Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
This article is pretty obviously PNAC nonsense. Consider the central thesis: "it is important to remember this: He has absolutely no chance to win the Republican nomination for president. This is largely, though not entirely, due to his foreign policy views."Originally Posted by Roy Karrde
Such is entirely counter-intuitive to actual polling data:
What of the argumentation?
"America’s military might would no longer be preeminent in the world — and with its decline, America’s influence will undeniably wane." Indeed? How do we explain the present waning influence given the current balance of military power? It is illogical to accept the suggested cause and effect. The balance of the last decade seems to point to the effectiveness of economic hegemony backed by provisional military force, rather than military dominance as the means towards economic success (to say nothing of the inherent intervening military Keynesianism and its wastes).
Take history in its place. World War II-style interventionism? Against which enemy should this now be taken? Cold War build-up, with hot spots of action? No need for this in the current global order. The ascent of China is based on economic growth first, and military build-up second (or third...). The historical moment does not point towards the continued need for massive military spending or decade-long interventions. Paul recognizes this, and given the above polling data, so do Iowan Republicans.
