Hunkered Between Santorum and Paul Lies Peace Through Total War
An absolutely brilliant article that highlights why the Republican primary choices are such p-poor choices (but still better than Obama). As far as it goes it only covers the extreme differences between Sanatorium and Paul but it’s still enlightening. Extreme social statism and endless wars vs freedom at home (for now) while naively bending over with our pants down and trusting that no one will take advantage because we’re so sure that everyone shares our values.
While it doesn’t directly address the other two neocons – Romney is too timid and squishy to make the choices necessary to protect personal freedom and reduce government, and he lacks the stomach for hard hit’em-back defense choices. Meanwhile Gingrich can’t figure out from minute to minute if he’s a Santorumite social totalitarian channeling a lite version of Barack Obama’s big government statism, or an Obamaite big government statist channeling Santorum’s social totalitarianism, or a marriage of the two in drag as Ronald Reagan.
I agree wholeheartedly with the author that the answer is a Ron Paul domestic freedom agenda with a far less naive but still completely non-interventionist foreign policy. The key is both understanding that not everyone shares our values and backing our non-interventionist policy with a total war doctrine. In other words we won’t mess with you or your country, or your international trade, or your internal affairs – we’ll leave you alone. But if you attack us or fund or grant asylum to those that do us violence we will utterly and completely destroy you and there will be no !@#$% rules of engagement, no nation building and no endless peacekeeping – you and everyone you know will just be dead and we’ll be back home in time for supper.
