You say conservatives run the GOP? Think again. At least that’s the case made in this very interesting post by Fabio Rojas over at orgtheory (via Will Wilkinson): …[I]t is a mistake to view the modern GOP as the party run by free marketers …

That said, it always good to separate the two motivations for intervention and consider them separately: are we doing this because it is good for us, or on moral grounds to promote justice and punish bad guys? The Nixonite view seems pretty quick to jumnp to the answer “both,” and then switch back and forth between the two during debate. In fairness, this is largely a response to Democrats switching from one to the other whenever cornered, but we should strive to keep that distinction clear before the public at all times.

That said, it always good to separate the two motivations for intervention and consider them separately: are we doing this because it is good for us, or on moral grounds to promote justice and punish bad guys? The Nixonite view seems pretty quick to jumnp to the answer “both,” and then switch back and forth between the two during debate. In fairness, this is largely a response to Democrats switching from one to the other whenever cornered, but we should strive to keep that distinction clear before the public at all times.

Sure, but it helps if the “national security” measures a party is promoting actually promote national security, and do so effectively enough to make the costs and other trade-offs worthwhile.

I'm not sure who thinks Goldwater was the guiding light of the GOP. His campaign was important to the GOP activist tradition, but there's a pretty big distinction between the campaign and the man himself.

Not only has it left Cheney more popular, as Wilkinson notes, but has also fractured some in the Democratic caucus. The whole episode had Pelosi running to China for cover and gave the GOP some campaign fodder for the 2010 midterms.

Is the complaint supposed to be that the national security wing always gets more of what it wants because they really control inner workings of the Republican party? Fabio observes that the national security guys always seem to get the national security jobs when the Republicans are in power. That's neither a stunning insight nor evidence that the national security guys are really running the show. He also observes that the national security guys do a pretty good job of getting what they want even when the party is out of power. But that seems like pretty good evidence that they don't even need control of the party. Whatever the source of their mojo is, it can't be control of the Republican party if it still works when the party is on the outs.

A much more plausible explanation for the relative success of the national security wing is that national security is a much easier sell than limited government at election time. Rather than blame the national security guys who have done a good job of persuading the public that national security always matters, you ought to blame the limited government guys who have done such a piss poor job of explaining why limited government always matters.

No national sympathy for the Marines - yet the late-term baby killer is mourned and lamented.
18th Century coiffure. Crazy, but good habitat for lice.
10 common misconceptions about blogs. h/t, Norm
Britain on the Brink.
Chavez: "Com…

I think the US can be realistic about its enemies and still uphold a non-interventionist policy — with a strong national defense and the willingness to use it when necessary. Defensivism seems the best policy — and this might just lessen the number of our enemies.

So far as enemies, when we have so many within our own borders the point is sort of moot… that's what drove us over to China to begin with! We honkies have an entire history of driving each other nuts and then running to distant lands to introduce more conflict into the picture.

You can accuse people of making up enemies, but when they are actually real and do threaten Americans and American interests then your argument is weakened.

That is one of the biggest problems with libertarians. Even if the US pulled back from most of the world militarily (and I want it to start in Europe and Korea for sure), there are still going to be enemies.