There are a great many self-ascribing 'conservatives' who preach small government yet support one of the main contributors to the expansion of the US government: interventionist foreign policy.
Somehow, those who preach balanced budgets and sane spending will balk at the notion of cutting a cent from the military budget. The truth is that a large military and perpetual war provides the best incentive for the expansion of the state. Conservatives rightly criticise massive domestic spending, as it adds needless bureaucracy, more often than not causes no effect, or the opposite effect of what was intended and promotes economic inefficiency. This does not change as soon as we're talking about foreign policy.
A great deal of the budget is spent on the military-industrial-complex bureaucracy, dealing with lobbyists, and as these special interests are made dependent, they will always be looking for excuses to sell weapons. This is one contributing factor to war - our men and women sent out there to die. Militarism begets militarism, and the bigger the military gets, the greater the need to expand in order to protect their gains.
Military expansion has been exponential since the end of the Second World War, yet it cannot be said that the United States has made any significant progress in promoting peace across the globe. In fact, the 20th century was the bloodiest in history. The illusion is that the middle-east 'got bad' and turned against the west, when in fact the instability there is a result of the almost constant intervention and slaughter there in the last century. Militarism produces 'blowback' in the form of resentment and galvanisation, and again, funds are needed to deal with it. The 'terrorist threat' that arises from this is also an excuse for expansion of the state at home in order to prevent it.
It's clear that a large military shores up the state's power, and creates an environment for expansion. This is an appeal to real small government conservatives to be consistent and reject the neocon agenda of perpetual war.
Is it not also maybe a good idea to be able to defend yourself?
Does everything this nation does have an ulterior motive?
Do you not think spending two and a half times more than the next nine biggest armed forces in the world combined just to defend yourselves is just a little bit over kill?
And that's defending a country that is still practically unreachable by most other countries.
Nobody is suggesting the abolishment of self-defence. There is room for sensible defence without gallivanting around the world blowing up countries left, right and centre. Don't act like it's one or the other.
Another area liberals and libertarians can agree! Stop the police state and the imperialist wars overseas. I like to ask people, in addition to assassinating American citizens it deemed "terrorists," what if Germany, or Britian, or Australia were constantly involving itself in the internal affairs of the United States? You would never know when that drone flying over is going to launch the next missile of death.
Americans, rightfully so, would demand these countries leave immediately and stop meddling in what should be our national autonomous decisions. If these actions had continued for years, and one of these countries also had control of our natural resources, do you think the reaction would be positive, and the powerful in these countries would ignorantly wonder, "why do they hate us?" Clearly not.
It only shows the duplicity, the hypocrisy of our politicians. I have to reckon that one raised my curiosity in his authenticity and it is Laurent Louis, a member of the Belgium parliament, who denounced publicly neocolonialism and refused to participate by voting against the majority. How many of them will claim their political divergence and stick to their principles? Eisenhower warned us of the granding power of the military industrial complex, what did we do? Nothing. Now that we are overpowered what is our resort? To nourish the beast or to kill it?
Eisenhower was the military industrial complex so a bit of an ironic
Yup, pretty messed up.
I laugh at people who say we can't cut our military spending. First of all, we could cut our spending by anywhere between 10-30%, without affecting our current level of operations at all. That's just inefficiency.
by mbuggieh3 years ago
A recent article by Jack Kelly published at www.realclearpolitics.com notes the following:"Because he so often has “led from behind,” blustered and retreated, our enemies don’t fear our president; our allies...
by James Smith4 years ago
Modern conservatives claim that their ideology rests on these principles: individual liberty, small government, fiscal conservatism, a strong national defence and the rule of law. I'd just like to focus on the small...
by retief20002 years ago
Is Obama a worse foreign policy president than Jimmy Carter?In 1978, then United States President, Jimmy Carter hosted peace talks between Israel and Egypt resulting in a peace that has endured. A major re-alignment of...
by Credence28 weeks ago
Someone needs to tell Trump that the United Nations is not rubber stamp of American Foreign Policy?-----Excerpt from a Guardian ArticleDonald Trump has threatened to withhold “billions” of dollars of US aid from...
by David Stillwell5 years ago
What is the point of globalization and foreign policy if we do not take care of our own people?It seems that the differeneces in culture, governments and ambitions are still too far apart for globalization to really...
by lady_love1586 years ago
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 … rican.htmlClearly Obama has proven to be a complete incompetent when it comes to foreign policy. He as shown naivete in dealing with our enemies and signaled weakness...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.