Tuesday, July 15, 2014
PAUL PERRY FOREIGN POLICY FEUD
'Although the 2016 presidential election is still a long way off, the back-and-forth over foreign policy between Mr Paul's libertarian wing of the Republican Party and Mr Perry's internationalists reveals an ideological fault line that likely will be on full display in the days ahead.'
Perry is trying to paint Paul as an isolationist, it seems.
While conservatives have often been ' isolationist ', in the context of the alliances and conflicts of the 19th and early to mid 20 century, it meant something to Americans more like pacifism, and nationalism; it did not so much have an economic aspect, although it opposed certain ostensibly lucrative sectional proposals.
Isolationism was opposed to military adventurism (Cuba was a good example), colonial expansionism (Phillipines), interventionism, and subjugation to entangling military alliances, back then.
Wilsonian activist internationalism, call it globalist democratism with a military component, was what that earlier nationalist pacifist 'isolationism' reacted against, especially re WWI.
Wilson himself did not apparently have much economic internationalism, but he and his agenda were, however, nevertheless backed by the biggest banks, and dovetailed with their globalist financial and commercial interests.
Both libertarians and internationalists, in both parties, have internationalized, economicized, financialized, and institutionalized in private, NGO, and GO organs, their agendas, since WWI.
Human rights hawks on the left, ' left libertarians ' if you will, such as Power, are a legacy of Wilsonian internationalist activism, and going further back, Republican abolitionists; and they are matched, since at least Reagan's time, by globalist libertarians on the right, a species of modern day 'autocrat abolitionism ' similar to Wilson's, and before him, Lincoln's.
Wilson's war aims included toppling autocrats to make the world safe for democracy, which if you flesh out its meaning, back then, really meant not just toppling the German emperor, but other allied combatant imperialist powers' crowned heads as well.
It was similar in some ways to the globalist, nominally democratic globalist populist, position of the Bolsheviki, whose revolution helped justify US intervention in the conflict.
Wilson's war aims and his ideals were totally in conflict with those of the Entente, and even of the West at that time.
The United States continued to grind on, quite oblivious even in the 20th Century, to the ideological Western civilizational betrayal it had first fomented back in 1776, and quite bewildered by the accusations, from other civilizations, of it role after WWII as the inheritor of a Western imperialist legacy it had long claimed to have repudiated, but had nevertheless taken advantage of, but, ironically, both against its own interests and those of the West, when the opportunity arose to economically globalize during the Cold War by booming other civilizations to the ultimate disadvantage of the West.
Perry is trying to paint Paul as an isolationist, it seems.
While conservatives have often been ' isolationist ', in the context of the alliances and conflicts of the 19th and early to mid 20 century, it meant something to Americans more like pacifism, and nationalism; it did not so much have an economic aspect, although it opposed certain ostensibly lucrative sectional proposals.
Isolationism was opposed to military adventurism (Cuba was a good example), colonial expansionism (Phillipines), interventionism, and subjugation to entangling military alliances, back then.
Wilsonian activist internationalism, call it globalist democratism with a military component, was what that earlier nationalist pacifist 'isolationism' reacted against, especially re WWI.
Wilson himself did not apparently have much economic internationalism, but he and his agenda were, however, nevertheless backed by the biggest banks, and dovetailed with their globalist financial and commercial interests.
Both libertarians and internationalists, in both parties, have internationalized, economicized, financialized, and institutionalized in private, NGO, and GO organs, their agendas, since WWI.
Human rights hawks on the left, ' left libertarians ' if you will, such as Power, are a legacy of Wilsonian internationalist activism, and going further back, Republican abolitionists; and they are matched, since at least Reagan's time, by globalist libertarians on the right, a species of modern day 'autocrat abolitionism ' similar to Wilson's, and before him, Lincoln's.
Wilson's war aims included toppling autocrats to make the world safe for democracy, which if you flesh out its meaning, back then, really meant not just toppling the German emperor, but other allied combatant imperialist powers' crowned heads as well.
It was similar in some ways to the globalist, nominally democratic globalist populist, position of the Bolsheviki, whose revolution helped justify US intervention in the conflict.
Wilson's war aims and his ideals were totally in conflict with those of the Entente, and even of the West at that time.
The United States continued to grind on, quite oblivious even in the 20th Century, to the ideological Western civilizational betrayal it had first fomented back in 1776, and quite bewildered by the accusations, from other civilizations, of it role after WWII as the inheritor of a Western imperialist legacy it had long claimed to have repudiated, but had nevertheless taken advantage of, but, ironically, both against its own interests and those of the West, when the opportunity arose to economically globalize during the Cold War by booming other civilizations to the ultimate disadvantage of the West.
No comments:
Post a Comment