Results 1 to 26 of 26

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

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    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 11:09 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Here is the Millman chart, derived from Mead's paradigm.

    Introverted means domestic influenced, extroverted mens foreign influenced.


  4. #3
    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 10:51 AM. Reason: we also have stewardship potus like Teddy Roosevelt contrasting with William Howard Taft's understanding of dual federalism

  5. #4
    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.

  6. #5
    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 Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  7. #6
    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 12:22 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  8. #7
    Removed by Confederate-Mod.
    Last edited by Confederate; 12-31-2012 at 08:34 AM.

  9. #8
    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 Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    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

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "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

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  12. #10
    Which one of them revolves around what Netanyahu wants?

  13. #11
    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.

  14. #12
    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.

  15. #13
    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.

  16. #14
    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.

  17. #15
    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.

  18. #16
    spade is a spade.
    Best of luck in life.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    I think the new paradigm of people that actually care about their country and fellow man is:

    Occupy vs Liberty
    I am the spoon.

  21. #18
    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.

  22. #19
    Buchanan frequently praises Hamilton so i'd say not.

  23. #20
    Self-determinationists vs America Determinationists?
    In New Zealand:
    The Coastguard is a Charity
    Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
    The DMV is a private non-profit
    Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
    The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
    5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
    A tax return has 4 fields
    Business licenses aren't a thing
    Prostitution is legal
    We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care

  24. #21
    Buchanan is a fraud who supported Romney.

  25. #22
    Also this Jeffersonian/Jacksonian/whatever bull$#@! 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; 01-03-2013 at 12:22 AM.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-05-2015, 09:42 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-14-2011, 12:50 PM
  3. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-15-2011, 12:50 PM
  4. Special Report with Brett Baier's "All Star Panel" discusses "isolationist trend"
    By FreedomProsperityPeace in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 06-15-2011, 10:38 PM
  5. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-05-2011, 05:37 PM

Posting Permissions

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