Tuesday, November 20th, 2007...22:22
Isolacionismo, by Ron Paul
Too Close to Kooky, por Mona Charen (recomendo o artigo na íntegra):
Ron Paul is historically challenged. He argues that by embracing isolationism, he fits within a Republican tradition stretching back to Eisenhower “who stopped the Korean War” and including Nixon “who stopped the war in Vietnam.” Let’s recap. Eisenhower threatened to use nuclear weapons against China. It was the Eisenhower administration that had a hand in toppling Iran’s Mohammad Mossedegh (an intervention that Paul has elsewhere cited as causing the U.S. grief 25 years later when the Islamists took power). Eisenhower also intervened in Guatemala, Cuba (planning for the Bay of Pigs began during his tenure) and Lebanon.
Nixon, an isolationist? Most observers, whatever they may make of detente with the USSR and the opening to China, agree that Nixon was an emphatic internationalist. For the record, he intervened in many countries including Chili, Peru and Cambodia. And he saved Israel by resupplying her during the Yom Kippur war. Neither his successes nor failures grew out of a Paulesque policy of “minding our own business.”
5 Comments
November 21st, 2007 at 0:12
Fraquinho. Bastante mais competente o esforço do Goldberg.
November 21st, 2007 at 9:54
É uma anedota, falar de “isolacionismo” relativamente a qualquer administração americana do século 20.
Estou a ver com Ron Paul é fraco em história do seu próprio país.
November 21st, 2007 at 16:22
” He argues that by embracing isolationism”
ele nega ser isolacionista.
Quanto ao isolacionismo americano, ele sempre existiu. Os sábios de hoje é que se esqueceram disso, porque elevaram Roosevetl e Wilson à categoria de referências conservadoras.
November 21st, 2007 at 16:32
Este texto é de algo ignorante para algo ignorantes sobre o assunto.
Ron Paul conserva a sanidade mental e a sabedoria verdadeira da “Old Right”.
Para a verdadeira história sobre o assunto ler:
http://www.mises.org/store/product1.aspx?Product_ID=434
Betrayal of the American Right, The Description
Murray N. Rothbard
Quanto ao internacionalismo americano, a minha resposta standard:
a)
WWI: causou as quedas das monarquias para serem substituidas pelo comunismo e fascismo e nazismo
WWII: vitória total de Estaline
b) Morreram 150 ooo americanos na WWII na europa e a meses do fim da guerra, e menos 40% de ingleses do qeu na WWI.
Russos: 15 milhões.
Conclusão. nao só estes ganharam como mereceram ganhar.
November 21st, 2007 at 19:28
Uma resposta a esse artigo:
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/028347.php
A respeito dessa passagem:
Charen continues:
—————
Ron Paul is historically challenged. He argues that by embracing isolationism, he fits within a Republican tradition stretching back to Eisenhower “who stopped the Korean War” and including Nixon “who stopped the war in Vietnam.” Let’s recap. Eisenhower threatened to use nuclear weapons against China. It was the Eisenhower administration that had a hand in toppling Iran’s Mohammad Mossedegh (an intervention that Paul has elsewhere cited as causing the U.S. grief 25 years later when the Islamists took power). Eisenhower also intervened in Guatemala, Cuba (planning for the Bay of Pigs began during his tenure) and Lebanon.
Nixon, an isolationist? Most observers, whatever they may make of detente with the USSR and the opening to China, agree that Nixon was an emphatic internationalist. For the record, he intervened in many countries including Chili, Peru and Cambodia. And he saved Israel by resupplying her during the Yom Kippur war. Neither his successes nor failures grew out of a Paulesque policy of “minding our own business.”
—————————-
I don’t know where Charen got those quotes. I’d like to see the specific speech where Paul credits either Nixon or Eisenhower for their isolationism. I spoke with his campaign today (Charen, incidentally, did not contact the campaign before writing her column. She might have checked with Paul’s staff before attributing positions to him instead of relying on quotes that lack context. )
Paul has said has said no such thing about the actual foreign policies of the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations.
What Paul has said is that Eisenhower and Nixon campaigned on ending the wars in Korea and Vietnam, respectively. And both were elected by comfortable margins. Paul’s point is that the Republican Party has a tradition of peace and nonintervention. That is, Republican voters. That is, candidates espousing a peace policy on the campaign trail have not alienated their base support with those positions, and in fact have gone on to win election by wide margins. The context for Paul’s remarks on Nixon and Eisenhower make this clear. He usually invokes the two when someone asks how an anti-war candidate could possibly expect to win the nomination in a pro-war party. Paul responds that Republicans have won in the past with anti-war platforms.
That Nixon and Eisenhower disappointed once in office is beside the point. Paul wasn’t citing them as examples of presidents who carried out an isolationist foreign policy. He was citing them as presidential candidates who won with promises to end intractable wars.
(o que eu acho: discutir qual a posição “tradicional” dos Republicanos ou Democratas sobre qualquer assunto é perda de tempo; excluindo talvez a imigração - Democratas a favor, Republicanos contra - os dois partidos já trocaram várias vezes de posição em vários assuntos - comércio livre, direitos dos estados, intervenção no estrangeiro, direitos dos negros, etc., etc. - nos últimos 150 anos, logo qualquer posição pode ser apresentada como a “tradicional”)
Leave a Reply