3 votes

Are Neocons that afraid of terrorists...or do they think WE are? Is RP's framing of foreign policy ALL WRONG!?

If you listen to the other candidates talk about keeping america safe and about not letting the terrorists do us harm, it's easy to get the idea that they're afraid of terrorists. That's the impression I've always gotten, and my response has always tended to be something like (paraphrased): "You know, the terrorists are really not that good. A bunch of guys in a cave really aren't capable of destroying the US."

So it also made sense when Paul's campaign came out with that "keep America safe" ad. I thought: "That will show them that Paul is entirely capable of national defense."

But over the past couple of months I've had a nagging sense that this understanding of the neocon objection to Paul wasn't quite right. The other day it finally occurred to me:

I don't think the neocons are worried about America. No, they think Ron Paul is a pansy. When they hear withdraw our troops, they hear "Ron Paul wants to run away and hide."

What makes it even worse is the "blow-back" argument. The blow-back argument would make sense as an argument if the neocons were worried about stopping terrorism. But that's not really what they're worried about (they think we have stopped it and are stopping it). Their real concern is the appearance that the terrorists can tell the US what to do. So when they hear us say "Osama said the reason he attacked was because our troops in Saudi Arabia" - they don't hear what we're trying to tell them (why cause trouble for ourselves where we don't need it), they think:

"Oh - Osama said that? Well then F..K him! We'll send more troops! America doesn't take orders from some ass-holes in another country!"

In other words, I think, they think WE are afraid of terrorists. They think we want to run away and come home and be safe.

Set aside that their perception is silly for a moment. If that is their perception, then the way we've been talking about Ron Paul and his foreign policy, and the way the campaign has been talking about it, is all wrong. Every time the campaign uses the word "safe" - it reinforces the idea that Ron Paul is a pansy who is just worried about being safe. Blow-back is a terrible argument - because it emphasizes stopping terrorism. That's not what they care about! They care about preserving the dignity and "power" of the USA. I don't think they necessarily want or need us to bomb everyone, but they do like the idea that we're CAPABLE of bombing everyone.

I think a shift in how we frame foreign policy might be worth considering.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


All good comments and I agree. The Stewart clip about the Defense Bill (and Lindsey Graham and Cain's evil spewing) made me sick.

But it's easy to say all this here. I think we all know basically decent people (some of my relatives?) who are not consciously trying to be evil, they just think it's important to be strong. They like saying "hoo rah".

Does it make sense to use an argument that clearly turns them off? Even if we don't persuade them - is it smart for us to goad them? Is it smart to feed the idea that Ron Paul is weak?

We need a "War on Vending Machines"...

because an American citizen is more likely to be crushed to death in a vending machine accident than killed by a "terrorist".

Purposely drop a rock...

Purposely drop a rock on your own foot and it is going to hurt? What a concept.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Our culture is sick

Children are being reared up to glorify violence. Little children are dressed in skull and crossbones, just like Hitler's SS; when old enough, they obliterate people in video games, watch violent movies and so on. This is collective insanity.

We need a spiritual renewal above all things. That's why this is a LOVE Revolution. That's why I think aggressive ads like Big Dog just will just shoot ourselves in the foot. Ron Paul didn't get this far appealing to the least common denominator, but by calling on all of us to evolve and become more responsible, less judgmental, and less force-oriented across the board.

Neocons think?

Oh ho ho ho!
That's a good one!

Neocons just use "terrorism" as a fabricated excuse for their penchant for mass murder.