Posted under Election 2008 & Interventionism & NeoCons & Ron Paul
A blogger at Foreign Policy has decided that he has heard enough from Ron Paul so the rest of us peons need to move on. What bugs me about these types of articles is the shear arrogance. How dare some unanointed candidate question the wisdom of the foreign policy establishment? Who does he think he is?
This is why non-interventionists need to be clear that we are not the same as foreign policy “realists” who have also opposed the wild-eyed neocons at times. The baseline assumptions of the realists are still internationalism and interventionism. They are just more willing to use diplomacy and more skeptical of the benefits of force.
We are out to turn these baseline assumptions of the foreign policy establishment on their head.
Hat tip to our friend Dr. Douglas.
Filmer on 21 Nov 2007 at 6:20 pm #
To clarify, Ron Paul is an internationalist in the sense that he wants trade and friendly relations with all. What I mean by internationalism is the idea that somehow America has a special duty or obligation or right to intervene around the world based on being a Super Power or some other special status.
Some of the neocons and their intellectual disciples have even insinuated that we have been anointed by God with some special mandate to spread democracy. This is, of course, potentially blasphemous.
Americaneocon on 21 Nov 2007 at 6:45 pm #
“The baseline assumptions of the realists are still internationalism and interventionism.”
That’s a sorry caricature of realist thought. Realists support intervention in the most extreme cases, for the preservation of national interests defined narrowly.
You guys hold yourselves up to be true constitutionalist, but even the founders recognized a strong role for the U.S. in world affairs. Your non-interventionism is the surest way to the death of our republic.
You might take more care in rebutting serious criticisms of Ron Paul. The Foreign Policy post attacked Paul’s policies fair and square. Something you do not do in return.
James on 21 Nov 2007 at 8:00 pm #
Americanecon,
Please explain your statement, “You guys hold yourselves up to be true constitutionalist, but even the founders recognized a strong role for the U.S. in world affairs.” Is this to be found in George Washington’s Farewell Address or in John Quincy Adams’s admonission that the U.S. should not go abroad seeking monsters to destroy?
Filmer on 21 Nov 2007 at 8:15 pm #
“but even the founders recognized a strong role for the U.S. in world affairs”
Oh really? Show me.
The Founders seriously debated whether or not we should even have a standing army. So whatever this strong role for the U.S. in world affairs they might have envisioned, it surely did not mean stationing troops all over the globe.
roho on 22 Nov 2007 at 3:40 am #
If our Founding Fathers had any intrest in a policy of intervention, they would have been welcomed by all of Europe while Napoleon was winning victory after victory and looking unstopable.
csason on 22 Nov 2007 at 3:54 am #
What a weak attack by the writer of the article you linked to, his lines of ‘defense’ to Ron Paul’s policys were a Supreme courts memo and
some other guys..
Weak..
Joe on 22 Nov 2007 at 10:56 am #
It doesn’t look like foreign policy blog allows comments? hmmmm.
ERIC on 22 Nov 2007 at 3:22 pm #
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2008_south_carolina_republican_primary
Rasmussen has a South Carolina poll showing Paul at 8%.
Both Tancredo and Hunter at 2%.
I saw a poll from New Hampshire showing Paul also at 8%, Tancredo 1%, Hunter less than a half of a percent.
I saw a poll from Iowa Paul at 6%, Tancredo 2%, Hunter 1%.
Real clear politics website has averages for the first 3 contests and more, but in the first 3 states the leaders and 2nd place are as followed:
Iowa Romney then Huck (Paul 6th very close to Mccain in 5th).
New Hampshire Romney then Rudy, with Paul 4th (Mccain 3rd).
South Carolina is pretty tight between Romney, Rudy, Thompson.
roho on 22 Nov 2007 at 3:29 pm #
Over at “Townhall.com” Michael Medved is promoting the Neocon re-writing of Puritan History by Robert Kagan’s new book “Dangerous Nation”……….Now, even the puritans were of revolutionary stock simply searching for a base camp to attack the world and bring them all under democracy and freedom?……………The Kremlin was more suttle in the sixties!
Americaneocon on 22 Nov 2007 at 5:03 pm #
Passing along a pro-Paul blog you might like. Today’s a holiday truce, you know!
http://www.redpills.org/
Weaver on 22 Nov 2007 at 8:32 pm #
Wonderful news Eric. I knew he’d shoot up by this time. Let’s hope he hits critical mass and people begin listening to him, if only out of fear. Atm he has name recognition… but only as a ‘nut.’ People need to listen to what he’s saying and realise he’s not a nut.
Weaver on 22 Nov 2007 at 8:58 pm #
Thanks for the link Americaneocon. They look like good, red-blooded Paulians.
roho on 22 Nov 2007 at 9:52 pm #
“Redpills” is a very good site, and “Happy Thanksgiving” to you as well Americaneocon.
Lindy's Revenge on 24 Nov 2007 at 6:34 pm #
“Realism” is a broad category, and some realists can be noninterventionist or sympathetic to noninterventionist sensibilities. They are just not doctrinaire noninterventionists. If this guy is saying that the Founders “saw an ideological component to America’s place in the world,” he is not really a realist. However, while the founders were anti-intervention, they were not doctrinaire anti-interventionists when it came to issues regarding the Western Hemisphere and especially North America. In fact, only after we purchased the Philippines did we entirely stray from our original policy as leader and guardian of the Americas and neutral everywhere else. That was our original policy because realistically, we cannot maintain a policy of minimal involvment in world affairs without maintaining the defense of our Hemisphere.
Suzanne Stallings on 25 Nov 2007 at 3:38 pm #
As I have posted here before, we must expect a fear and smear campaign directed at Ron Paul– an honest constitutionalist, and the worst nightmare for those working for a New World Order!
A visit to Dr. Paul’s website, shows his successful campaign.