The Neocons Lose Their S*** Over Rand Paul

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

I view sanctions as a form of intervention.

Which sanctions, exactly, have "intervened" in another nation's internal affairs, and how? Please be specific. Thanks.

[Hyperion]

Last night Mark Levin was going nuts about foreign policy. He was saying you don't have to be a neocon or a non-interventionist, yet he never mentioned a situation in which the US should actually show restraint. Typical fearmongering about Iran and Russia etc.

It's really disgusting how neocons see a world in which no principles apply to them but can't stand when other nations aggressively act in their self interest. Why are they so unable to see the obvious contradiction in this?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

These old, discredited neoconservative writers are going to have to learn the hard way that it's a new day in America, and it is they who are outside the current mainstream of America. They seem to be under the impression that it's still their heydays of 2003-2005. Americans are sick of war.

[Quark]

If you look at the major FP views moving from left to right it looks like this:

Imperialism --> Wilsonian --> Hamiltonian --> Jacksonian --> Jeffersonian --> Isolationism

Hitler & Stalin were imperialists. Switzerland & N Korea are the closest we have to isolationism today.

Ron was a classic example of a Jeffersonian, Rand is just to the left of him straddling the Jacksonian & Jeffersonian positions depending on the issue (as Rand says he is a realist on FP). Neo-cons are Wilsonian by definition which is far to the left on the spectrum from Rand, which is why they have so many problems with him.

Interesting spectrum. I've heard of it before, but never delved into the details. What are key differences between Jackson's and Jefferson's views? I tried looking up, but the differences seem to be a matter of application, and I can't find the basic principles.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Interesting spectrum. I've heard of it before, but never delved into the details. What are key differences between Jackson's and Jefferson's views? I tried looking up, but the differences seem to be a matter of application, and I can't find the basic principles.

In short, I would say that a Jeffersonian is a strict non-interventionist, where a Jacksonian supports limited intervention where American interests (and possibly the interests of our allies) are at risk.

I think it is safe to say that if Canada was invaded by the Russians, Jeffersonians would be apprehensive to go to war until the Ruskies were knocking on Minnesota's back door, where the Jacksonians would be right there from the get go, kick ass and come home. By contrast, Hamiltonians would be concerned about the humanitarian effects of the war, go to the UN for permission, and post conflict have our troops stationed in Canada for years rebuilding roads and handing out care packages of poutine and Kraft dinners. Wilsonians would follow much of the same path as the Hamiltonians, but doing so for the sake of democracy; post conflict our troops would be in Canada for decades rebuilding the nation and we'd set up a puppet leader where we could pull the strings.

And this from an article summarizing the terms:

Jeffersonians are most interested in protection of American democracy on the home front, and almost as misunderstood as Jacksonians. They believe that foreign entanglements are a sure method of damaging American democratic systems, and are highly skeptical of Hamiltonian/Wilsonian projects to involve the US abroad. Hamiltonians and Wilsonians have a realistic streak, that the United States is fundamentally a state among states, if better managed. Jeffersonians, in contrast, believe that the United States is something better and different. You often find Jeffersonians protesting against international agreements, rather than for them.

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.

[Cleaner44]

The neocon argument doesn't work. Just ask Michele Bachmann how her attempt to sell her "Iran is going to nuke us all!" hysteria worked out.

[CaptLouAlbano]

The neocon argument doesn't work. Just ask Michele Bachmann how her attempt to sell her "Iran is going to nuke us all!" hysteria worked out.

Bachmann is not a neo-conservative. At worst, I would say she holds an aggressive Jacksonian position, but only in regards to Islamic terrorism. She's even called for spending cuts in the Defense Dept (an anathema to neo-cons). Her positions on domestic issues are also at odds with neo-cons.

Just for comparison sake, her JBS lifetime score is 80% where Peter King (a textbook neo-con) is at 44%. (JBS includes FP in their scorecard). Her Freedomworks score (which is strictly domestic policy) is 93% where King's is 56%.

[HVACTech]

[QUOTE=acptulsa;5493778]Yeah, because Cheney is so emotional that he could set up that whole yellowcake uranium line of crap and shove it down the throats of a whole nation during one simple little panic attack.

Dick has panic attacks?

somehow, there is just something inherently wrong. with a Dick having a panic attack.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Which sanctions, exactly, have "intervened" in another nation's internal affairs, and how? Please be specific. Thanks.

How is restricting access to goods and services by force NOT intervening? It's common sense.

[Danke]

Bachmann is not a neo-conservative. At worst, I would say she holds an aggressive Jacksonian position, but only in regards to Islamic terrorism. She's even called for spending cuts in the Defense Dept (an anathema to neo-cons). Her positions on domestic issues are also at odds with neo-cons.

Just for comparison sake, her JBS lifetime score is 80% where Peter King (a textbook neo-con) is at 44%. (JBS includes FP in their scorecard). Her Freedomworks score (which is strictly domestic policy) is 93% where King's is 56%.

She was a prosecuting attorney for the IRS.

JBS rating means nothing.

[jj-]

She was a prosecuting attorney for the IRS.

Few crimes are worse, if any.

[CaptLouAlbano]

She was a prosecuting attorney for the IRS.

JBS rating means nothing.

Still doesn't make her a neo-con. Just like being a non interventionist does not make one a Libertarian.

And the JBS rating was merely for comparison sake to compare her votes to a textbook neo-con.

It's intellectually dishonest when our side labels everyone we might disagree with as a neo-con. It's just as bad as when our opposition labels non interventionists as isolationists.

[Danke]

Still doesn't make her a neo-con. Just like being a non interventionist does not make one a Libertarian.

And the JBS rating was merely for comparison sake to compare her votes to a textbook neo-con.

It's intellectually dishonest when our side labels everyone we might disagree with as a neo-con. It's just as bad as when our opposition labels non interventionists as isolationists.

Did I mention she was a neo-con?
Where does the JBS rating reference neo-con rating?

[menciusmoldbug]

Still doesn't make her a neo-con. Just like being a non interventionist does not make one a Libertarian.

And the JBS rating was merely for comparison sake to compare her votes to a textbook neo-con.

It's intellectually dishonest when our side labels everyone we might disagree with as a neo-con. It's just as bad as when our opposition labels non interventionists as isolationists.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CaptLouAlbano again.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Did I mention she was a neo-con?
Where does the JBS rating reference neo-con rating?

You quoted a post where I was saying how she is not a neo-con

And again the JBS reference is to show a comparison between Bachmann and King.

[Danke]

You quoted a post where I was saying how she is not a neo-con

And again the JBS reference is to show a comparison between Bachmann and King.

Link?

[CaptLouAlbano]

[QUOTE=Danke;5495346]Link?[/QUOTEhttp://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/

[HVACTech]

She was a prosecuting attorney for the IRS.

JBS rating means nothing.

methinks this will change your mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32EZgesi7b4

[Danke]

[QUOTE=CaptLouAlbano;5495350]

Link?[/QUOTEhttp://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/

I see a rating, but I guess i missed the neo-con ratings, and she keeps voting for the Patriot act in various bills.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I see a rating, but I guess i missed the neo-con ratings

There aren't "neo-con ratings". But when you compare the votes of someone who is a textbook neo-con with others, you can use that data for comparison sake. For example if you go back historically and look at Ron Paul's votes versus other congressmen, you can compare a libertarian position to other positions.

and she keeps voting for the Patriot act in various bills.

I am beginning to think you have no idea was a neo-con is then. Voting for the Patriot Act does not mean one is a neo-con.

Neo-conservatives hold to a Wilsonian foreign policy position and domestically they support the status quo as opposed to supporting the reduction in the size of domestic programs and the welfare state. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Peter King, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney - those are your neo-cons. Voting for the Patriot Act or saying the US is a friend of Israel does not make one a neo-con.

It's not as simple as everyone who is not a non-interventionist is therefore a neo-con. As noted above a Jacksonian supports limited interventionism, but is not on par with a Wilsonian who supports intervention on the world stage, spreading democracy, nation building and being the policeman of the world.

[Victor Grey]

Still doesn't make her a neo-con. Just like being a non interventionist does not make one a Libertarian.

And the JBS rating was merely for comparison sake to compare her votes to a textbook neo-con.

It's intellectually dishonest when our side labels everyone we might disagree with as a neo-con. It's just as bad as when our opposition labels non interventionists as isolationists.

Well whether she's an ideological neo-con or not, she is one of those hysterical scaredy-people I was talking about, that make up a portion of their political base.

Those and these simple minded (imho) pro-war, war loving nuts you run across are perfect bedfellows.

The point you're making is true, it's not intellectually perfect to call her a neo-con. As far as I understand at least. It is also true that many, I would say at least, far worse and inaccurate examples of someone labeling something as neo-con do exist. (some examples I've seen of people claiming a thing or person as neoconservative I've experienced, I'd be happy to see someone point out as a weak claim.) Many instances of using the neo-con label can be far more off the mark than this one. Neo-con become a bit of an empty phrase and curse word, through it's being far to vague and inaccurate in use. I can see why you'd not like that. I don't either to an extent.

But, it is hard to distinguish nor to care for the meaningful difference here (Bachmann) from a neo-con in practice, when the results of holding either motivation or line of thought are pretty much the same.

In at least in that way, I don't see it as being equal in comparison to those who can't or else intentionally won't distinguish between non-intervention and isolationism as policies. Those two ideas have very different results when put into actual practice. I firmly believe that so at least.

If a person however wants to invade Iran, it really doesn't seem to matter much whether that is because they perpetually soil their drawers, want to ride a glory bomb like Major Kong, or are doing it to raise their stock investment's values or to increase production orders.
They all flock together, are for the same policies and almost all of them will vote the same.

They're still for invading Iran.

[Danke]

There aren't "neo-con ratings". But when you compare the votes of someone who is a textbook neo-con with others, you can use that data for comparison sake. For example if you go back historically and look at Ron Paul's votes versus other congressmen, you can compare a libertarian position to other positions.



I am beginning to think you have no idea was a neo-con is then. Voting for the Patriot Act does not mean one is a neo-con.

Neo-conservatives hold to a Wilsonian foreign policy position and domestically they support the status quo as opposed to supporting the reduction in the size of domestic programs and the welfare state. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Peter King, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney - those are your neo-cons. Voting for the Patriot Act or saying the US is a friend of Israel does not make one a neo-con.

It's not as simple as everyone who is not a non-interventionist is therefore a neo-con. As noted above a Jacksonian supports limited interventionism, but is not on par with a Wilsonian who supports intervention on the world stage, spreading democracy, nation building and being the policeman of the world.

I never said she was a neo-con. Labels don't mean much to me.

She votes terribly. She acts terribly. Her record shows this. So again 80% JSB approval rating is meaningless.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I never said she was a neo-con. Labels don't mean much to me.

She votes terribly. She acts terribly. Her record shows this. So again 80% JSB approval rating is meaningless.

I'm not a fan of her either. That being said, her votes on major domestic policy have been pretty good. There are far worse out there for sure. For example, her predecessor in the House, Mark Kennedy was a supporter of big government programs.

[menciusmoldbug]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CaptLouAlbano again.

lmao, Danke neg-repped this post with the following comment: "Where was neo-con mentioned?"

The neocon argument doesn't work. Just ask Michele Bachmann how her attempt to sell her "Iran is going to nuke us all!" hysteria worked out.

Bachmann is not a neo-conservative. At worst, I would say she holds an aggressive Jacksonian position, but only in regards to Islamic terrorism. She's even called for spending cuts in the Defense Dept (an anathema to neo-cons). Her positions on domestic issues are also at odds with neo-cons.

Just for comparison sake, her JBS lifetime score is 80% where Peter King (a textbook neo-con) is at 44%. (JBS includes FP in their scorecard). Her Freedomworks score (which is strictly domestic policy) is 93% where King's is 56%.

Danke responds to these posts, explicitly discussing whether or not Bachmann is a neo-con, with:

She was a prosecuting attorney for the IRS.


JBS rating means nothing.

The clear implication here being that Bachmann IS a neo-con. Otherwise, why enter the discussion simply to provide a non-sequitur attack on Bachmann? In retrospect, it seems clear that Danke was NOT disagreeing with CLA's claim that Bachmann's not a neo-con, but was making a silly and irrelevant claim that she is somehow simply bad because of a job she once held. Nevertheless, CLA's reply is perfectly sensible if one makes the assumption that no-one would bother entering the discussion to produce a non-sequitur:

Still doesn't make her a neo-con. Just like being a non interventionist does not make one a Libertarian.

And the JBS rating was merely for comparison sake to compare her votes to a textbook neo-con.

It's intellectually dishonest when our side labels everyone we might disagree with as a neo-con. It's just as bad as when our opposition labels non interventionists as isolationists.

+1 for promoting intellectual honesty

[Danke]

lmao, Danke neg-repped this post with the following comment: "Where was neo-con mentioned?"





Danke responds to these posts, explicitly discussing whether or not Bachmann is a neo-con, with:



The clear implication here being that Bachmann IS a neo-con. Otherwise, why enter the discussion simply to provide a non-sequitur attack on Bachmann? In retrospect, it seems clear that Danke was NOT disagreeing with CLA's claim that Bachmann's not a neo-con, but was making a silly and irrelevant claim that she is somehow simply bad because of a job she once held. Nevertheless, CLA's reply is perfectly sensible if one makes the assumption that no-one would bother entering the discussion to produce a non-sequitur:



+1 for promoting intellectual honesty

you are a silly person.

She is not a liberty minded person. Her past is relevant.

Are we to excuse Cheney, Rumsfeld, Holder, etc. now too if they occasionally vote or act favorably?

[T.hill]

In short, I would say that a Jeffersonian is a strict non-interventionist, where a Jacksonian supports limited intervention where American interests (and possibly the interests of our allies) are at risk.

I think it is safe to say that if Canada was invaded by the Russians, Jeffersonians would be apprehensive to go to war until the Ruskies were knocking on Minnesota's back door, where the Jacksonians would be right there from the get go, kick ass and come home. By contrast, Hamiltonians would be concerned about the humanitarian effects of the war, go to the UN for permission, and post conflict have our troops stationed in Canada for years rebuilding roads and handing out care packages of poutine and Kraft dinners. Wilsonians would follow much of the same path as the Hamiltonians, but doing so for the sake of democracy; post conflict our troops would be in Canada for decades rebuilding the nation and we'd set up a puppet leader where we could pull the strings.

And this from an article summarizing the terms:

Jeffersonians are most interested in protection of American democracy on the home front, and almost as misunderstood as Jacksonians. They believe that foreign entanglements are a sure method of damaging American democratic systems, and are highly skeptical of Hamiltonian/Wilsonian projects to involve the US abroad. Hamiltonians and Wilsonians have a realistic streak, that the United States is fundamentally a state among states, if better managed. Jeffersonians, in contrast, believe that the United States is something better and different. You often find Jeffersonians protesting against international agreements, rather than for them.

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.

The issues where Rand leans more towards a Jacksonian position I think is still done in pursuant to a general Jeffersonian platform. That is in specific situations where he makes a subjective value judgment that will lead to less intervention practically, such as certain sanctions, which he would vote for if he were lead to believe it would delay a full-out invasion.

I would simply reject all forms of intervention and limitations on human interaction, however I can respect it as an action-oriented directive towards non-interventionism.

[angelatc]

Wait - how and why did we go from discussing Sully's spin on Rand Paul to fighting about how to label Bachmann?

[amy31416]

Wait - how and why did we go from discussing Sully's spin on Rand Paul to fighting about how to label Bachmann?

You new here?

[Feeding the Abscess]

There aren't "neo-con ratings". But when you compare the votes of someone who is a textbook neo-con with others, you can use that data for comparison sake. For example if you go back historically and look at Ron Paul's votes versus other congressmen, you can compare a libertarian position to other positions.



I am beginning to think you have no idea was a neo-con is then. Voting for the Patriot Act does not mean one is a neo-con.

Neo-conservatives hold to a Wilsonian foreign policy position and domestically they support the status quo as opposed to supporting the reduction in the size of domestic programs and the welfare state. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Peter King, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney - those are your neo-cons. Voting for the Patriot Act or saying the US is a friend of Israel does not make one a neo-con.

It's not as simple as everyone who is not a non-interventionist is therefore a neo-con. As noted above a Jacksonian supports limited interventionism, but is not on par with a Wilsonian who supports intervention on the world stage, spreading democracy, nation building and being the policeman of the world.

Neocons care about foreign policy and world domination, and will shift their positions in order to get into power and administer that vision. With influences like Strauss, Trotsky, and Machiavelli, this shouldn't surprise anyone. Don't conflate stated positions for desired objectives. Bachmann may not be a neocon (she's probably a dominionist or evangelical zionist), but Kelly Ayotte, Marco Rubio, and Tom Cotton certainly are.

[anaconda]

It's really disgusting how neocons see a world in which no principles apply to them but can't stand when other nations aggressively act in their self interest. Why are they so unable to see the obvious contradiction in this?

I'm sure they see the contradiction. They just don't want the average voter to see it.