Iriemon said:
You mean, just because we are the strongest, do we have the right to determine what government other nations have? Might makes right?
No.
What Wilson/FDR principles were to kill tyrants? You mean because they were engaged in wars?
Nope President Bush has the same liberal foriegn policies of FDR and Wilson in that they all wanted to export Democracy, FDR and Wilson in Europe and Asia and Bush in the Middle East. Do you even know what Wilsonian principles are?
These are the definitions of liberal and conservative foriegn policies in the form of a speech I gave last week:
Here's a speech I gave the other day arguing against the so called new conservatism:
I am of the opinion that George W. Bush is quite possibly the most liberal president in this nations history. I know a lot of you people probably would disagree with me right off the bat but let me explain:
1. I wrote Republican up on the board then ask what people think of when they see this word,
2. Then I put conservatism up on the board, then neo-conservatism, then the definition of conservatism.
So if the word conservatism means tradition then is not the prefix neo in itself a contradiction in terms and wouldn’t it further stand to reason that if there is a new conservatism that there must also be an old, well there is and it’s called paleo conservatism or traditional conservatism which is very different from that which is considered conservatism today.
Then ask what else this word Republican seems to mean. Root word Republic. Then I wrote Republic not empire.
Listen to these following quotes by three of the Founding Fathers:
It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world." - George Washington
Thomas Jefferson had this to say about U.S. foreign policy: peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies
.
Jefferson also had this to say on entangling relations:
Nothing is so important as that America shall separate herself from the systems of Europe, and establish one of her own. Our circumstances, our pursuits, our interests, are distinct. The principles of our policy should be so also. All entanglements with that quarter of the globe should be avoided if we mean that peace and justice shall be the polar stars of the American societies.
Now listen to this quote by John Quincy Adams:
"America does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." John Quincy Adams
Simply put what this quote goes to show is that a true conservative Republican is for the preservation of the Republic as opposed to interventionalist tendency’s which are in direct contradiction to the principles on which this country was founded.
Now compare Adam’s words to this quote by George W. Bush:
The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country. From the Fourteen Points to the Four Freedoms, to the Speech at Westminster, America has put our power at the service of principle. We believe that liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history. We believe that human fulfillment and excellence come in the responsible exercise of liberty. And we believe that freedom -- the freedom we prize -- is not for us alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind. (Applause.) - Bush
This is a very liberal way of thinking in that it espouses that Democracy and liberty should be treated as commodity’s which the U.S. should export in direct contradiction to the views and principles of the Founding Fathers.
Now listen to this quote by a traditional conservative by the name of Pat Buchanan:
The US has unthinkingly embarked upon a neoimperial policy that must involve us in virtually every great war of the coming century-and wars are the death of republics. If we continue on this course of reflexive interventions, enemies will one day answer our power with the weapon of the weak-terror, and eventually cataclysmic terrorism on US soil. But for Bush this war was not, as Clausewitz would have it, an extension of politics, but a moral imperative that transcended politics. Bush holds that the war on terror is between good and evil and it will not end until we eradicate all terror networks of a global reach. Bush holds to a policy of preemptive and preventative war. This is a formula for endless conflict. "
The following is a list of goals from PNAC the (Plan for the New American Century) a leading neo-conservative think tank headed by William Kristol the son of the Irving Kristol who is considered to be the godfather of the neo-conservative movement:
:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Now does this policy of interventionalism coincide with a conservative philosophy in the tradition of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson?
Absolutely not this is a liberal policy in the traditions of Woodrow Wilsons 14 points and the policy‘s of FDR.
It is not just the issue of U.S. interventionalism that is a deciding factor in the differences between Paleo-cons there are also large fissures in the economic policies of the two philosophy’s.
Let me first begin by saying that I believe in the powers of free trade and open markets, I am a proponent of creating trading blocks based on laiz en faire economics and that capitalism is in fact the harbinger of Democracy, however, these are truly neo-liberalist policies as opposed to conservative ones:
Alexander Hamilton had this to say on free trade: 'Not only the wealth, but the independence and security of a country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures. Every nation...ought to endeavor to posses within itself all the essentials of a national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitation, clothing and defense.
Basically what Hamilton was saying is that the U.S. should be independent and self sustaining which is in direct contradiction to the neo-liberalist policies and creations of organizations such as NAFTA and CAFTA.
The following line is point three of Wilson’s very liberal 14 points proposition:
III. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.
Buchanan had this to say on free trade:
Rather than making “global free trade” a golden calf which we all bow down to, and worship, all trade deals should be judged by whether:
1. they maintain US sovereignty;
2. they protect vital economic interests; and
3. they ensure a rising standard of living for all our workers.
Now compare that to what George W. Bush had to say:
There’s a vital link between freedom of people and freedom of commerce. Democratic freedoms cannot flourish unless our hemisphere also builds a prosperity whose benefits are widely shared. And open trade is an essential foundation for that prosperity and that possibility.
Open trade fuels the engines of economic growth that creates new jobs and new income. It applies the power of markets to the needs of the poor. It spurs the process of economic and legal reform. It helps dismantle protectionist bureaucracies that stifle incentive and invite corruption. And open trade reinforces the habits of liberty that sustain democracy over the long term.
These are obviously not the words of a conservative in the traditional sense of the word.
I am of the opinion that neo-conservatism isn’t really conservatism at all but rather it is liberalism wrapped in Republican clothing.
All this being said one must also realize that one of the main staples of the traditional-conservative movement which became a hallmark during the elections of the WW2 era is the belief that politics stops at the waters edge.
