Anti-War or Economic Reform: Which is more Important?

[reardenstone]

Anti-War or Economic Reform: Which is more Important? I ask this because in some cases when we are deciding whether or not to support another republican, we may have to choose. If I had a candidate and they only stood with RP on one of two of those issues, I would choose "economic reform". I am a war centrist and I really believe that Ron Paul's biggest message is not being anti-war, because he calls some wars "just", but that he is a non-interventionist. Our interventions caused blowback.
On war I believe that if we are attacked we go after the perps and bring them to justice. Ideally we would avoid resentment by being free and friendly in trade and we would not send in our C I A operatives into other countries to hijack their economy or government. I'm not anti-war; I am anti-intervention and completely for protecting borders and just war.

I was reading some of the concerns about C4L contribution money being used for an ad to support a "pro-war" candidate. A poster there said that "foreign policy and the anti-war message is what unites everyone, which to me implies that all the other issues including ending the fed and economic reform are not as important. If that is the case, they should consider the Green Party or Democratic Socialist party.

So are we really saying that we look for anti-war people first and then economic reform, second?

[MsDoodahs]

I look for NON INTERVENTIONIST first, economics second.

You cannot support empire and fiscal conservatism at the same time, as our CURRENT SITUATION demonstrates.

[LittleLightShining]

Yes. Interventionist military meddling is unconstitutional and bankrupting the country.

[TruthisTreason]

I hate the term Anti-War, sounds entirely too weak.

Anti-WAR to the average voter, means you would not protect our country because you are against war!

[Romulus]

You cannot support empire and fiscal conservatism at the same time, as our CURRENT SITUATION demonstrates.

I tell this to Neocons who think they are conservative.

[Pennsylvania]

I am a war centrist and I really believe that Ron Paul's biggest message is not being anti-war, because he calls some wars "just", but that he is a non-interventionist.

Do you consider defensive wars unjust?

In regards to the op, in what way is reducing our overseas expenditure not an economic reform? That aside, it is bar none the most effective economic reform we could implement.

[Aratus]

our debt doubled with the "war on terror" and we borrowed $800,ooo,ooo,ooo from the chinese.
shouldn't we weigh both stances as a criteria when we vote in our local and national races???

[reardenstone]

I hate the term Anti-War, sounds entirely too weak.

Anti-WAR to the average voter, means you would not protect our country because you are against war!

Yeah I know what you mean. I would prefer to talk about it as RP actually does in writing and refer to it as being anti-interventionist. He actually is for "just war".

[CUnknown]

Yeah, I think the entire question is really not relevant. You can't have economic reform without foreign policy reform. Our foreign policy is just too expensive.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The good news is the more war they create the less government guns in America :)

[.Tom]

You can't be pro-war and pro-economic freedom. These issues are one and the same.

[dean.engelhardt]

Antiwar first. Can't have economic reform without it anyway.

[georgiaboy]

I'm pretty much in agreement with the OP that I'm econ first, which as others have stated cannot be achieved without a much humbler non-interventionist foreign policy while maintaining a strong national defense and not being afraid to use it. Picking fights, forcing 'democracy' and policing the world, not so much. Admittedly, foreign policy has always seemed distant to me, since I always think there's more to all the different sides of the story than what I can discover, what with all the historical and cultural puts and takes, so I derive my fp leanings from my econ principles.

[Bern]

Anti-War or Economic Reform: Which is more Important? I ask this because in some cases when we are deciding whether or not to support another republican, we may have to choose.

The POTUS decides when to send folks to war (when was the last time Congress did so?). Put your anti-war candidate there.

Congress makes the big decisions on the economy. Put your Austrian school candidates there.

[txaslftist]

War/defense/interventionism spending makes any domestic fiscal conservatism useless. The Generals will ALWAYS find ways to spend more money and expand military spending. The more money we free up domestically, the greater the "emergencies" abroad will be made to seem. You cannot be fiscally conservative while trying to sustain an empire abroad. It is impossible to choose between the two choices, because they represent a false choice...

IMO