Noemie Emery has written an article for the Weekly Standard that is getting a lot of play in conservative circles as a response to liberal efforts to revive a Harry Truman-style Democratic foreign policy.
I will reserve comment, hoping that I can defer to the world's foremost Truman expert if he weighs in. But what we have in the Emery column is yet another attempt by conservatives and Republicans to defend their contemporary foreign policy by calling it the heir to liberal Democratic foreign policies. I'm not saying there isn't much to admire about FDR and Truman, but there is more to pre-Ike conservatives and Republicans than isolationism. Why ignore traditions handed down by some of our greatest leaders?
For more on this, see my discussion with Jonah Goldberg.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I always want to ask conservatives what is/was wrong with Tom Dewey.
Or, at least, what is wrong with a foreign policy tradition founded in a conversation between Dewey, Taft, and Eisenhower.
Or how about Theodore Roosevelt, William McKinley, and William Howard Taft?
I'll take them. Throw in Lodge, Root, Hay, and don't forget Mahan.
Don't forget Gifford Pinchot.
Foreign policy?
Just an all around good guy. That's waht we're talking about right?
I thought we were talking about the Republican Party's foreign policy tradition.
Oh. I liked Reagan's foreign policy. I lilked Pinchot's conservation ethic.
Post a Comment