The Authentic Right Vs. The Neocons (Part 2)

Neoconservatism, Political Philosophy

Professor Gottfried and I continue the conversation we began last week. In The Authentic Right Vs. Neocons (Part 2),” the sequel to “The Authentic Right Vs. The Neocons (Part 1), professor Gottfried, once again, helps us understand how the American Right fell into the clutches of “minicon scribblers.”

I describe the “propositional nation” neoconservatives are dreaming up for us (the Left, naturally, loves the idea too): “No longer will communities comprise individuals bound by a shared language, literature, culture, faith, history, habits and heroes. Rather, what we’re being fashioned into is a disparate people, forced together by an abstract, highly manipulable, coercive, state-sanctioned ideology.”

And Paul elaborates on “The farce of democracy that we now have—which is a pluralistic society spinning into a multicultural one, run by meddlesome bureaucrats, inventive judges, and a multitude of social engineers—has nothing to do with serious self-government. It is a social experiment that is spinning out of control.”

Read on.

Update: In reply to the reader in the Comments Section: Paul is not anti-Semitic; he is anti-foreign aid to Israel—as well as to all her Arab enemies.

His position is similar to the one I expressed here:

“Those of us who want the U.S. to stay solvent – and out of the affairs of others – recognize that sovereign nation-states that resist, not enable, our imperial impulses, are the best hindrance to hegemonic overreach. Patriots for a sane U.S. foreign policy ought to encourage all America’s friends, Israel included, to push back and do what is in their national interest, not ours.”

I was asked to write a piece for the Paul Campaign encapsulating his position vis-à-vis Israel. I did weeks ago, but they have yet to publish it. I continue to receive many letters expressing the misconception our reader voices. I’m surprised the campaign has not made use of a useful op-ed that refuted the accusations very effectively.

Updated: Ron Wrong on Islam, Right on Foreign Policy

Elections 2008, Islam, libertarianism, Ron Paul

Does it follow that because Ron Paul is wrong about the threat of Islam, and about the cause of Islamic terrorism, that he is also wrong about foreign policy? Not at all.
I cannot stress enough that I depart from Rep. Paul on quite a few issues, chief of which is the cause of Islamic terrorism. True, our foreign policy doesn’t help matters.
Still, irrespective of where one’s sympathies lie; regardless of how one views the cause of Muslim insurrections the world over, one must surely recognize that—for whatever reason—Muslims are at the center of practically every bloody conflict in the world today.
Is it possible that Muslims are right and that the “infidels” of Lebanon, Israel, India, Russia, Sudan, Indonesia, The Ivory Coast, Kenya and Nigeria all deserve to be visited by Islamic violence? Not if you live on terra firma.
Scholars such as Efraim and Inari Karsh, for example, have shown that “Middle Eastern history is essentially the culmination of long-standing indigenous trends, passions, and patterns of behavior rather than an externally imposed dictate.”
It’s a great shame Paul has adopted the received wisdom of the far-left, according to which the Arabs were (and remain) hapless and helpless victims of the West.
Strategically, moreover, it’s unwise for a presidential candidate to keep sounding as though he blames America first. That gets people’s backs up and is not conducive to his sensible message with respect to foreign policy.

Update: New participants on the blog are always welcome. However, I am getting tired of the odd individual who stumbles on my blog and website, and post facetious, rude csious comments withough familiarizing himself with hbut can we ask politely that before you post about Islam and Dr. Paul’s perspective, that you familiarize yourself with your host’s perspective first. I think you will find a far more comprehensive analysis of what is at stake vis-à-vis the West and Islam here than in Dr. Paul’s writings.

So if our foreign policy is just the minor player what is the major cause of Islamic “terrorism”. Our freedoms? I am interested…

Huckabee’s Hardcore On Israel

Elections 2008, Foreign Policy, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

I’ve been extremely critical of Huckabee. See “Ron Paul’s Electability” and “Huck’s For Huck—Paul’s For America.”

But I think I’ve just come across the only policy position Huckabee has professed that I rather like. Dr. Daniel Pipes disagrees:

“[T]rue connoisseurs of the Republican candidate for president are still wrapping their arms around this foreign policy insight delivered in a September interview:

‘If there is going to be a Palestinian state, it needs to be on land that doesn’t threaten the existence or security of Israel. There is a lot of available real estate around the world that would not be a direct threat to Israel’s security.’

James D. Besser, who conducted this interview, added that ‘Huckabee declined to offer suggestions about where that [real estate] might be.’ Uganda or Birobidjan, perhaps? (December 24, 2007)

Here Huckabee sounds just like the Likud Party once sounded. That may not be very pragmatic, considering that the Right in Israel perished a shot time ago, but why is it a bad thing?

Huckabee is certainly in line here with evangelical thinking—and my own. Come to think of it, I think I’ve just stumbled on the first Huckabee-held policy position that I like: quit pushing for statehood for these radical people.

Paul’s Peddling Liberty Again

Classical Liberalism, Conservatism, Constitution, Elections 2008, Foreign Policy, Ron Paul

Watch Meet the Press. Contemplate the following points:

* Selling liberty is tougher when free people morph into pliable sheep. But there are still very many buyers—since October Ron Paul has raised more than any other Republican: $19 million!
* If not for Dr. Paul’s run for president, can you imagine Tim Russet ever seriously addressing the elimination of the income tax?
* Is anyone other than Ron Paul repeatedly reminding the unreceptive leaches that form the Media-Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex that they’ve bankrupted us? Who other than Paul is telling Americans that America is a debt nation?
* If not for Dr. Paul, would anyone know that it costs a bankrupt America over a $1 trillion annually to police the world?
* There is no doubt that war is the health of the state, as Randolph Bourne warned. In her more recent tedious, socialist screeds, Naomi Klein has seized upon and run with this thesis, which libertarian economist Bob Higgs has empirically verified. Why is she listened to but not Paul?
* As you know, while I concur with Paul about the need for the US to leave its posts across the world, I do not agree that that will eliminate Islamic terrorism—just as I don’t believe Israel giving back its well-deserved, disputed territories will make the Palestinians “hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.” However, although I think Paul’s understanding of Islam’s impetus is limited and reductionist, his foreign policy is the right one. What’s the problem? If we are attacked on our soil, Paul will not hesitate to retaliate.
* As for earmarks and term limits: this is the first time I’ve seen Russet challenge a politician for real.
* With respect to Russet’s challenge vis-à-vis the 14th amendment, and the elimination of birthright citizenship, Paul retorted: “Amending the Constitutional is constitutional”: A great line.
* The Civil Rights Act: Paul reiterates that any objection thereto is rooted in respect for private property rights and freedom of association, not racism. We’ve said as much, and frequently.
* In the interview, I heard a great deal more of the gradualist approach specified in my critique of Dr. Paul’s strategy. Pragmatism is unavoidable.

See also:
On Idiot Ideologues Who Pan Paul
Huck’s for Huck–Paul’s For America
Ron Paul’s Electability
The Pauline Gospel at Its Best
Some Advice For Ron Paul