Does this sound familiar from the 2008 Presidential election?
Who can we compare this scenario to?
http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=37
Many of Taft’s contemporaries dismissed him as an “isolationist” in foreign policy (for good examples, see Schlesinger 1952 and Van Dyke and Davis 1952). Although subsequent scholarship has suggested that this characterization was highly misleading (Berger 1967, 1971, 1975; West 1952), Taft was isolationist if isolationism is defined, following careful scholarship, as “an attitude of opposition to binding commitments by the United States government that would create new, or expand existing, obligations to foreign nations” (Rieselbach 1966, 7). Like many Americans of his era, Taft did not welcome the intrusion of foreign policy and gladly would have “let the rest of the world go its own way if it would only go without bothering the United States” (Osgood 1953, 433). For much of his career, Taft advocated what he called “the policy of the free hand,” whereby the United States would avoid entangling alliances and interference in foreign disputes. This policy permitted government leaders the freedom of action to decide in particular cases whether a sufficiently vital U.S. interest warranted involvement (Taft 1951, 12).[1]
The real problem with the term isolationism is not that it misrepresented Taft’s general orientation, but rather that it permitted defenders of various Roosevelt and Truman policies to discredit Taft without having to engage his arguments seriously. Labeling opponents of administration policies as “isolationists” implied that they were naive, like ostriches with their heads buried in the sand, nostalgic for an earlier era in which the United States could hide behind the safety of two oceans and avoid involvement in international affairs (Doenecke 1979, 11–12; Graebner 1968).[2] In reality, however, none of the members of the isolationist wing of the Republican Party ever believed it possible for the United States to isolate itself from the rest of the world, and so all of them accordingly rejected that label.
Tony, indeed. Funny you should say that, because Taft was a Repubican. In fact his nickname was Mr. Republican.
The good doctor isn’t one to mince words. Hence the title: "R3volution"
February 16th, 2010 at 3:15 am
yep, sounds like more liberal lies to me!
References :
February 16th, 2010 at 3:55 am
Robert A. Taft was the Republican presidential front-runner in 1952 before behind-the-scenes forces got involved and got closet-liberal Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower elected. CPUSA was heavily involved. Just check your history. Taft was only interested in protecting his country from potentially harmful alliances. Instead, his reputation was ruined and he died in 1953, a broken man, who was only guilty of loving his country dearly. See what patriotism can get you when you go-it ALONE against the left? Conservatives MUST stand TOGETHER, or America WILL fall. It’s not in the nature of conservatives to work as an organized body. We’re individualists, but we MUST!
References :
February 16th, 2010 at 4:24 am
The good doctor isn’t one to mince words. Hence the title: "R3volution"
References :