Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: No more "neocon" or "isolationist", lets adopt a new paradigm

  1. #1

    Default No more "neocon" or "isolationist", lets adopt a new paradigm

    I happen to think Walter Russell Mead's foreign policy paradigm is great, because it is less vitrolic and emotion based and is based on past American historical figures.

    He has 4 foreign policy schools: the Jeffersonians, Jacksonians, Wilsonians, and Hamiltonians.

    Many of our politicians are combinations of the schools.

    Read the explanations of the schools here:
    http://www.lts.com/~cprael/Meade_FAQ.htm

    http://www.lts.com/~cprael/jackson.html
    Last edited by SpreadOfLiberty; 12-28-2012 at 10:09 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Here is the Millman chart, derived from Mead's paradigm.

    Introverted means domestic influenced, extroverted mens foreign influenced.


  4. #3

    Default

    neat chart... i like the succinct breakdown. is FDR actually at the center? often both & neither? does he go New Deal internal to WW2 external?
    Last edited by Aratus; 12-29-2012 at 09:51 AM. Reason: we also have stewardship potus like Teddy Roosevelt contrasting with William Howard Taft's understanding of dual federalism

  5. #4

    Default

    Well, just because we adopt less inflammatory ways to describe our differences does not mean the media will follow suit. But that doesn't mean I disagree that we should make the effort. The media are trying to divide and conquer us. This is a good reason to fight back. But we must put some thought into how we fight back.

    By emphasizing our commonalities over our differences, by turning the other cheek and offering love in response to hate, we might seem to be throwing the fight. But I'm not so sure. There's a reason they try to divide us before they try to conquer us. Divided we can be felled; united we will stand.

    They say love is stronger than hate. If unity is stronger than division, then apparently there's something to that. The question then becomes, how do we help our fellow Americans resist the temptation to look down their noses at us, even as the media is continually brainwashing them into believing that giving into that temptation is actually a righteous thing to do?
    Quote Originally Posted by Declaration of Independence
    'That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government...'

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aratus View Post
    neat chart... i like the succinct breakdown. is FDR actually at the center? often both & neither? does he go New Deal internal to WW2 external?
    It's hard to judge his foreign policy because it was a defensive war. I'm not sure.

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpreadOfLiberty View Post
    It's hard to judge his foreign policy because it was a defensive war. I'm not sure.
    No it wasn't. But that's for another thread, and there are several of them about this. I won't derail this thread. y/w
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    No it wasn't. But that's for another thread, and there are several of them about this. I won't derail this thread. y/w
    lol

    Pry the rail loose, then walk away loudly proclaiming, 'There's no train here, so I didn't just derail a train!' I call b.s.

    Traditionally, defensive wars are defined by one criteria: Who fired the first actual shot? By that definition, you're wrong. If you think the first person to goad the other person started the fight, regardless of who throws the first punch, then you may be right.

    There, now--we have both points of view represented. Maybe I fixed that rail you pried loose, and the train will stay on track. Hope so. This topic is important enough to us for me to label anyone who distracts us from it a troll.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 12-29-2012 at 11:22 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Declaration of Independence
    'That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government...'

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpreadOfLiberty View Post
    I happen to think Walter Russell Mead's foreign policy paradigm is great, because it is less vitrolic and emotion based and is based on past American historical figures.

    He has 4 foreign policy schools: the Jeffersonians, Jacksonians, Wilsonians, and Hamiltonians.

    Many of our politicians are combinations of the schools.

    Read the explanations of the schools here:
    http://www.lts.com/~cprael/Meade_FAQ.htm

    http://www.lts.com/~cprael/jackson.html
    Jacksonian

    The Jacksonian tradition is perhaps the least well-known, and certainly the least understood of the four schools of thought that Meade defines. Jacksonians tend to be looked down upon – despite the fact that by the numbers, they appear to be the largest of the four schools. The driving belief of the Jacksonian school of thought is that the first priority of the U.S. Government in both foreign and domestic policy is the physical security and economic well-being of the American populace. Jacksonians believe that the US shouldn't seek out foreign quarrels, but if a war starts, the basic belief is "there's no substitute for victory" – and Jacksonians will do pretty much whatever is required to make that victory happen. If you wanted a Jacksonian slogan, it's "Don't Tread On Me!" Jacksonians are generally viewed by the rest of the world as having a simplistic, uncomplicated view of the world, despite quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.

    Jacksonians also strongly value self-reliance. "Economic well-being" to a Jacksonian isn’t about protectionist trade barriers. Rather, it is about providing Jacksonians with the opportunity to succeed or fail on their own.

    Looking for a Jacksonian President? Ronald Reagan was very much a Jacksonian, as is our current President, George W. Bush.


    I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that George W. Bush didn't seek out foreign quarrels. I don't see how that's true of Ronald Reagan either.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Eze 22:25 There's a conspiracy of prophets within her....

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.

  10. #9

    Default

    Which one of them revolves around what Netanyahu wants?

  11. #10

    Default

    I agree... The Jacksonians really should be natural allies, but we are often too quick to label them as "neocons". Trouble is that the other two camps are so good at convincing the Jacksonians that there is always some dire national interest at stake, and dragging them into new wars and overseas projects.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by July View Post
    I agree... The Jacksonians really should be natural allies, but we are often too quick to label them as "neocons". Trouble is that the other two camps are so good at convincing the Jacksonians that there is always some dire national interest at stake, and dragging them into new wars and overseas projects.
    So Jacksonians would have been in favor of invading iraq I bet. And since we started the war and have to win, we wouldn't want to "cut and run" even if we have to stay for 100 years.

    Lacking a clear agenda, they become the gullible foreign party position.

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agorism View Post
    So Jacksonians would have been in favor of invading iraq I bet. And since we started the war and have to win, we wouldn't want to "cut and run" even if we have to stay for 100 years.

    Lacking a clear agenda, they become the gullible foreign party position.
    Well they appear, to me, to be more reactionary...if they think there is some imminent sense of danger. But they don't like to stir up conflict where there is no threat to us, and they don't like to linger in a conflict without a clear objective...they would prefer to win and get out. So unfortunately propaganda about WMDs and whatnot is very effective at getting them to support a war that they probably wouldn't otherwise.

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by July View Post
    Well they appear, to me, to be more reactionary...if they think there is some imminent sense of danger. But they don't like to stir up conflict where there is no threat to us, and they don't like to linger in a conflict without a clear objective...they would prefer to win and get out. So unfortunately propaganda about WMDs and whatnot is very effective at getting them to support a war that they probably wouldn't otherwise.
    Ah, so this is the party you join if you want to be foolishly manipulated by Wilsonians and Hamiltonians.

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agorism View Post
    Ah, so this is the party you join if you want to be foolishly manipulated by Wilsonians and Hamiltonians.
    Well, it's the only side they hear... There hasn't been a prominent Jeffersonian voice to the contrary since...Ron Paul.

  16. #15

    Default

    spade is a spade.
    Best of luck in life.

  17. #16
    Member John F Kennedy III's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Merced, CA (FEMA Region IX)
    Posts
    11,169

    Default

    I think the new paradigm of people that actually care about their country and fellow man is:

    Occupy vs Liberty
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    There would be riots in the streets, if boobus gave one shit about his honor.
    UN Agenda 21 Explained

    The Single Most Important Documentary I've Ever Found

    Robert Downey Jr will learn you how to pimp. If you ever need to know.

    How the GOP stole the nomination

  18. #17

    Default

    So a snake slithers into a mosh pit and says "don't tread on me"?

    And why does the OP keep using the term "democracy" with Jeffersonian ideals....it should be "Liberty". Huge difference.

  19. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    2,882

    Default

    Removed by Confederate-Mod.
    Last edited by Confederate; 12-31-2012 at 07:34 AM.

  20. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    2,882

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by July View Post
    Well, it's the only side they hear... There hasn't been a prominent Jeffersonian voice to the contrary since...Ron Paul.
    Pat Buchanan.

  21. #20

    Default

    Buchanan frequently praises Hamilton so i'd say not.

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Confederate View Post
    Pat Buchanan.
    Buchanan was more Jacksonian until the end of the Cold War.

  23. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    2,882

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by compromise View Post
    Buchanan was more Jacksonian until the end of the Cold War.
    True, but he's been the most outspoken conservative commentator against middle eastern intervention along with Ron Paul. Pat Buchanan is awesome, better than Ron Paul, IMO.

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Confederate View Post
    True, but he's been the most outspoken conservative commentator against middle eastern intervention along with Ron Paul. Pat Buchanan is awesome, better than Ron Paul, IMO.
    If you like protectionism and nanny state government, sure.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

  25. #24

    Default

    Self-determinationists vs America Determinationists?
    Stop the Looting and Start Prosecuting! Gold plated Tungsten IS Money!
    We Must Dissent A colher não existe.
    A government is just a body of people, notably, usually, ungoverned.

    "You mean this entire war started because The Empire dressed as the enemy? That's exactly what happened in the last major war! Our government is so stupid!"

  26. #25

    Default

    Buchanan is a fraud who supported Romney.

  27. #26

    Default

    Also this Jeffersonian/Jacksonian/whatever bullshit isn't going to get us anywhere. Either you support American bloodshed for Israel and other economic interests or you don't. Either you support continuous destabilization in the Middle East or you don't. Either you support our lives and money being wasted while not making anyone safer, or you don't. It is up to us to get people to our side on these issues, and if you really think that labeling current politicians after 1800's Presidents is going to accomplish something, then go for it. But most people would think "what would Jackson do about a nuclear Iran? How the hell do I know?", and then you're back to square zero.

    PS: I personally take offense to be labelled an "idealist" when I'm just supporting common sense. Ron Paul's foreign policy is firmly rooted in reality, and if we're going to supply charts that imply that it isn't, that is strongly counter-intuitive.
    Last edited by Anti-Neocon; 01-02-2013 at 11:22 PM.





« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •