Is it accurate to say Bush and Gingrich are Wilsonians (democratic peace theorists) and that Romney and Reagan are American nationalists (Jacksonians in foreign policy) who (irrationally) believe that America needs (overly) heavy national defense? I do, because Bush and Gingrich believe the U.S. govt was called upon to bomb the hell out of people to make the world safe for democracy.
Gingrich is clearly a Wilsonian because he (like Wilson) is a cosmopolitan internationalist (rather than a Jacksonian nationalist) and he (also like Wilson) believes the U.S. Federal Constitution to be fundamentally flawed (although for different reasons than libertarians do).
The first question brings a second question... what do you think Obama is? I think it's hard to say what Obama is. I'm thinking he's just a puppet... and if he is, then he's actually being less irrational for not believing the U.S. govt needs to conquer for its subjects to survive and for not believing in the totally debunked democratic peace theory. On the other hand, I could be ignoring the fact Obama could simply be a blend of Jacksonian and Wilsonian foreign policies or that he could be a Hamiltonian.
If America is to survive, then we need to go to the one true American Founding foreign policy (Jeffersonian)... peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations and no peacetime governmental alliances binding America(i.e., the majority of Americans)... nothing perverts America more than an interventionist foreign policy. America will not survive if it does not reinstate the Jeffersonian doctrine of American noninterventionism. For too long, we've had the economic policy of Clay, Hamilton, and Lincoln (totally antithetical to Jacksonian economics), mixed with centralization of power (instead of the one true American Founding tradition of confederalism) and a foreign policy both of which are totally antithetical to what Jefferson wanted for America.
All of that said, we should lead by setting a good example of free, sovereign, and independent States at home rather than by setting a bad example through force of gun control... I couldn't resist paraphrasing Dr. Paul.
Gingrich is clearly a Wilsonian because he (like Wilson) is a cosmopolitan internationalist (rather than a Jacksonian nationalist) and he (also like Wilson) believes the U.S. Federal Constitution to be fundamentally flawed (although for different reasons than libertarians do).
The first question brings a second question... what do you think Obama is? I think it's hard to say what Obama is. I'm thinking he's just a puppet... and if he is, then he's actually being less irrational for not believing the U.S. govt needs to conquer for its subjects to survive and for not believing in the totally debunked democratic peace theory. On the other hand, I could be ignoring the fact Obama could simply be a blend of Jacksonian and Wilsonian foreign policies or that he could be a Hamiltonian.
If America is to survive, then we need to go to the one true American Founding foreign policy (Jeffersonian)... peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations and no peacetime governmental alliances binding America(i.e., the majority of Americans)... nothing perverts America more than an interventionist foreign policy. America will not survive if it does not reinstate the Jeffersonian doctrine of American noninterventionism. For too long, we've had the economic policy of Clay, Hamilton, and Lincoln (totally antithetical to Jacksonian economics), mixed with centralization of power (instead of the one true American Founding tradition of confederalism) and a foreign policy both of which are totally antithetical to what Jefferson wanted for America.
All of that said, we should lead by setting a good example of free, sovereign, and independent States at home rather than by setting a bad example through force of gun control... I couldn't resist paraphrasing Dr. Paul.
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter