Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While flipping through some issues of the American Conservative magazine, it dawned on me that in nearly every issue there was at least one article that discussed the dangers and pitfalls of an interventionist foreign policy, imperialism, and militarism. All things which culminated in a combination of war worship and fiscal irresponsibility in the name of progressive expansionism and empire.
The term “Paleoconservatism” is rather tongue and cheek since it was more or less a response to the ascension of Neoconservatism in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. However the point was to emphasize its adherence to traditional conservatism that was co-opted by ex-Marxist fashioned liberals who were disenchanted with traditional liberalism and sought a more militant minded approach to foreign policy.
I remember first being exposed to the modern day definition of Paleoconservatism back during the Clinton administration and more notably during the administration of George W Bush. I couldn’t help but think just how far apart these two branches of conservatism viewed foreign policy; it was like day and night. More astonishing was that they held a more principled position, instead of a politically expedient one that the contemporary Republicans espoused.
During the Bush administration the anti-war position out of the Paleoconservative right was methodical, outspoken, critical, and well established long before the anti-war left showed up. However it was the anti-war left that won the day with the press, with its rallies and position articles pounding the airwaves of American news media. More importantly however was that a contrary position was being promoted.
Then something amazing happened, the election of Barack Obama and almost overnight the anti-war left packed up their signs and went home. Don’t believe me, just Google, “anti-war rally” and click “News” and see how many listing there are for recent anti-war rallies. Yet still, the Paleoconservative right carried on as it still does today, methodically, critically, and relentlessly. I thought to myself, what a stroke of luck for all the pro-war, pro-interventionist, Neoconservative, ex-Marxist militant liberals who would just assume side with anyone that promulgated an imperial foreign policy, left or right.
With all the criticism of Bush over his Middle East foreign policy still fresh in my mind, I ran across the following article just last night that really drives home just how effective and pervasive the Neoconservative model of foreign policy is even after reaching the milestone of engaging in the longest war in our nations history.
"I am deeply concerned about our campaign in Afghanistan," said McCain, who supported Obama's plan of sending 30,000 additional U.S. forces announced in December.
"Many of the key trends seem to be heading in a bad direction, perhaps even signaling a mounting crisis," he said.
Mounting crisis after nearly 10 years?
Quote:
McCain urged Obama to reconsider his July 2011 timeline to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan, calling it "simply unrealistic" given the situation on the ground.
"It now seems increasingly clear that hoping for success on the arbitrary timeline set by the administration is simply unrealistic," McCain said.
"It's time for the president to state unequivocally that we will stay in Afghanistan until we succeed."
Petraeus, who has sought to manage expectations in the war effort he oversees, told the panel that "the going was likely to get harder before it got easier."
Asked if he still supported beginning a withdrawal in July 2011, Petraeus said: "I support the policy of the president."
It has occurred to me that the only way to alter our foreign policy from the public avenue is to elect a Republican President in 2012. The contemporary establishment right which consist of a great number of the above described Neoconservative, ex-Marxist militant liberal types, are going to vote in favor of war, any war, anywhere, no matter what. However the anti-war left isn’t going to pull their signs back out of the garage until a Republican President is sitting in the White House again. As to the Paleoconservatives, they will remain steadfast against empire worship as they always have.
As to those antiquated contemporary Republicans who try to pass themselves off as fiscally conservative, or at least try to convince themselves of this, the usual argument is “We need a strong defense to protect the nation”. However in a world where those who have the capability to attack with tens of ballistic missiles, hundreds of bombers, fighters, submarines, warships, tanks, etc… are unwilling to do so. Those that are willing to do so are incapable of doing so. These people are fighting a cold-war like global adversary with massive standing armies in their minds when in reality their adversary consist a few men with a bomb.
Now anyone who thinks spending these amounts or greater at this time and also considers themselves a fiscal conservative has left the lid off the glue too long.
Lets not kid ourselves, there are things that go bump in the night and there are certainly a good number of people wish us harm, but if we recall to Reagan’s announcement of a “Peace dividend” when our long time nemesis the Evil Empire of the Soviet Union collapsed, Americans were going to reap the benefits of a new era of peace. That is until 9-11, when we were attacked, but not by a nation, but by terrorist, and subsequently launched a war on terror. In this new war on terror against terrorist without a country of their own, we didn’t see a reduction in military spending but instead an increase in spending as well as two open ended wars with no end in sight.
I believe it was in the movie Canadian Bacon where a group of dubious characters wanted to start a war and one of their options was a war against terrorist. To this they all laughed because no fool would buy such an absurd idea, so they instead opted for a war with Canada. The bitter irony of this is not lost.
So for those of you out there who are looking at a growing pile of unpaid bills or being forced between keeping the lights on or eating ramen noodles, take a quick look at those charts again. Keep in mind the only people who you can count on making the attempt at a sane, rational, and humble foreign policy or who equate national fiscal responsibility with national defense instead of offense, or simply wish to keep less American blood from being spilled in desert sands half a world away, it is probably those Paleoconservatives with a noble anti-war tradition.
ThT - Why do you continue to write such though provoking essays? This will require some thought to prepare a proper response. My quickie response is the Government sponsored Military Industrial Complex has such a strangle hold on the economic base of this country that it is only challenged with a great deal of care lest the economy fall into a really significant depression. The MIC is the most important way of channeling public money, principally from the declining middle class, to the private sector. More later.
True conservatives never really liked W. Bush. He also expanded the role of government and spending. Lowering taxes is not enough; you must also cut spending. Borrow-borrow-spend-spend is no better than the tax-tax-spend-spend of which Republicans accuse the Democrats.
ThT - Why do you continue to write such though provoking essays? This will require some thought to prepare a proper response. My quickie response is the Government sponsored Military Industrial Complex has such a strangle hold on the economic base of this country that it is only challenged with a great deal of care lest the economy fall into a really significant depression. The MIC is the most important way of channeling public money, principally from the declining middle class, to the private sector. More later.
I was recently invited to be a member of a foreign policy discussion group which promotes a more humble foreign policy and such is where my thoughts have been spending more time. I think I once mentioned to you that it was in foreign policy where I saw the best hope for bridges being built between more traditional liberals and conservatives. Low and behold, this is what I found.
There is another aspect of military spending as it relates to Congressional districts that I just didn't bother to include but probably will at some point.
I was recently invited to be a member of a foreign policy discussion group which promotes a more humble foreign policy and such is where my thoughts have been spending more time. I think I once mentioned to you that it was in foreign policy where I saw the best hope for bridges being built between more traditional liberals and conservatives. Low and behold, this is what I found.
There is another aspect of military spending as it relates to Congressional districts that I just didn't bother to include but probably will at some point.
"...a more humble foreign policy"... I'm trying to figure out whether this means shades of Obama or Carter.
I've often wondered what would happen if the United States closes its 700 plus foreign military bases, brought its military personnel home, and just abandoned everything except offensive/defensive armament. I can already hear the uproar from the countries sucking the federal government teat, and the groan from our economy trying to absorb the hundreds of thousands of military personnel while abolishing the need for civilian companies supplying the military.
Think tanks often don't deal in reality, and the reality of foreign policy is tied to politics at every level.
"...a more humble foreign policy"... I'm trying to figure out whether this means shades of Obama or Carter.
I've often wondered what would happen if the United States closes its 700 plus foreign military bases, brought its military personnel home, and just abandoned everything except offensive/defensive armament. I can already hear the uproar from the countries sucking the federal government teat, and the groan from our economy trying to absorb the hundreds of thousands of military personnel while abolishing the need for civilian companies supplying the military.
Think tanks often don't deal in reality, and the reality of foreign policy is tied to politics at every level.
Actually it was the Carter Doctrine that led to our greater involvement in the Middle East in the first place. As to Obama, he is merely carrying on in the tradition of George W Bush, purveyor of the greatest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States.
However I have never suggested that we pack everything up and leave, but what I am suggesting is that the contemporary Republicans today are neither fiscally conservative or generally conservative and would assert the exact opposite. For some, they will never be happy until every social program has been abolished and all those monies are being spent on bullets, tanks and planes.
Actually it was the Carter Doctrine that led to our greater involvement in the Middle East in the first place. As to Obama, he is merely carrying on in the tradition of George W Bush, purveyor of the greatest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States.
However I have never suggested that we pack everything up and leave, but what I am suggesting is that the contemporary Republicans today are neither fiscally conservative or generally conservative and would assert the exact opposite. For some, they will never be happy until every social program has been abolished and all those monies are being spent on bullets, tanks and planes.
Carter Doctrine,...oh yeah, I recall. Carter stamping his little feet and talking tough about Russia, but doing nothing but beat his little white chest. Iran put him in his place, and exposed his lack of leadership on the world stage as well as at home. What a dismal failure of a president.
Yeah, that Carter doctrine.
As to Obama, he is merely carrying on in the tradition of George W Bush, purveyor of the greatest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States
Yep, it's Bush's fault, always was, and always will be, at least according to the left. Obama has a "get-out-of-jail-free" card that he can play for the remainder of his term. Obama won't EVER have to be accountable for his actions as long as the left can blame BBBUUUSSSHHH. Please tell me when Obama becomes responsible for his own policies, if ever.
You make some broad statements about the "contemporary Republicans, apparently painting all conservatives with your same wide brush:
....contemporary Republicans today are neither fiscally conservative or generally conservative and would assert the exact opposite. For some, they will never be happy until every social program has been abolished and all those monies are being spent on bullets, tanks and planes.
One might counter that the liberals element within our society want to eliminate any thought of patriotism, eliminate our borders, tell people how to think about religion, relegate our sovereignty to the United nations, and concentrate on making our societal structure one mediocre sameness through the redistribution of wealth. The left wishes to make Americans ashamed of our heritage, ashamed of wealth accumulation, and ashamed that some in society rise to economic levels others cannot, or seither do not want or cannot attain.
There's not a fiscal conservative in America that opposes a "hand-up" to anyone who needs it, but there are millions of us who tire of the "hand-outs" that have become the norm in our society, and the notion that EVERYONE is ENTITLED to services at the expense of someone else.
Still wondering what a "more humble foreign policy" means.
Carter Doctrine,...oh yeah, I recall. Carter stamping his little feet and talking tough about Russia, but doing nothing but beat his little white chest. Iran put him in his place, and exposed his lack of leadership on the world stage as well as at home. What a dismal failure of a president.
Yeah, that Carter doctrine.
No, the Carter Doctrine could be described as a statement made to the American people where it was declared that Middle East oil was a vital US interest and military force should be used to protect it.
Quote:
The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. The doctrine was a response to the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union—the Cold War adversary of the United States—from seeking hegemony in the Gulf. After stating that Soviet troops in Afghanistan posed "a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil," Carter proclaimed
As to Obama, he is merely carrying on in the tradition of George W Bush, purveyor of the greatest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States
Yep, it's Bush's fault, always was, and always will be, at least according to the left. Obama has a "get-out-of-jail-free" card that he can play for the remainder of his term. Obama won't EVER have to be accountable for his actions as long as the left can blame BBBUUUSSSHHH. Please tell me when Obama becomes responsible for his own policies, if ever.
Obama is carrying on with Bush's failed Middle East wars, I haven't seen him leave Iraq or Afghanistan and has in fact, widen the war on terrorism to include Pakistan, Yemen and is not ruling out confrontation with Iran. I don't see myself giving Obama a pass when I say he continues failed policies, after all, who is the greater fool, the fool or the fool who follows him?
I guess you missed the part about all of our Middle East foreign policy being set in motion by Carter in the line just before this one?
Quote:
You make some broad statements about the "contemporary Republicans, apparently painting all conservatives with your same wide brush:
....contemporary Republicans today are neither fiscally conservative or generally conservative and would assert the exact opposite. For some, they will never be happy until every social program has been abolished and all those monies are being spent on bullets, tanks and planes.
Yes, the bulk of what constitutes Republicans today are not conservative in any traditional sense, but more of an amalgam of ex-Marxist liberal types who embraced militarism and dabble in big government on moral issues.
Quote:
One might counter that the liberals element within our society want to eliminate any thought of patriotism, eliminate our borders, tell people how to think about religion, relegate our sovereignty to the United nations, and concentrate on making our societal structure one mediocre sameness through the redistribution of wealth. The left wishes to make Americans ashamed of our heritage, ashamed of wealth accumulation, and ashamed that some in society rise to economic levels others cannot, or seither do not want or cannot attain.
\
One might counter with that, you are free to do so.
Quote:
There's not a fiscal conservative in America that opposes a "hand-up" to anyone who needs it, but there are millions of us who tire of the "hand-outs" that have become the norm in our society, and the notion that EVERYONE is ENTITLED to services at the expense of someone else.
Just as there a great majority of people trying to pass themselves off as fiscal conservatives that embrace interventionism, progressive expansionism, nation building, etc... at ANY cost, and often portrayed as in the name of "defense".
Quote:
Still wondering what a "more humble foreign policy" means.
If you are "still wondering" what it means, I suspect the chances of meaningful discussion are not likely, but I'll do my best.
aggresive wars and nation building is a neocon democratic tenet, non-intervention is the conservative stance. bring the boys back home !
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
