Certain Republicans on this site make no distinction between foreign policy liberalism and isolationism. I'm not a thoroughgoing isolationist. I strongly support free trade and I support repealing all immigration regulations. However, lumping libertarians and paleoconservatives in with the Left on foreign policy is a common but absurd practice on this site. Here, as a libertarian, is where I stand. I think that the United States should withdraw from all international organizations, including the United Nations, and from most treaties. I oppose diplomatic intervention. It makes the United States look arrogant and it leaves hardliners on all sides of a conflict angry at the United States about something that wasn't America's concern in the first place. I think that not only does foreign intervention needlessly make enemies and waste money, but also that it ultimately hurts other nations. The United States cannot broker peace between two nations or groups that are otherwise unwilling to make peace. The only things that the U.S. can do are, by setting arbitrary standards in the negotiations of other countries, prolong conflicts and spread anti-American anger. I support foreign aid only in the form of loans. All of this, so far, has been conservative by anyone's definition. However, I apply the same principle of non-intervention for our sake and for the sake of other nations to warfare as well. The only exception is an attack or probable threat of attack on the United States. Hence, since Iraq did not attack the United States and was not a likely threat to do so, I oppose the war in Iraq. I support immediate withdrawal from Iraq and bringing all American troops home from foreign conflicts and bases. I also support using attrition to lower the number of soldiers and cutting military spending proportionately, since with a defense-only approach, we would not need a gigantic military. This is a libertarian foreign policy, though not quite as extreme as what the Libertarian Party advocates. Paleoconservatives oppose free trade and support sealing or nearly sealing our borders, but otherwise they agree with libertarians on foreign policy issues. Defining liberalism as the ideas of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and defining conservatism as the ideas of Bush and other neoconservative Republicans, libertarians are about half liberal and half conservative on foreign policy. I would be very happy if the Democrats were advocating libertarian isolationism, but their ideas are, alas, far from mine. If you are a free-market conservative, you wouldn't want to be mistaken for a libertarian simply because you agree with libertarians on most economic issues, and in the same way, I don't like being described as liberal- at least not as a modern liberal. Beyond my own preferences, moreover, I think that it lowers the level of political discourse to try to put everyone into two political "wings". I feel much the same way about describing opposition to gun control (such as mine) as "conservative", since it is actually a liberal stance that the Democrats simply haven't, for the most part, taken. I appreciate all replies. Thank you very much.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

I can't even try to read a block of text like that, Force. I'll just have to comment on the thread title. I found it ironic that you would chastise Neocons for overusing the "L" word when I only know of one neo-con posting here regularly. To tell you the truth, I don't even think he uses the "L" word very often if at all.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

Sorry, I should have added paragraph breaks. You can add them to my post if you like. All hawkish conservatives are neoconservatives. That means that probably 1/3 of the regular posters here are neoconservatives. I wasn't addressing you, since you haven't mislabeled anyone, but certain other people on the New Right have overused the term liberal quite consistently.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

Too many wrong assertions in the first few sentences, cannot...continue.....reading....eyes....bleeding.

If I can't agree with some neocon issues without being labeled as one, then you can't complain about the overuse of the "L" word.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

It seems that as Force wants to fault others for "mislabeling" others he is doing such things himself.

Can you say Hypocrite?

Regards,
Gaar

__________________
A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough -- Ronald Reagan

Straight from Irving Kristol:

But it is only to a degree that neocons are comfortable in modern America. The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives--though not with those libertarian conservatives who are conservative in economics but unmindful of the culture. The upshot is a quite unexpected alliance between neocons, who include a fair proportion of secular intellectuals, and religious traditionalists. They are united on issues concerning the quality of education, the relations of church and state, the regulation of pornography, and the like, all of which they regard as proper candidates for the government's attention.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...tzmlw.asp?pg=2

If anyone can find a liberal site that describes an ideology that is essentially the same as mine, I'll concede defeat. I would say that the hypocrisy, Gaar, is that you won't accept an unpopular label even when it is accurate, whereas I would, but the label applied to me and others so often has not been accurate. Feel free to attempt to prove otherwise.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

What?

You can call me a neo-con all you like, I don't care what you call me, it won't change my views...

You on the other hand seem to take Issue when people call you something that fits your ranting.

Why is that you suppose?

Regards,
Gaar

__________________
A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough -- Ronald Reagan

Mostly because there is none IMO.

I disagree that it is absurd. Their goals are similar if not identical.

I do not believe the US should be morally neutral, which is what you people (liberals/Paleocons/libertarians) seem to want.

Even if it were not immoral, it would be bad policy where our own long-term defense is concerned.

It can under certain circumstances. Not all nations are under the control of their own populations. It is possible (if not likely) that the masses would be willing to make peace even if the oppressors in control of them do NOT want peace. (Case in point: The Soviet Union, North Korea, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan)

In that situation, the oppressive government must be removed before peace is even possible. Often the masses lack the ability to remove the oppressive government themselves.

I cant think of any areas they agree with neo-cons on foreign policy. Libertarians are isolationists. Their goals with regards to foreign policy are parallel to the current goals of most liberals.

The only real difference between liberals and libertarians (at least on this issue) is that libertarians arent hypocrites.

Really. Would a few paragraph breaks kill you?

Heh heh. Owned.

Who gives a crap about what Irving Kristol thinks? The only one who thinks that he represents modern neo-cons is you.

I doubt the vast majority of neo-cons (including all the people in your rather broad definition of the term) even knew who he was before you started posting about him.

His views are not parallel to those of modern neo-cons on most issues. Thuh end.

Our democracy has not declined one fraction of a millimeter. That is a fabrication of the left. Our democratic culture has only increased since our founding.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

I support neutrality in action, not in attitude. I consider intervention counterproductive and thus ultimately immoral. I have my personal sympathies about foreign conflicts, but I don't allow them to affect the policies I would implement were I in charge of American foreign policy.

That is pouring gasoline on a fire. That destabilizes regions of the world, allowing for other dictators and extremists to seize power. Most totalitarian regimes, by their nature, are doomed to collapse on their own.

That is incorrect. Liberals are internationalists. They want to work through the United Nations, subsidize other nations with the Kyoto Protocol and so forth. Libertarians oppose anything that goes against American interests. It happens that libertarians and hawks don't agree on what is in America's interests.

He is only the founder of neoconservatism. How presumptious of me! Moreover, that is from the Weekly Standard (run by Bill Kristol), which JP5 uses again and again as a source and has strongly praised.

Those are your founder's words, not mine. What most impressed me about that article, by the way, was Kristol's cynical support of manipulating the people with deficit spending, liberal rhetoric and so forth. At least, unlike many GOP politicians, he is being honest about his aims.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)