundbyte is the length and breadth of their views on the issue. For others, that is not necessarily true. In any case, the issues that they speak to are issues of substance and there is no way to form an opinion about them unless you think them through. That might seem like stating the obvious, but here’s the rub: almost no one is thinkingabout issues that could profoundly affect all of us for the rest of our lives.
What most Americans are doing is repeating the soundbytes and buzz words that they hear from talking heads as if they were indisputable fact. Maybe some of them are. Maybe some are not. What is crucial is that every individual think about them critically. That means challenging the veracity of those statements and determining for yourself if they stand up to the most vigorous intellectual attack that you can mount against them.
Ron Paul’s opponents use soundbytes to discredit him and Ron Paul does likewise. He has accused Newt Gingrich of “serial hypocrisy” and accused all of his opponents collectively of being “shitzus” on cutting spending. No one should accept those allegations as true without looking into the evidence for and against them and determining for himself whether or not they are true. Part of that process must be the intellectual exercise of taking the position that they are not true and saying to Ron Paul, “Prove it. Newt Gingrich is not a hypocrite just because you said he was in a 30-second TV ad. Where is your proof? I’ll consider it and get back to you.”