Some conservative Republicans are struggling to expel the neoconservatives. That’s the thrust of this post by Merrill Matthews about conservative foreign policy at Forbes that singles out aid to Israel. The post reminds me of why it is important that American conservatives form part of the political coalition for Palestinian freedom. (And by the way, it’s no coincidence that this beautiful book on Palestinian refugees, from 1957, was published by rightwing publisher Regnery.) Excerpt:
former Reagan White House political director Jeffrey Lord, writing in the American Spectator, defends neo-conservative foreign policy, which he defines as, “The … use of American economic and military strength to topple a foreign enemy in favor of a liberal democracy.” The author nowhere explains what a conservative vision is or should be.
But there are a lot of conservatives—me included—who think U.S. interventionism should be our last resort, not our first. They believe the U.S. should attempt to avoid what Thomas Jefferson called “entangling alliances” unless there is a compelling reason to get involved. That’s not isolationism; you might call it “reluctant engagement.” If conservatives believe that government should have a limited and clearly defined role in the lives of its citizens, why shouldn’t that principle apply to our government’s involvement in other nations?
The aggressive interventionists have recently taken to attacking the reluctant engagers, even calling Ron Paul—one of the most reluctant—a “neo-liberal.” That claim is based on their erroneous belief that conservatives historically have been interventionists while liberals were isolationists.
Dipping a toe in forbidden waters (what? stopping aid to Israel? what next?).