Are liberals the only one who care any longer about anti-interventionism?

[Scam of God]

Awful.

I don't see why we the Westerners should appease Muslims, the ones who deny the Holocaust and peddle the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as infallible truth. If people truly knew the truth Muslims would be treated as KKK members of Nazis.

I don't see why we the Westerners should prop up Israel. We have no business intervening in the affairs of foreign nations, as per the Monroe Doctrine; if you were a genuine conservative, as opposed to a far-right reactionist, you'd recognize this and champion the cause of anti-interventionism.

I'm anti-Islam first and foremost.

Formerly, before the Goldwater campaign co-opted the Big Government Neoconservatives into the Republican Party, most politicians who identified as conservative - you may recognize the names Mark Hatfield and Bobby Taft, or, for that matter, Bill Taft - were adamantly opposed to foreign entanglements and imperialism, and sought to minimize or do away with America's military role on the state of international politics entirely.

Likewise, the liberals of the day were much more eager to jump into war: from Roosevelt to Wilson to Roosevelt, the history of American liberalism in the first half of the 20th century was largely one of leaping from one military expedition to another; it took the horrors of Vietnam to shake the liberal establishment's faith in the twin goods of internationalism and militant anti-communism. To once again quote Rothbard:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And there were valid economic reasons for any economic libertarian to oppose to the very root the military-industrial complex. For that same complex requires government subsidization such as this world has never seen; the lingering remnants of our welfare-state even in its halcyon days never held a candle to the massive costs of our effort to play the world policeman. But our friends the conservatives seem contented to overlook this particular aspect of economic wisdom.

So what happened? How is it that American conservatism was vulgarized by false bravado? And is there any way to undo it?

[Mechaman]

Awful.

I don't see why we the Westerners should appease Muslims, the ones who deny the Holocaust and peddle the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as infallible truth. If people truly knew the truth Muslims would be treated as KKK members of Nazis.

I don't see why we the Westerners should prop up Israel. We have no business intervening in the affairs of foreign nations, as per the Monroe Doctrine; if you were a genuine conservative, as opposed to a far-right reactionist, you'd recognize this and champion the cause of anti-interventionism.

I'm anti-Islam first and foremost.

Formerly, before the Goldwater campaign co-opted the Big Government Neoconservatives into the Republican Party, most politicians who identified as conservative - you may recognize the names Mark Hatfield and Bobby Taft, or, for that matter, Bill Taft - were adamantly opposed to foreign entanglements and imperialism, and sought to minimize or do away with America's military role on the state of international politics entirely.

Likewise, the liberals of the day were much more eager to jump into war: from Roosevelt to Wilson to Roosevelt, the history of American liberalism in the first half of the 20th century was largely one of leaping from one military expedition to another; it took the horrors of Vietnam to shake the liberal establishment's faith in the twin goods of internationalism and militant anti-communism. To once again quote Rothbard:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And there were valid economic reasons for any economic libertarian to oppose to the very root the military-industrial complex. For that same complex requires government subsidization such as this world has never seen; the lingering remnants of our welfare-state even in its halcyon days never held a candle to the massive costs of our effort to play the world policeman. But our friends the conservatives seem contented to overlook this particular aspect of economic wisdom.

So what happened? How is it that American conservatism was vulgarized by false bravado? And is there any way to undo it?

Yes there is. We remove all of our overseas bases and forces. We slash the military budget. We offer to make sweet gentle but fiery love to every world leader. And after all that is done.....we sign free trade agreements with everybody. It's just that simple.

[Sewer]

Wilson was not liberal.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Liberals need to return to the foreign policy of men like Wilson and Kennedy.

[Scam of God]

Yes there is. We remove all of our overseas bases and forces. We slash the military budget. We offer to make sweet gentle but fiery love to every world leader. And after all that is done.....we sign free trade agreements with everybody. It's just that simple.

Of course I agree with you, but my question is more one of why it is that I find myself agreeing more and more with liberals, on this and other matters. I suspect the answer lies with two culprits who did more to pervert the conservative cause in the twentieth century than any others: Goldie and Reagan, both of whom neglected their economic credentials to campaign on an asinine pledge to increase the deficit to pay for more and more trinkets to appease Cold Warriors. I would probably be a rock-ribbed Republican had those two cretins never existed.

[Scam of God]

Wilson was not liberal.

He was 'progressive', just as T.R. was - bear in mind that the notion of progressivism at the turn of the century was very different from the present construct of the idea.

[Mechaman]

Yes there is. We remove all of our overseas bases and forces. We slash the military budget. We offer to make sweet gentle but fiery love to every world leader. And after all that is done.....we sign free trade agreements with everybody. It's just that simple.

Of course I agree with you, but my question is more one of why it is that I find myself agreeing more and more with liberals, on this and other matters. I suspect the answer lies with two culprits who did more to pervert the conservative cause in the twentieth century than any others: Goldie and Reagan, both of whom neglected their economic credentials to campaign on an asinine pledge to increase the deficit to pay for more and more trinkets to appease Cold Warriors. I would probably be a rock-ribbed Republican had those two cretins never existed.

Word. Libertarians who cite either Reagan or Goldie as FFs are morons. I remember watching Reagan's infamous "A time for choosing speech" in support of Goldwater, it went like this: "We must reverse the expansion of government power, we must lower the tax burden on the average American, we must not plunge into a hundred years of darkness........and we must also guarantee victory in Vietnam." Pretty ironic how he suggests that we can prevent a hundred years of darkness by electing a man who openly promoted the use of atomic weapons in Vietnam. The greatest foreign policy is not one by arms, but one by trade. Trade is the ultimate deterent to war. Trade replaces the use of violence with that of competition which in turn leads to economic development. It is much less costly than war: the manufacture of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of technology made solely for the purpose of destruction and death, the recruitment of millions of men and women to fight and die for the state instead of selling their craft in the market for the betterment of society.

As for finding yourself in agreement with liberals on anti-interventionism and other issues, it might be that "liberals", at least in America, are trending towards libertarianism. Consider how many liberals agree with NAFTA and other free trade agreements. Consider how many liberals are in favor of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Consider how many liberals are in favor of marijuana decriminalization. Consider how many liberals are pushing for marriage equality. Consider how many liberals support a woman's right to choose. Hell, consider how many liberals are beginning to speak up about the individual's right to self-defense. When liberals desegregated society, by that action they acknowledged that a person isn't determined by their collective identity, but by who they were as an individual, a very libertarian belief.

But if one thinks hard about the origins of the terms "liberal" and "conservative", the meaning becomes more clear. The "conservative" wishes to uphold the status quo, the "liberal" wishes to change the status quo. Consider the history of mankind: thousands of years of rule under authoritarianism. The authoritarian ruled society and by his oppresive hand raised armies to enforce his policies on the indentured masses. After dynasty and dynasty of rule under the hand of the authoritarian, the absolute ruler of society, authoritarianism: absolute rule by an established elite, became the status quo. Under the status quo, kings and emperors killed without restraint, men and their families could be bought like cattle, the most petty of crimes could lead to execution, women were lower than dogs, and millions died in the name of mindless ideology. This is what conservatives upheld back then, this is where they're trending towards now.
If the status quo is authoritarianism, then what is the opposite of it? Libertarianism: the maximization of personal liberty. That a man no longer has a price tag, that a woman is equal in rights to a man, that the each individual is given a fair trial, that the state has no right to kill it's own people, that capital is a cheaper more efficient weapon against competitors than lethal force, that the individual has the right to speech without restraint, that the individual has the right to defend the greatest right of all: life.
It is inevitable when one follows an ideology whose goal is to overthrow the status quo, authoritarianism, that inevitably said ideology will become a libertarian ideology. Our forefathers were liberals fighting to rid themselves of monarchratic rule and establish a libertarian government. Maybe what we are witnessing is the repeat of this cycle.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     One of the most important parts of the libertarian ideology is non-aggression. Of course, people like Goldwater & Reagan are sellouts for pushing for massive increases to the military budget, & pushing a policy of belligerence.

[dead0man]

Hi, I'm a pro-military libertarian! (an oxymoron?)

What all do you guys want to cut in the military?  I agree with the overseas bases.  There is no reason at all we still need a large military presence in Europe or the Far East.  Maybe a runway and facilities in various locations and a few quality sea ports.  Are we cutting the nuke arsenal?  Manning requirements should continue to decrease as move more and more to a "robot" military.  Are robots more expensive than bodies?  I don't know.  They are certainly cheaper when they "die".  How many carrier fleets do we keep?  We could certainly stand to cut waste.  I see tons of it in my little corner of the DoD.

[Eraserhead]

Liberals need to return to the foreign policy of men like Wilson and Kennedy.

No thanks.

[Mechaman]

Hi, I'm a pro-military libertarian! (an oxymoron?)

What all do you guys want to cut in the military?  I agree with the overseas bases.  There is no reason at all we still need a large military presence in Europe or the Far East.  Maybe a runway and facilities in various locations and a few quality sea ports.  Are we cutting the nuke arsenal?  Manning requirements should continue to decrease as move more and more to a "robot" military.  Are robots more expensive than bodies?  I don't know.  They are certainly cheaper when they "die".  How many carrier fleets do we keep?  We could certainly stand to cut waste.  I see tons of it in my little corner of the DoD.

The military industrial complex is a threat to independence at home. The bigger it becomes, the more inevitable encroachment on liberties becomes. The only way the military industrial complex stays profitable is by the existene of war. Therefore, the government must setup wars to happen to keep the military industrial complex rich.
What we need is a truely non interventionist foreign policy, if some poor people are getting genocided in Africa....tough sh**t. The only purpose of the military should be to defend America.
Like I said, if we approached diplomacy with a heavy emphasis on trade (especially free trade), nations and even people normally considered "terrorists" would have less incentive to attack us.
We could keep a few nukes to take advantage of the whole Mutually Assured Destruction fear that kept us and the USSR from wiping each other off the map.
But I understand how you could see the need for a strong military. I for one am not 100% stereotypical Libertarian. I'm quite the Civil Libertarian myself (just look at who I would've voted for 1952-1972, lol).

[7,052,770]

I believe we should intervene in Darfur (or rather, should have years ago).  I do not believe we should have invaded Iraq.

[Phony Moderate]

Well i'm as Liberal as you can get and i'm opposed to basically all military intervention.

People like Ron Paul say that the Republicans used to always be the anti-war and small government party, but TR, Eisenhower, Goldie, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, and of course Bush 43 and McCain were all what he would consider interventionists.

[SPC]

I believe we should intervene in Darfur (or rather, should have years ago).  I do not believe we should have invaded Iraq.

So, some people are more equal than others? Why should American troops be sent to die for the Sudan but not for Mesopotamia? Both had/have genocidal regimes.