- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 56,981
- Reaction score
- 27,029
- Location
- Chicago Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
Ron Paul's "Foreign Policy Institute? Seems odd to create an institute for something that doesn't exist.
Ron Paul's "No Foreign Policy Institute" would be named more aptly.
Ron Paul's "Foreign Policy Institute? Seems odd to create an institute for something that doesn't exist.
Ron Paul's "No Foreign Policy Institute" would be named more aptly.
Ron Paul's "Foreign Policy Institute? Seems odd to create an institute for something that doesn't exist.
Ron Paul's "No Foreign Policy Institute" would be named more aptly.
He is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. He believes in diplomacy, trade, and defensive wars.
Think he will be able to affect the GOP and the Neo-Cons.....he also has the Facebook site in going after the Neo's.
They have never given dumb old ron a second glance before,so why should they start listening to him now? The only thing this will do is to let him suck some more money out of his disciples. Good for him following in the footsteps of ham rove.
IMO, the events of the 2000s have vividly illustrated the limits of the neoconservative foreign policy school. Specifically, the underlying assumptions that all societies crave liberal democratic governance and that force could be used to expand the sphere of democratic governance from ousting the illiberal regimes have not played out. First, in some of the fractured societies (usually along ethnic, religious, or tribal lines), other imperatives have taken precedence over liberal democratic rule. In Afghanistan, an illiberal regime focused largely on maintaining Pashtun dominance has been evolving and a significant share of the population beyond the ousted Taliban question its legitimacy. Similarly, in Iraq an illiberal regime focused on asserting Shia dominance, sometimes at the expense of minority groups including the Sunnis and Kurds, is in place. Despite considerable military, financial, and technical commitments, both states continue to experience instability or worse. Similarly, the ousting of the Gadhafi dictatorship has not led to a stable or liberal democratic society, much less one that is friendly to U.S. interests. The intentions embraced by the neoconservatives are not bad, but the school runs aground when it comes to underestimating the role history, context, and structure play in shaping various societies.
The other side, namely that foreign policy is largely irrelevant, is even more misplaced. Unlike the neoconservative side that misses out only on account of limits not the recognition of the need for a coherent foreign policy, the notion that essentially no foreign policy is required in an age when the U.S. has large and complex overseas interests is not viable. Abdication, non-interventionism, or neo-isolationism has already been tried. Prior to World War II the U.S. took an largely indifferent approach as events were leading to the war. Other countries e.g., Belgium embraced neutrality early on. Both approaches proved disastrous failures. The U.S. ultimately found itself embroiled in the war. Belgium found itself under German rule.
In effect, there are three schools that are viable:
1. Liberal internationalism: The problem is that it relies too heavily on international institutions when international organization (both the League of Nations and UN) have proved much less effective than imagined by their founders, as nations gravitate toward their own interests and the area of commonality of interests is smaller than liberal internationalists assume. It also places too little focus on the role power plays. A more restrained assessment of the commonality of national interests and greater respect for the importance of power could allow it to become more effective. Its emphasis on diplomacy is an important component in a world in which there is no preeminent power (even as the U.S. is the world's foremost power, it is not a preeminent power that can safely ignore all other nations' interests) and era of limited fiscal resources.
2. Realism: The problem is that it relies too little on idealism and idealism plays some role in the U.S., even as its emphasis on the role of the balance of power in promoting stability and the need to ground a nation's foreign policy in its interests are on the mark. However, pragmatic realism that takes into consideration a dose of idealism probably offers the most balanced approach.
3. Neoconservatism: The problem is that it relies on fairly rosy assumptions e.g., the removal of illiberal regimes would quickly lead to democratic governance; It probably can be refined to place greater emphasis on non-military tools for expanding the democratic sphere and more tempered expectations as to when opportunties for expanding democratic governance are available.
FWIW, I believe the pragmatic realist approach is probably the best of the three. The absence of a coherent foreign policy is the worst of the three as it ignores the nation's overseas interests and allies.
Ron Paul's "Foreign Policy Institute? Seems odd to create an institute for something that doesn't exist.
Ron Paul's "No Foreign Policy Institute" would be named more aptly.
He is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. He believes in diplomacy, trade, and defensive wars.
How many times must this myth be rebutted?
It keeps re-surfacing because it is not a myth.
He is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. He believes in diplomacy, trade, and defensive wars.
How many times must this myth be rebutted?
As to the time of the piece by TownHall and Bing News.....there was nothing showing with the MSMedia.
It keeps resurfacing because the people who said it the first time knew they were lying... why would someone stating the truth later stop them?
That's because nobody died and it's boring.
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to some of the foreign policy initiatives Paul has advocated? With sources, of course. He's an isolationist. Always has been. Always will be.
Yeah, I know Chicago News people got so desperate for some type of Shooting. They had to report that the Cops found a dog that had been shot out on the street, in an alley, with no shooter or witnesses to be found.
Or maybe you could be less ignorant and learn what the word "isolationism" means? Just a thought.
Do you want an example? Tokugawa Era Japan. THAT is isolationism.
Free trade and diplomacy with all nations, albeit with no military alliances, only fighting wars for the purpose of self-defense? Yeah, not so much. That's just non-interventionism, or a better word for it would be common sense, prudent, smart, and a lot of other positive adjectives.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and Paul's anti-interventionist views are certainly more prudent than the usual conservative trimphalism and paranoia.
Unfortunately, Paul's policies arise from his xenophobia, not from a desire to engage the world. So it comes with a poison pill. The point is not to disengage from the world, but to engage it ways other than invading, which seems to be the only solution conservative have for every foreign policy problem.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and Paul's anti-interventionist views are certainly more prudent than the usual conservative trimphalism and paranoia.
Unfortunately, Paul's policies arise from his xenophobia, not from a desire to engage the world. So it comes with a poison pill. The point is not to disengage from the world, but to engage it ways other than invading, which seems to be the only solution conservative have for every foreign policy problem.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and Paul's anti-interventionist views are certainly more prudent than the usual conservative trimphalism and paranoia.
Unfortunately, Paul's policies arise from his xenophobia, not from a desire to engage the world. So it comes with a poison pill. The point is not to disengage from the world, but to engage it ways other than invading, which seems to be the only solution conservative have for every foreign policy problem.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?