Bret Stephens, the deputy editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal thinks however that we should be “thankful” that the Saudis are fighting “our war” for us in Yemen.
That’s right, Mr. Stephens said Yemen is “our war.” The neocons will never ever learn. Never.
No, the war in Yemen is a fight the Saudis have engaged in because they fear the rise of Shiite forces that could eventually find their way into Saudi Arabia and topple the Saudi Wahhabi regime.
The Saudis have deep oil reserves and as such deep pockets. They are big buyers of arms, and especially so given its recent venture into Yemen and the perceived rise of a close to nuclear Iran. We do lots of weapons business with the desert kingdom.
But the Saudis are our “frenemies” at best. We tolerate them so that the world has access to Saudi oil. The 18th Century Wahhabi regime “tolerates” us because we have the biggest guns and we offer protection of the oil reserves.
The neocons are for big government and wars. Bill Kristol is for big government and wars. The neocons disliked Reagan and celebrated George W. Bush’s massive expansion of the state. They loathe libertarianism and they loathe the Pauls. They quietly like Hillary Clinton who is basically an extension of George W. Bush in many respects. In fact most neocons – most of whom are Bushites – would probably like to see Hillary win this go’round. (Though they can’t say it publicly –
I refer to people like Rand Paul as defense “owls.” They aren’t doves. They aren’t hawks. They are smart and staid. They are “owls.”
The creation of this think tank is encouraging. Indeed it is vital that the neocons, the big government hawks which defined the Bush era (the Clinton era?) be countered and shown for the advocates of massive government that they are. Conservatives historically have not been for waging war across the globe, and particularly without the sanction of Congress and by extension the American people.
All I can say is we made the case for making Detroit an economic “free zone” back in October 2012. Not that “free zones” are our idea. Free market/price advocates have made the case for them for years. It’s good to see the idea getting some real political traction.
Free up places which are disasters. Make them business friendly. Lower or eliminate taxes. Let people innovate. Many of our cities have little to lose at this point. Other than a rigid fear of free markets why wouldn’t one want free zones in areas of economic despair?
I basically don’t buy this analysis but it is an interesting and let’s say cute article that is worth reading for the Washington DC insider take.
But John Hart misses a very important and fundamental component of the current tumult in the GOP, namely Ron Paul. It was Paul’s critique of the GOP as a party which is in no way actually for “small government” which got this ball rolling. The first “TEA parties” were in support of the Congressman and his 2008 presidential run.
Big government Republicans are much more common than small government Republicans. At least in Washington DC.
Saying that, as noted in the attached article, much good has been done over the last 5 years.
I do on occasion enjoy Rand’s snark.
Many people see the federal government as not reflecting their views at all. Some see the unending expansion of the state into every nook and cranny of life, and the gaming of the government by powerful corporate and political interests, as a real threat. Indeed that our massive government is encroaching on the things many Americans hold particularly dear, independence, for some – faith, economic liberty, liberty generally, privacy, and so on.
If you really want to understand why the crony capitalist system is so insidious as well as ubiquitous I highly recommend listening to this bit from the master Murray Rothbard. If you really want to get what is so messed up about government and the “privavte sector” partnering up, one must know at least a little bit of his work.
Warning though. Rothbard can rattle one’s whole understanding of politics and economics.