Andrew Sullivan quotes a reader today on the principles for a new conservatism.
In doing so, he gives voice to a position advocated by the Cold War critics of the Left and the neo-isolationists of the Buchananite Right -- and the Paulite nutjobs.
The third leg of the tripod, though, is the interesting one, because it's something that comes out of the far left. In fact, it's so far to the left that it wouldn't fit into today's Democratic party. I'd like to see an acknowledgment and rejection of some of the brutality of American foreign policy. I'd like us to explicitly own and reject what we did in places like Iran before the Shah, and in Guatemala.
The first two legs, small government and Constitutionalism, are positions strongly supported by the Right today. Unfortunately, the third leg is a return to the foreign policy of the GOP of the post-WWI era. As we learned with dismay later on, such policies are doomed to failure -- especially in a world that has become even more interconnected than it was in the first third of the twentieth century.
 |
Trackback Information for Towards A De Facto Isolationism?
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/227750Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Towards A De Facto Isolationism?'.
Comments on Towards A De Facto Isolationism?
How does rejecting brutality as a political tool equate to isolationism. Clearly, the two ideas are mutually exclusive. Look at Germany.
|| Posted by John Stephen Lewis, October 22, 2007 11:19 AM ||It is the never ending WWII analogy, always another "Hitler" out there somewhere to slay.
Stop wetting your bed every night and try to see threats for what they really are and how engaging each country will 99% of the time lead to better, longer lasting, solutions. Look at Vietnam, for example, and compare to the poor outcomes of Cuba and Korea.
And it is worth noting that it was our intervention in WWI that CAUSED the problems that led to WWII.
Israel can take care of itself, although it will probably rot from internal moral decay.
The [Israeli] soldiers described dozens of incidents of extreme violence One recalled an incident when a Palestinian was shot for no reason and left on the street. 'We were in a weapons carrier when this guy, around 25, passed by in the street and, just like that, for no reason - he didn't throw a stone, did nothing - bang, a bullet in the stomach, he shot him in the stomach and the guy is dying on the pavement and we keep going, apathetic.
...
Only a little boy of four playing in the sand. He is building a castle in his yard. He [the officer] suddenly starts running and we all run with him. He was from the combat engineers. 'He grabbed the boy. I am a degenerate if I am not telling you the truth. He broke his hand here at the wrist, broke his leg here. And started to stomp on his stomach, three times, and left. We are all there, jaws dropping, looking at him in shock.
|| Posted by daveg, October 22, 2007 01:10 PM ||"The first two legs, small government and Constitutionalism, are positions strongly supported by the Right today."
No they aren't and that's a big part of the problem. The current GOP status quo does not support small government or Constitutionalism and that's where part of the backlash is coming from. You can't wage endless war overseas and be "small" in scope. To pay for these wars you must tax and tax and draft and control and that is not Constitutionalism it is something entirely different.
|| Posted by Nash, October 22, 2007 02:43 PM ||The problem is, Mr. Lewis, that the way "brutality" is defined is to include any projection of US force anywhere in the world for virtually any reason. Indeed, if you read the piece at Sullivan's place, he even notes that what we are talking is the Leftoid "US as an evil war-like imperialist power" crap we've been hearing since the end of WWII.
And daveg, the reality is that it was not US involvement in WWI that brought about Hitler, it was US weakness at Versailles and failure to remain engaged int he world for the next 15-20 years that brought him about -- unless you argue that the US should have stayed out of WWI despite attacks on neutral shipping, conspiracies to launch an attack on the US from Mexico, etc, so that the Germans could have defeated the British and the French and created a Europe dominated by the imperialist Germans. And as for your anti-Israel crap, I can't help but note you provide no references to back it up.
And Nash, I'd argue that the GOP grassroots are very much in favor of small government and Constitutionalism. Maybe not as defined by the supporters of Ron Paul, but we definitely do support them.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, October 22, 2007 04:21 PM ||"The first two legs, small government and Constitutionalism, are positions strongly supported by the Right today."
I see very little truth in that assertion, Greg. Would you care to explain exactly how can a government be small, and police the world at the same time?????
Not to mention the fact that the Bush regime has been spending money like drunken democrats since January 2001.
I believe in freedom. If you'd like to engage in a crusade of violence because you're scared, that's fine by me.
But you and the neocons do not have the right to commit my property and tax yet to be earned wages of my children in support of your flawed idea of a perfect or even "safe" world.
If there had actually been WMDs in Iraq at the time we invaded it, you might have a leg to stand on in promoting a permanent military presence there, and creating one elsewhere.
But the trouble is, you don't. There were no WMDs, the administration lied to Americans and the entire world, and any shred of credibility the neocons once had is now gone.
That's right... GONE.
I don't think it's likely that ya'll can scare the voters into giving your proven bad ideas another chance, and offer the evidence of last fall's elections in support of that theory.
No. We won't be fooled again...
|| Posted by bob, October 22, 2007 06:53 PM ||I'm invoking Greg's Law here.
Commenters referring to the government of the United States as a "regime" are automatically discounted as loons.
Thanks for stopping by.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, October 22, 2007 07:23 PM ||That argument is far beneath your apparent intellect, Greg.
But I can understand why you would prefer it over actually answering a valid question about your stated opinions.
No. We won't be fooled again, nor will we be distracted by illogical rhetoric.
"The first two legs, small government and Constitutionalism, are positions strongly supported by the Right today."
Put up or shut up. Support your statement with fact or admit that you buy the propaganda, or are willing to demean your self by spreading the BS.
|| Posted by bob, October 22, 2007 10:41 PM ||Bob, the nice thing about this being MY site is that you don't get to come here and make demands.
And your response to my previous comment, tinged as it is with more mouth-frothing rhetoric, makes it quite clear that my invocation of Greg's Law was spot on.
And read the last paragraph of the comment above your first one. I think it pretty well answers your question.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, October 23, 2007 03:11 AM ||Fair enough Greg. It's your sandbox, therefore I recognize your authority and will make no demands on your logic. By all means, answer only those questions you are comfortable with, and call me a loon if it makes you feel good.
"I'd argue that the GOP grassroots are very much in favor of small government and Constitutionalism. Maybe not as defined by the supporters of Ron Paul, but we definitely do support them.
My argument is that people who identify with Ron Paul's refreshing message are rapidly becoming the new GOP grassroots.
To support my argument, I offer the fact that republican party membership is still on a slide (so are the democrats, but that's a different blog) while Ron Paul's enthusiastic grassroots support has steadily grown.
For example, in the overnight hours between my last comment and this one, Paul supporters nickel and dimed their way to meeting the goal of raising an additional $430,000 in four days in support of his New Hampshire ads. This follows a 1 million dollar push in the final days of the 3rd quarter. There will be another spike in funding on November 5th. Watch for it.
I'm not unrealistic. I remain skeptical of Ron Pauls chances of securing the nomination. But not as skeptical as I am of any old guard neocon looney toon winning in the general election.
Face facts dude... Ya'll had your chance and ya' BLEW IT! Like I said, "We won't be fooled again!"
|| Posted by bob, October 23, 2007 05:52 AM ||Post a comment