'Empire'

[itshappening]

I noticed from scanning some neocon blogs and forums that this term really upsets them, perhaps RP should tame it a bit or find other ways of communicating with them.

I always thought the best way to argue against the war would be to say it's sinking the economy, keep hammering that point home, don't talk about empire or military bases just say it' not conservative to spend trillions overseas and destroy our economy, it's not worth it. this is a point 'conservatives' have no option but to agree with rather than be put off by what they consider is 'liberal' talk.

hate to say it but the RP campaign should have hired someone like Luntz to test and "frame" various messages and points and see what played well with audiences and then hammered them home

[itshappening]

.....

[pinkmandy]

It IS an empire. It is Dr. Paul calling a spade a spade that draws his supporters. If he wasn't honest and didn't do that there would be NO revolution and he wouldn't be running. If the neocons don't like it being called a empire, well, too bad. We ARE going to change things in this country. WE are awake.

[itshappening]

It IS an empire. It is Dr. Paul calling a spade a spade that draws his supporters. If he wasn't honest and didn't do that there would be NO revolution and he wouldn't be running. If the neocons don't like it being called a empire, well, too bad. We ARE going to change things in this country. WE are awake.

yes but consider the fact that we're trying to win the Republican nomination so the message should be fine tuned. I know he (and we) dont like it but that's how elections are won, tune the message a bit...

[greendiseaser]

YEah. Why are the neocons upset,
PNAC called for "Pax Americana" which is a rip off of "Pax Romana" which DIRECTLY implies EMPIRE, AND they used the term EMPIRE several time in "Rebuilding Americas Defenses".

Gimme a break.

They only mad cause he using it with NEGATIVE connotations.

THey can stuff it.

[hillertexas]

Yes it is an "empire" but maybe there is a better word that will appeal to the neocons.

[itshappening]

the fact is whether we like it or not it needs to be couched (sp?) in better terms because the impression i got is it turned some folks off, folks who says I agree with everything he says on domestic agenda but on FOREIGN policy he is crazy etc. maybe we can never win them over but if the message was fine tuned, you never know

[pinkmandy]

I see what you are saying but the people only want to hear about how wonderful America is, spreading our freedom all over the place. The empire concept is the center of Paul's platform. Associating us with the term empire makes people think about other empires. And they do fall. They are slowly waking up and because they are so dense he must keep hammering the same points into their thick skulls. They may not like the word empire, but when sh*& hits the fan they will dislike the term "falling empire" even more. Then they'll wake up...and who will they turn to? ;)

[limequat]

We support Ron Paul because he doesn't compromise.

[Eponym_mi]

Empire is a buzz word best use with Democrats. It shouldn't be used in the primaries. He should just use foreign spending, military aid, or foreign defense to refer to these imperial activities.

[itshappening]

We support Ron Paul because he doesn't compromise.

we dont have to compromise we just have to communicate better and win people over who don't like to hear the truth. we need to break down the propaganda barriers Bush and co have built, years and years of massive propaganda. They reject all notions of empire and if anything want more military action, we need to be telling these folks that it will destroy the economy and isnt conservative and they need telling 1,000 times (probably too late now)

as much as I hate Luntz we could really do with communicating better with these hardcore interventionists

[emilysdad]

Yes it is an "empire" but maybe there is a better word that will appeal to the neocons.

Which one of these is a better word?

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/empire

[Shabow]

Whenever Ron says 'empire' I always think of Star Wars...does that make me a nerd?:p;)

[Lucid American]

I think repetition works . . . repetition works

I was just wondering last night how many times he's used the word "Empire" in these debates. Remember, he's a statesman in a soundbyte nation, and he knows it. The odds are stacked against him winning, so he needs to repeat these buzzwords as much as possible to get it out there.

We ARE an empire. People should know that when they're advocating that we act like one.

[Jae0]

Whenever Ron says 'empire' I always think of Star Wars...does that make me a nerd?:p;)

Yes. Its ok. I do it too.

[Staupostek]

When I first heard Ron Paul use this word, I rejected it in my mind. Then I began to think about having 700 military bases in over 130 counties while hosting no other countries' military in ours. Once I got rid of the thoughts of a conquered empire, like the Romans or in Star Wars, it began to appear that we do, indeed, have a sort of an empire. If for no other reason than having a military post in another country can "influence" that country in ways that not having one there doesn't. So, empire is technically correct, but if you come across someone who is turned off by this term, asked them what they think of when they hear the word "empire", and then discuss with them the actual definition of it, not their historical understanding of it.

[xd9fan]

I noticed from scanning some neocon blogs and forums that this term really upsets them


I dont give a shit how the neocons feel....but then...
I dont give a shit how Liberals feel either.....

[gjdavis60]

Well, it's an empire for a new century, isn't it? A "kinder, gentler" empire perhaps? No viceroys, no US flag blatantly flying over foreign capitals. And yet, there we are. Sometimes it reminds me more of a mafia protection racket. We garrison thousands of our troops in foreign countries under the auspices of "maintaining the peace" (I'm sure we could spend hours deconstructing what that really means). And we get ... something ... in return, but what?

I'm curious about what is exchanged between the parties to these agreements? What does Europe get from US troops being there and what do they give? And what does the US government get for keeping them there? Who else benefits? How much does the US taxpayer pay for all this? I'd bet the answers would surprise us.

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

Luntz????? You're missing the whole point. The reason we love RP is because he's authentic.

Perot was the same way.

[salinaspaul]

Whenever Ron says 'empire' I always think of Star Wars...does that make me a nerd?:p;)

Makes me think of Queensryche...

"Can't you feel it coming?"

[haaaylee]

does anyone actually think we're going to get the vote of a neocon? why the fuck would we pander to neocons!

[Rebel Resource]

Neocons dont like the word empire, because all empires fall.

Every empire they have ever heard of is history.

Empires are also associated with overstretch and ruin, which is exactly why Ron Paul is using the word. It is a psychological frame.

Don't worry, he and his staff are extremely smart :)

[zackmario]

Watch this video to see who More Wars McCain really is

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/John_McCain_Next_President_of_the_USA_2

Digg if you like it - the more people that see it the better.

[acptulsa]

does anyone actually think we're going to get the vote of a neocon? why the f*** would we pander to neocons!

Good point. If the word turns off old-line Republicans, however, he and we should find another way to say it--at least until after the convention.

It is time for the G.O.P. to wake up to the fact that they have to choose between this war and winning the election. The neocons are happy enough with Hillary, but the old-line Republicans are not. Time to point this out and exploit it.

[pinkmandy]

Neocons dont like the word empire, because all empires fall.

Every empire they have ever heard of is history.

Empires are also associated with overstretch and ruin, which is exactly why Ron Paul is using the word. It is a psychological frame.

Don't worry, he and his staff are extremely smart :)

Yeah, that!

[weslinder]

I've thought Dr. Paul should change his wording since he started. I think "Policing the World" or "Defending the World" would not only have less reactionary reponse, it would also be more accurate. I don't even think Dr. Paul really wants us to "abandon our empire". We're not going to quit defending Guam or the Northern Mariana Islands, and those are true territories of the United States Empire. We do need to quit trying to spread military influence and propping up economies of other nations by providing their defense for them.

[Sweman]

Well, it's an empire for a new century, isn't it? A "kinder, gentler" empire perhaps? No viceroys, no US flag blatantly flying over foreign capitals. And yet, there we are. Sometimes it reminds me more of a mafia protection racket. We garrison thousands of our troops in foreign countries under the auspices of "maintaining the peace" (I'm sure we could spend hours deconstructing what that really means). And we get ... something ... in return, but what?

Actually I think you are getting a buffer zone. It keeps Russia and China from gaining influence. But the thing is I think it can be done without weapons. It can be done with american popular culture and by leading the free world by example.

[Staupostek]

It can be done with american popular culture and by leading the free world by example.

I think the biggest problem with Americans today is that they want to take the easy way out and force their ways on others. Lead by example, be it in religion, economics, or politics is just too hard and takes too much time. It's easier to just force it by military or legal force. Although, if you look at history, the lead by example model is much more successful in the long run.

[jonahtrainer]

Yes it is an "empire" but maybe there is a better word that will appeal to the neocons.

How about we find a good four letter one?

[Sweman]

I think the biggest problem with Americans today is that they want to take the easy way out and force their ways on others. Lead by example, be it in religion, economics, or politics is just too hard and takes too much time. It's easier to just force it by military or legal force. Although, if you look at history, the lead by example model is much more successful in the long run.

I see your point, but you would be surprised about how many europeans that have a love/hate relationship with the US. Your country is present in everyones everyday life, I would say. Just remove some of their reasons to dislike, and your influence over the western world will be very solid.

[Todd]

Except no front runner Democrat would dare use this term. And it's still debatable by what standards we can be labeled empire...
Certianly not in the classical sense.

[Staupostek]

I see your point, but you would be surprised about how many europeans that have a love/hate relationship with the US. Your country is present in everyones everyday life, I would say. Just remove some of their reasons to dislike, and your influence over the western world will be very solid.


Unfortunately, when a country opens up to western ideas, the worst of the west (greed, porn, junk food, etc.) usually floods into the country before the best can even get a foothold.

[fuzzybekool]

It IS an empire. It is Dr. Paul calling a spade a spade that draws his supporters. If he wasn't honest and didn't do that there would be NO revolution and he wouldn't be running. If the neocons don't like it being called a empire, well, too bad. We ARE going to change things in this country. WE are awake.

I think I would have to agree here, even though the sheeple will look around and say, "huh?".

[gjdavis60]

Actually I think you are getting a buffer zone. It keeps Russia and China from gaining influence. But the thing is I think it can be done without weapons. It can be done with american popular culture and by leading the free world by example.I wonder if a military buffer zone is not somewhat of an antiquated, cold war term. And our involvement is more than weapons. It is, essentially, occupation. Our troops and our weapons are on foreign soil carrying out the will of the US government.

Do we pay our "hosts" for the privilege of basing our forces on their lands? Do they pay us for the protection we provide? How much influence does the US government have in countries where our troops are based? What other interests are directly or indirectly served by these relationships? Is there a money trail to be followed? I do not have the answers, but I am certain it is not as straightforward as it might seem.

I don't want to believe that US taxpayers are footing the bill to keep troops in foreign countries so that special interests are served, but why should this be different from anything else the government does?

[Todd]

Unfortunately, when a country opens up to western ideas, the worst of the west (greed, porn, junk food, etc.) usually floods into the country before the best can even get a foothold.

Interestinlgy enough. In 03' when I was mobilized for the war we went to several briefings by an Israeli professor on culture of the mid east. I can vouch for what you say. There are some very pristine parts of Middle eastern society that shun "Westen ideals" because they see it as a threat. A female soldier in a T-shirt and BDU pants is looked at as disrespecting herself and seeming "loose". OK...that may seem really backward to some of us here, but they live there lives closer to how it was 1000 years ago then we ever really try to understand. They realize that embracing the West means you get all our garbage too.

[moostraks]

em·pire (ěm'pīr') Pronunciation Key
n.
American Heritage Dictionary:
1.A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.
The territory included in such a unit.
2.An extensive enterprise under a unified authority: a publishing empire.
3.Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control: "There is a growing sense that the course of empire is shifting toward the . . . Asians" (James Traub)

Seems accurate. I think it is pandering to have to coach words so they are not offensive to the delicate senses of others. The English language is a wonderful thing and I always appreciate when someone choses their words correctly to accurately describe the fullest embodiment of their vision of a situation. Then I know exactly where they stand on a subject. Try reading 1984 (again if its been awhile). The pc language we are being forced to embrace is what is causing the stupidity of the average American. It is an empire, if someone does not like that term then they will not be a dedicated follower of the message.(Ya ain't gonna git em to vote fer him!!!)

[moostraks]

Interestinlgy enough. In 03' when I was mobilized for the war we went to several briefings by an Israeli professor on culture of the mid east. I can vouch for what you say. There are some very pristine parts of Middle eastern society that shun "Westen ideals" because they see it as a threat. A female soldier in a T-shirt and BDU pants is looked at as disrespecting herself and seeming "loose". OK...that may seem really backward to some of us here, but they live there lives closer to how it was 1000 years ago then we ever really try to understand. They realize that embracing the West means you get all our garbage too.

LOL!!! Did anyone hear NPR's rant on the UAE and their media control. I was just flabbergasted. They were talking about how horrible the media control was over there because(Horror, shock, and dismay) they were paying people to black out the obscene, low cut salacious western media photos. So here I am in the mall the other day and there is a HUGE(bigger than life) size photo of a bare tushed guy. I am luckily without the kiddos but come on...Is this really necesssary?? I would have loved a little blackout there. It is so ridiculous, we think we have freedom here because we can pander to our baser instincts.

[Todd]

we think we have freedom here because we can pander to our baser instincts.


Can't argue with that....Debased does not equal real freedom.
That's why I am still a firm believer in the book "Closing of American Mind".. Alan Bloom was a sage.

[Rhys]

i'm mixed... i think it's one of those things people think about later and agree with