First, Kagan has vigorously denied he is a Neo-Conservative. Second, it must be remembered that Neo-Conservatives, at least the earlier generation, where communists/socialists/liberals that were mugged by reality and often red diaper babies. In short, they were those that bought into the Marxian analysis of history, but realized modern socialism and communism as totalitarianism that was not about freeing the individual from artificial burdens, were not the answer. The distinction between Clinton and Rand is stark at first blush, but not as much as some have made out - assuming they are the nominees and I think that small odds. Bear in mind that Paul, as a Libertarian, really is a social liberal - government should not dictate or restrict human action. Clintons husband was also a rhetorically something of a hawk on foreign policy, but in practice would not risk American lives. Nothing about Hillary suggests she thinks differently. This puts her closer to Paul than we think. Paul is likely to base policy on interests. Following Bush and Obama would Hillary really go beyond this? Events have a way of getting in the way, but one should be cautious in pigeon-holing.
Posted on: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 22:39:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015