It's not isolationism

I caught Mark Steyn on the radio filling in for Rush Limbaugh. I like Steyn, just as I like a lot of limited government conservatives, but Steyn made a side comment regarding Ron Paul and called Paul an isolationist. It's common for modern conservatives to disagee with the libertarian idea of non-interventionism regarding foreign affairs, but it's not a natural disagreement, because at one time non-interventionism was a conservative principle (see Russell Kirk). Neo-conservatives like Irving Kristol eventually led conservatives as a whole away from non-interventionism, and now it's become a main conservative position to promote foreign intervention. The Old Right unequivocably supported non-intervention and fought to keep us out of WWII.

Conservatives were once sceptical about Grand American Adventures overseas and warned against unilateral power shifting to the President -- conservatives didn't want a strong dictator sending the US military on imperialist or world-changing missions. Perhaps some on the Right did fall under the category of isolationists, but non-interventionism is not the same as isolationism. You can oppose foreign military intervention and propote free trade, cultural exchange, immigration, technological cooperation and all kinds of non-military openness and cooperation with foreign nations. Our Founders, in principle, were solidly against foreign entanglements, because most had seen what damage to Britain and by Britain such entanglements had caused. It took the US a long time to respond militarily to Arab attacks on foreign trade by sea routes.

America would be much better off if we still maintained that same caution and scepticism -- see Libya and Uganda as recent examples of why scepticism and caution will be helpful.

Morning Joe 10/19/2011 -- Contextuality

If you're looking for up to minute reporting on the ups and downs of the Republican Presidential Primary and have little interest in other current news items, then Morning Joe's your huckleberry. However, if you are picky and require contextuality, then I suggest looking further than Morning Joe coverage. Morning after morning, Scarborough and his guests have misrepresented Herman Cain's positions, and they've fluffed Romney's pillow. I promise I won't go into a flurry of mixed metaphors. Romney has had a soft pillow, so far. Romney is the choice of the moderates. Although Scarborough insists he, Scarborough, is a "small" government conservative, it holds as much weight as my insistence that I look like Brad Pitt. But, then I don't understand politics, obviously.

Tina Brown was on this morning and she forced the other guests to admit that Cain has a great success story and deserves more than high school snark and ridicule. I watched S. E. Cupp's interview of Herman Cain yesterday, and Cain is a smart, good man who would do a good job in any position he's in, including president, even with a steep learning curve. Cain would do a better job than Obama has done. Having said that, I disagree with Cain on foreign intervention, and this to me is one of the most important issues facing our nation, and his statement that he will rely on the generals for guidance is not good enough, because generals will favor war. The military/industrial complex has become so big and powerful, it'll require an outsider coming in and auditing the situation and making radical changes.

I haven't seen a complete economic analysis of the 9-9-9 plan, but I know enough about it to know that Morning Joe hosts and guests have presented it out of context. As Bastiat revealed a long time ago, what you can't see in economics is sometimes more important than what you can see, so getting rid of hidden taxes, and the economic growth that would cause, changes the calculations of such a plan. Contextuality is critical when judging such an overhaul of the tax code.

So, John Meacham, Michael Steele, Sam Stein and a few other regulars all had fun ripping into the Republican debate, but these debates are meaningless. In the meanwhile, media minimizes Solyndra, Uganda, Libya, Fast and Furious, the European debt crisis, and, as Tom Colburn, who was on the show, reminded Scarborough, America's debt crisis as it relates to Medicare and SS, and what Colburn didn't mention, Medicaid. The Republican primary is a side story compared to the urgent issues facing America and the world, but most of the first two hours on Morning Joe, again, were focused on Republicans. There has to be a reason for this -- it can't be a huge demand from the public for such daily coverage.

What to make of Mark Steyn's article

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276803/let-s-roll-over-mark-steyn

I understand the sentiment -- remembrance of 9/11 shouldn't turn into national cultural diversity lessons, and we shouldn't forget the real mean and women involved in the real and deadly attack. And we shouldn't forget that there are terroists willing to kill innocent people to promote their bigoted ideology.

America has plenty of flaws to deal with, but in comparison to radical Islamists we certainly have no reasons to buckle in humility and grovel in moral relativism. We do need to deal with our flaws, however, and foreign intervention is a major flaw we can no longer afford to ignore. In some respects, when we intervened in the Iraq/Iran War, and when we intervened in the Russia/Afghanistan War, we created casues which led to effects. Throughout our history, from WWI and post WWI to WWII and post WWII, to Vietnam to all the other interventions and Super Power nation-arranging and Dictator-picking we've created many unintended consequences.

So, a part of 9/11 remembrance, after we've acknowledged the heroes who risked their lives dealing with the attack and the victims who lost life for no sane reason, we should also take the time to strengthen our resolve to demand that America tend to the business of America and leave other countries to deal with their business. If attacked, or if we uncover a planned attack, we should act with swift and great force, but let's not turn 9/11 into perpetual military hyper-vigilance which keeps us bogged down in political wars in the mideast. Our military deserves better management. Let's not roll over, but rather roll on home and build a superior defense.

Government fraud, waste and abuse

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-dumbest-budget-plan-yet/#utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Cato-at-liberty+%28Cato+at+Liberty%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

I usually agree with CATO articles, and I understand DeHaven's point that attempting to get rid of fraud waste and abuse in government will not get us to a balanced budget, if all you're talking about is efficiency measures within government programs and departments, but fraud, waste and abuse are much broader problems than simple inefficiency in government work. The real issue is whole departments which are a waste of tax payer money, and another waste and abuse problem is military spending and foreign intervention. If you go through government and truly tackle fraud, waste and abuse you'll find it's about more than better systems to do the work that government shouldn't be doing to start with -- it's about large portions of government being eliminated.

Greenwald on "Arab Transition"

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/08/21/mideast/index.html

Greenwald has a few things right -- in essence our interventions in the miseast have been hypocritical and ill-advised. Let's chalk it up to the futile nature of foreign intervention and simply stop doing it. We aren't good at picking winners or realpoliticks, plus we don't understand the nuances of the mideast. Leave it alone -- we have plenty to deal with at home.