The Libertarian Pacifist Infection Thumbs Nose at Reagan


I was very disappointed that no one articulated why it matters if we win or lose in Afghanistan.  No one articulated what would happen if (Libyan strongman Moammar) Gadhafi stays in power. So we have Republicans talking about stopping our efforts in Libya.” Lindsey Graham

The Republican Party is committed to preserving our national strength while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world. The Republican Party is guided by these principles as it develops solutions to the challenges facing America.”

In a speech on Wednesday, Lindsey added:

“…”Ronald Reagan has got to be turning over in his grave in a lot of ways,” Graham said. “I want to re-energize a Republican Party that can carry the banner for national security.”

Gary Howard, a spokesman for Rep. Ron Paul, said the Texan making his third presidential run is following in Reagan’s footsteps.  “Ronald Reagan had the courage and strength of leadership to admit that we do not understand the irrationality of Middle East politics and pulled our Marines out of Lebanon in the 1980s,” Howard said. “Congressman Paul would show that same type of leadership and get our troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq and back defending this country.”…”

Ronald Reagan’s slogan was PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH

“…”Peace through strength” is a conservative slogan supporting military strength for the purpose of creating peaceful international relations.  For supporters of the MX missile in the 1970s, the missile symbolized “peace through strength.” The phrase was popular in political rallies during 1988. The idea is a major justification cited for large militaries, and also served as the primary motivation behind the Cold War doctrine of mutually assured destruction.

Ronald Reagan used the phrase in political campaigning during his election challenge against Jimmy Carter, accusing the incumbent of weak, vacillating leadership that invited enemies to attack the USA and its allies. Reagan later considered it one of the mainstays of his foreign policy as President of the United States. Since Reagan’s presidency, the non-profit American Security Council Foundation has sought to influence United States foreign policy by promoting the idea. The Heritage Foundation has used the term in print….”


The far tea party right has become so infected by libertarian pacifism that they are no longer capable of even giving lip service to Ronald Reagan. Instead, they worship Ron Paul, who is basically a senile old fart who is pandering to the gold lobby (more on that later).

“…But just three years later, Paul is faced with a Republican Party that is more receptive to his small-government, anti-war attitudes, fueled in part by the rise of the Tea Party. He’s also begun to reach out to mainstream conservative voices in an effort to spread his message beyond his hardcore supporters. …”

They are walking around with their heads in the sand, ignoring the battles we face against Islamic Terror.

“...Senior strategists from the Bush era warned that candidates who appeal to isolationists within the party risked marginalizing themselves in the eyes of the world and alienating voters still yearning for a strong national defense. “It’s always good politics for Republicans to be seen as strong defenders of America’s national interests,” said former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, who continues to mull entering the race.

On Monday, the GOP’s voices had changed considerably from when Mr. Bolton served in the Bush administration. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota said Mr. Obama “was absolutely wrong” in his decision to intervene in Libya.

“I’d bring them home as quickly as possible,” Texas Rep. Ron Paul said of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, “and I’d get them out of Iraq as well, and I wouldn’t start a war in Libya, I’d quit bombing Yemen, and I’d quit bombing Pakistan. I’d start taking care of people here at home, because we could save hundreds of billions of dollars.”…”

The Politico

Americans view Ronald Reagan as one of our greatest Presidents.  Reagan did not turn tail and run.  He faced our enemy – and won. That’s a bit different from today’s libertarian pacifist who is more interested in saving money than saving American.

It was called the Reagan Doctrine.

“…The Reagan Doctrine was a strategy orchestrated and implemented by the United States under the Reagan Administration to oppose the global influence of the Soviet Union during the final years of the Cold War. While the doctrine lasted less than a decade, it was the centerpiece of United States foreign policy from the early 1980s until the end of the Cold War in 1991.

Under the Reagan Doctrine, the U.S. provided overt and covert aid to anti-communist guerrillas and resistance movements in an effort to “roll back” Soviet-backed communist governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The doctrine was designed to serve the dual purposes of diminishing Soviet influence in these regions, while also potentially opening the door for capitalism (and sometimes liberal democracy) in nations that were largely being governed by Soviet-supported socialist governments…”


What is happening to the GOP?

“…*** The GOP hawks fight back: Whether this shift in opinion about Afghanistan — and U.S. military force in general — is due to war fatigue or simply anti-Obama sentiment, the GOP hawks are fighting back. “I’d thought of Romney as a mainstream Republican – supporting American strength and American leadership, but this doesn’t reflect that,” Danielle Pletka of the neo-con American Enterprise Institute told Politico’s Ben Smith. “Romney has proven himself a little bit of a weathervane and I guess he senses that positioning himself in this place is good for his campaign — attempting to appease Ron Paul’s constituents without actually being Ron Paul.” And check out this quote from GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham responding to Romney’s comments: “From the party’s point of view, the biggest disaster would be to let Barack Obama become Ronald Reagan and our people become Jimmy Carter.”…”

Why is it that Lindsey is always the one who ends up putting his foot in it?  Is he the ONLY real Neocon remaining?  (Add James Inhofe to the list)

“...He directly challenged Romney’s suggestion that the conflict in Afghanistan was a war of independence, and added: “From the party’s point of view, the biggest disaster would be to let Barack Obama become Ronald Reagan and our people become Jimmy Carter.”  Graham was not alone in his skepticism about Romney. Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), a senior Republican member of the Armed Services Committee, also voiced dismay with the former Massachusetts governor’s characterization of the Afghan war.

In the debate, Romney said he believes the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan should be based on security conditions there instead of political or fiscal considerations. But he also appeared to undercut the rationale for U.S. involvement by suggesting that American troops are fighting a war for Afghan independence against Taliban influence.

Romney said: “Our troops shouldn’t go off and try to fight a war of independence for another nation. Only the Afghanis can win Afghanistan’s independence from the Taliban.”

Graham retorted on Tuesday, saying “this is not a war of independence, this is a war to protect America’s national vital security interests.”

The senator acknowledged that Romney said withdrawal should be “conditions-based,” but expressed dismay that “no one articulated last night a strategic vision why it’s important we get it right in Afghanistan, what happens to our country if we don’t.”…”

Evidently Lindsey has forced Romney to back down a little.  His campaign issued a statement later on Wednesday.


Inhofe complained about the lack of international affairs during the GOP debate.

“…Inhofe wasn’t happy with what he saw as a somewhat “bland” articulation of GOP national-security values in Monday’s debate.

“I didn’t see anyone really articulate the real sense of urgency and what Republicans stand for,” Inhofe said. “Republicans were tending to try to moderate and be everyone’s friend, with the exception of our friend from the pizza shop,” he said, referring to candidate Herman Cain. Inhofe said he would support Texas Gov. Rick Perry jumping into the race….”

John (come lately) Huntsman – why is he running for POTUS as a Republican – sounds like a liberal Dem.

“...A presidential candidate who did not participate in Monday’s debate, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., gave a specific picture of a troop withdrawal Tuesday: “There is the desire on the part of most Americans to begin phasing out [of Afghanistan] as quickly as possible.”

He suggested the U.S. could leave behind 10,000 or 15,000 troops “to collect intelligence and fight an asymmetric war against terror.” But, he added, “the very expensive boots on the ground may be something that is not critical for our national-security needs, nor is it something we can afford this point in our economic history.”…”

One of The Pink Flamingo’s disgust with the libertarian leaning tea party panders is their abject lack of knowledge about American History.  I gather Tim Pawlenty has never heard of the Marshall Plan.


“…Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, for his part, argued that while the terms of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan should be determined by the word of military commanders and ground conditions there, the goal was not to “rebuild their country.”

“We have to remember why we invaded the country in the first place,” he said, according to the Times.

And while Pawlenty noted that the time for withdrawal had not yet arrived, given the security conditions there, he argued that “our mission in Afghanistan is not to stay there forever or to stay there for 10 more years to rebuild their country.”

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., expressed disappointment over the national security discussion in Monday’s debate.

“I didn’t see anyone really articulate the real sense of urgency and what Republicans stand for,” he said, according to the Hill. “Republicans were tending to try to moderate and be everyone’s friend, with the exception of our friend from the pizza shop,” he said, referring to candidate Herman Cain.

“I was incredibly disappointed,” Graham said, of the debate, according to the Wall Street Journal. “No one seemed to have a passion for the idea that we’re fighting radical Islam and the center of that battle is Afghanistan.”…”

There are those who think the problem is the fact that we have been at war too long.  The Pink Flamingo thinks the problem is the libertarian influence.

The Daily Paul

5 thoughts on “The Libertarian Pacifist Infection Thumbs Nose at Reagan

  1. I doubt if I will vote for Tim Pawlenty. Interesting that he did not appear to understand the Marshall Plan. I saw the video today on Lindsey’s speech on the War On Terror that he gave to the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace. I thought it was excellent. I was very impressed. If I were one of his constituents I would be proud of him. Too bad so many of them don’t have sense enough to appreciate him.

  2. I just can’t get over this. They have completely thrown Reagan under the bus.

    I’m finding these “tea party” candidates are as ignorant about history as are the tea partiers themselves.

  3. about 10 years ago KOS (or someone at KOS) made a post about “infiltrating and infecting the Right with Ideas that would cause them to self destruct”.

    Well it worked! I’m afraid that the damage has been done. The poison has been drunk. The rot is spreading. The Republicans are being destroyed from within. Libertarianism (aka Ayn Randianism) has now become apart of the Republican Party.

    We have been divided and now we will be conquered. We actually DESERVE to be conquered! But as bad as that sounds it is all for the better. Not that I want to see the Democrats win for the next 20+ years but this is what happens when a nation abandons God. This is what happens when Political Messiahs (Palin, Obama, Ron Paul, Trump, the Clintons) become “our” gods.

    Two or three Presidential elections from now (when a real Republican finally wins again) the Ron Paulonians will be a distant bad memory just like the Ross Perrovians are today. That is IF we even have elections anymore…

  4. Another oddity I have noticed about our LiEbertarian “friends” is that recently they seem to be giving a thumbs up to anti-war Democrat Sen. George McGovern! No kidding! They even say that McGovern was the Conservative in the 1972 election! Seriously!!

    *see electoral map at link below: (49 states red),_1972

    Wow. Isn’t that odd?

    And then see this electoral map: (44 states red),_1980

    They hated Reagan!!

    and another: (49 states red),_1984

    They really HATED the Bush family. In fact many Libertarians claim that the Bush’s put Hitler in power. Just ask any Libertarian and he will go on about Bush’s GrandPa for hours (or days if you let em)!

    and one more map: (40 states red),_1988

    49 + 44 + 49 + 40 = 182 states won (out of 200 won) by Nixon, Reagan and Papa Bush, leaving the Libertarians on the side with a total of 18 States in 4 elections!

    18 States in 4 elections!

    The Libertarians have been on the WRONG side of the electoral map for 40 years. And I didn’t even include their part in electing Bill Clinton or their bizarre obcession with GW Bush.

    Have they ever NOT been wrong?

Comments are closed.