Comments on: Ultimately, New Consensus Is More Of The Same http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/11/26/ultimately-new-consensus-is-more-of-the-same/ n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:39:05 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 By: Grumpy Old Man http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/11/26/ultimately-new-consensus-is-more-of-the-same/comment-page-1/#comment-19846 Grumpy Old Man Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:10:06 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=7802#comment-19846 Perhaps we should appropriate the word "isolationist" the way the minions of Sodom have appropriated the word "queer." Yep, I'm a neo-isolationist. I want to engage the world only on rational, non-imperial terms. Perhaps we should appropriate the word “isolationist” the way the minions of Sodom have appropriated the word “queer.”

Yep, I’m a neo-isolationist. I want to engage the world only on rational, non-imperial terms.

]]> By: abuhatem http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/11/26/ultimately-new-consensus-is-more-of-the-same/comment-page-1/#comment-19747 abuhatem Thu, 27 Nov 2008 07:08:59 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=7802#comment-19747 Yes. For a summary of one argument of neo-isolationism or disengagement or noninterventionism or whatever you want to call it in academic journals see the work of Christopher Layne, Robert Pape, John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, Robert J. Art, and Barry Posen on "offshore balancing." Of course, none of the aforementioned writers are ideological, and hence none meet the strict conservative/libertarian definition of a noninterventionist, yet they all bear in mind one major similarity - calling for a more realist foreign policy based in the national interest, and withdrawing our military from around the world where it is unnecessary. Yet they do so on utilitarian or efficiency reasons rather than moral or religious reasons as we do. Goldenberg has no excuse not to mention any of the aforementioned writers as they basically are now the realist "consensus" in academia, even though they might not be in the policy world. Yes. For a summary of one argument of neo-isolationism or disengagement or noninterventionism or whatever you want to call it in academic journals see the work of Christopher Layne, Robert Pape, John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, Robert J. Art, and Barry Posen on “offshore balancing.”

Of course, none of the aforementioned writers are ideological, and hence none meet the strict conservative/libertarian definition of a noninterventionist, yet they all bear in mind one major similarity – calling for a more realist foreign policy based in the national interest, and withdrawing our military from around the world where it is unnecessary. Yet they do so on utilitarian or efficiency reasons rather than moral or religious reasons as we do.

Goldenberg has no excuse not to mention any of the aforementioned writers as they basically are now the realist “consensus” in academia, even though they might not be in the policy world.

]]>