Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 64

Thread: Ron Paul to Launch Foreign Policy Institute.....

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Ron Paul to Launch Foreign Policy Institute.....

    But now after keeping relatively quiet (fashioning his own home school curriculum scheduled for release next fall), hes gearing up for another major announcement: the unveiling of his nonpartisan think tank.



    Former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) is launching a foreign policy institute focused on undercutting U.S. interventionism.

    "The neo-conservative era is dead," proclaims the media advisory on his Facebook page announcing the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

    "The ill-advised policies pushed by the neo-cons have everywhere led to chaos and destruction, and to a hatred of the United States and its people. Multi-trillion dollar wars have not made the world a safer place; they have only bankrupted our economic future. The Ron Paul Institute will provide the tools and the education to chart a new course with the understanding that only through a peaceful foreign policy can we hope for a prosperous tomorrow."

    The group promises to focus on coalition-building across party lines and creating opportunities for students to engage on the topic.

    The iconoclastic former congressman and presidential candidate has long been a thorn in the side of the GOP on foreign policy issues, arguing for a "golden rule" foreign policy that takes a hands-off approach to global politics. That approach sharply contrasts with Republican orthodoxy from the last 30 years, though it's growing in popularity his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), shares many of his foreign policy views and is viewed as a much more serious presidential contender than Paul ever was.

    The ceremony inaugurating the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity will occur on Wednesday afternoon in Washington, D.C.....snip~

    Ron Paul to Launch Foreign Policy Institute - Daniel Doherty

    Is this good or bad for Republicans? Will Paul now go after Neo-Cons full tilt.....knowing his son shares many of his views over Foreign Policy, and is a Strong Contender to run for the Presidency. How do you think this will have impact? Or even No Impact. One thing I did notice Paul is breaking ground in Washington DC this Wed. As to the time of the piece by TownHall and Bing News.....there was nothing showing with the MSMedia.

  2. #2
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    09-30-17 @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    Re: Ron Paul to Launch Foreign Policy Institute.....

    Ron Paul's "Foreign Policy Institute? Seems odd to create an institute for something that doesn't exist.

    Ron Paul's "No Foreign Policy Institute" would be named more aptly.
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Ron Paul to Launch Foreign Policy Institute.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Gardener View Post
    Ron Paul's "Foreign Policy Institute? Seems odd to create an institute for something that doesn't exist.

    Ron Paul's "No Foreign Policy Institute" would be named more aptly.
    Think he will be able to affect the GOP and the Neo-Cons.....he also has the Facebook site in going after the Neo's.

  4. #4
    Sage
    Geoist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,916

    Re: Ron Paul to Launch Foreign Policy Institute.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Gardener View Post
    Ron Paul's "Foreign Policy Institute? Seems odd to create an institute for something that doesn't exist.

    Ron Paul's "No Foreign Policy Institute" would be named more aptly.
    He is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. He believes in diplomacy, trade, and defensive wars.

    How many times must this myth be rebutted?
    "Men did not make the earth ... it is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." -- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    11-29-16 @ 07:28 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,441

    Re: Ron Paul to Launch Foreign Policy Institute.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Gardener View Post
    Ron Paul's "Foreign Policy Institute? Seems odd to create an institute for something that doesn't exist.

    Ron Paul's "No Foreign Policy Institute" would be named more aptly.
    Especially one claiming to be 'non-partisan'. That's just hilarious hubris.

    this is just another business venture, designed to funnel money into his and his family's pockets. Politics is just a marketing business, and generates massive cash flows for very little real and productive work. Now that he's 'retired' from the pork barreling business, he's got the time to devote to getting paid much larger sums for telling ideologues what they want to hear and dreaming up semantic gibberish amoral sociopaths can use to create a fictional veneer of 'legitimacy' for what is merely a 'branding' business; he's just as much a con artist now as he ever was.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    11-29-16 @ 07:28 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,441

    Re: Ron Paul to Launch Foreign Policy Institute.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoist View Post
    He is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. He believes in diplomacy, trade, and defensive wars.
    How many times must this myth be rebutted?

    He believes in the Ron Paul brand name, and his own bank account. Media consultants and political campaign managers and corporations pay big bucks for propaganda. Cato is doing great. Hacks can get paid hundreds of thousands for merely writing an essay on why laid off citizens of the U.S. should be required to starve to death, as they can easily be replaced later by illegal aliens when the next 'up turn in the economy's business cycles' come around, for instance. Let 'The Market' take care of itself and stuff.
    Last edited by Oberon; 04-15-13 at 10:30 AM.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Ron Paul to Launch Foreign Policy Institute.....

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Think he will be able to affect the GOP and the Neo-Cons.....he also has the Facebook site in going after the Neo's.
    They have never given dumb old ron a second glance before,so why should they start listening to him now? The only thing this will do is to let him suck some more money out of his disciples. Good for him following in the footsteps of ham rove.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Ron Paul to Launch Foreign Policy Institute.....

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    They have never given dumb old ron a second glance before,so why should they start listening to him now? The only thing this will do is to let him suck some more money out of his disciples. Good for him following in the footsteps of ham rove.
    Because before he was in the GOP and running for the Presidency. Now there is nothing to prevent him from saying what he wants about them. Which getting out there and attacking their policies while elections are going to, will do what?
    Last edited by MMC; 04-15-13 at 12:24 PM.

  9. #9
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Ron Paul to Launch Foreign Policy Institute.....

    IMO, the events of the 2000s have vividly illustrated the limits of the neoconservative foreign policy school. Specifically, the underlying assumptions that all societies crave liberal democratic governance and that force could be used to expand the sphere of democratic governance from ousting the illiberal regimes have not played out. First, in some of the fractured societies (usually along ethnic, religious, or tribal lines), other imperatives have taken precedence over liberal democratic rule. In Afghanistan, an illiberal regime focused largely on maintaining Pashtun dominance has been evolving and a significant share of the population beyond the ousted Taliban question its legitimacy. Similarly, in Iraq an illiberal regime focused on asserting Shia dominance, sometimes at the expense of minority groups including the Sunnis and Kurds, is in place. Despite considerable military, financial, and technical commitments, both states continue to experience instability or worse. Similarly, the ousting of the Gadhafi dictatorship has not led to a stable or liberal democratic society, much less one that is friendly to U.S. interests. The intentions embraced by the neoconservatives are not bad, but the school runs aground when it comes to underestimating the role history, context, and structure play in shaping various societies.

    The other side, namely that foreign policy is largely irrelevant, is even more misplaced. Unlike the neoconservative side that misses out only on account of limits not the recognition of the need for a coherent foreign policy, the notion that essentially no foreign policy is required in an age when the U.S. has large and complex overseas interests is not viable. Abdication, non-interventionism, or neo-isolationism has already been tried. Prior to World War II the U.S. took an largely indifferent approach as events were leading to the war. Other countries e.g., Belgium embraced neutrality early on. Both approaches proved disastrous failures. The U.S. ultimately found itself embroiled in the war. Belgium found itself under German rule.

    In effect, there are three schools that are viable:

    1. Liberal internationalism: The problem is that it relies too heavily on international institutions when international organization (both the League of Nations and UN) have proved much less effective than imagined by their founders, as nations gravitate toward their own interests and the area of commonality of interests is smaller than liberal internationalists assume. It also places too little focus on the role power plays. A more restrained assessment of the commonality of national interests and greater respect for the importance of power could allow it to become more effective. Its emphasis on diplomacy is an important component in a world in which there is no preeminent power (even as the U.S. is the world's foremost power, it is not a preeminent power that can safely ignore all other nations' interests) and era of limited fiscal resources.

    2. Realism: The problem is that it relies too little on idealism and idealism plays some role in the U.S., even as its emphasis on the role of the balance of power in promoting stability and the need to ground a nation's foreign policy in its interests are on the mark. However, pragmatic realism that takes into consideration a dose of idealism probably offers the most balanced approach.

    3. Neoconservatism: The problem is that it relies on fairly rosy assumptions e.g., the removal of illiberal regimes would quickly lead to democratic governance; It probably can be refined to place greater emphasis on non-military tools for expanding the democratic sphere and more tempered expectations as to when opportunties for expanding democratic governance are available.

    FWIW, I believe the pragmatic realist approach is probably the best of the three. The absence of a coherent foreign policy is the worst of the three as it ignores the nation's overseas interests and allies.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    11-29-16 @ 07:28 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,441

    Re: Ron Paul to Launch Foreign Policy Institute.....

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    IMO, the events of the 2000s have vividly illustrated the limits of the neoconservative foreign policy school. Specifically, the underlying assumptions that all societies crave liberal democratic governance and that force could be used to expand the sphere of democratic governance from ousting the illiberal regimes have not played out. First, in some of the fractured societies (usually along ethnic, religious, or tribal lines), other imperatives have taken precedence over liberal democratic rule. In Afghanistan, an illiberal regime focused largely on maintaining Pashtun dominance has been evolving and a significant share of the population beyond the ousted Taliban question its legitimacy. Similarly, in Iraq an illiberal regime focused on asserting Shia dominance, sometimes at the expense of minority groups including the Sunnis and Kurds, is in place. Despite considerable military, financial, and technical commitments, both states continue to experience instability or worse. Similarly, the ousting of the Gadhafi dictatorship has not led to a stable or liberal democratic society, much less one that is friendly to U.S. interests. The intentions embraced by the neoconservatives are not bad, but the school runs aground when it comes to underestimating the role history, context, and structure play in shaping various societies.

    The other side, namely that foreign policy is largely irrelevant, is even more misplaced. Unlike the neoconservative side that misses out only on account of limits not the recognition of the need for a coherent foreign policy, the notion that essentially no foreign policy is required in an age when the U.S. has large and complex overseas interests is not viable. Abdication, non-interventionism, or neo-isolationism has already been tried. Prior to World War II the U.S. took an largely indifferent approach as events were leading to the war. Other countries e.g., Belgium embraced neutrality early on. Both approaches proved disastrous failures. The U.S. ultimately found itself embroiled in the war. Belgium found itself under German rule.

    In effect, there are three schools that are viable:

    1. Liberal internationalism: The problem is that it relies too heavily on international institutions when international organization (both the League of Nations and UN) have proved much less effective than imagined by their founders, as nations gravitate toward their own interests and the area of commonality of interests is smaller than liberal internationalists assume. It also places too little focus on the role power plays. A more restrained assessment of the commonality of national interests and greater respect for the importance of power could allow it to become more effective. Its emphasis on diplomacy is an important component in a world in which there is no preeminent power (even as the U.S. is the world's foremost power, it is not a preeminent power that can safely ignore all other nations' interests) and era of limited fiscal resources.

    2. Realism: The problem is that it relies too little on idealism and idealism plays some role in the U.S., even as its emphasis on the role of the balance of power in promoting stability and the need to ground a nation's foreign policy in its interests are on the mark. However, pragmatic realism that takes into consideration a dose of idealism probably offers the most balanced approach.

    3. Neoconservatism: The problem is that it relies on fairly rosy assumptions e.g., the removal of illiberal regimes would quickly lead to democratic governance; It probably can be refined to place greater emphasis on non-military tools for expanding the democratic sphere and more tempered expectations as to when opportunties for expanding democratic governance are available.

    FWIW, I believe the pragmatic realist approach is probably the best of the three. The absence of a coherent foreign policy is the worst of the three as it ignores the nation's overseas interests and allies.
    Very good post on the generalities, and no particular disagreements other than re Iraq and Afghanistan, but not enough to warrant derailing the thread. Many times all the options are bad, and even really, really bad, but decisions have to be made and acted on, regardless.

    I'll add that it's usually the least politically popular options that are the best, which is why few of the best options are ever even considered by most Presidents.
    Last edited by Oberon; 04-15-13 at 01:13 PM.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •