A seemingly objective and well thought out article by a member of congress(!). Neo-conservatives have taken over the government (congress and the executive). They believe in Machiavellian philosophy of authoritarian government, perpetual war and “honorable” lies.
The congressman argues that neo-conservative actions are eroding the constitution and the principles of the Founders when they ‘entangle’ us in foreign affairs and support the welfare state. The first point is better made, it seems probable that the current foreign policy of the US government is contrary to our neutral/isolationist tradition. While the declaration of independence proclaimed universal, inalienable rights of all humans, the subsequent constitution never required us to spread these ideals overseas. In our tradition, foreign policy is only made in respect to our defense. Of the two options for defense strategy, altruistic neutrality or proactive meddling (including preemptive war), I think the constitution, and certainly the founders, would favor the former. In any case, it wouldn’t hurt for someone to remake the argument for neutrality. (My first reaction to this idea is negative as I think ‘isolationism’… How can you square neo-liberal ideas of free trade and the American tradition of neutrality? Both seem to be sane ideas, more sane than pre-emptive war.)
The second point is not as effectively made. Why does big government undermine the constitution? My gut agrees with this assertion, but the proper argument wasn’t made in the article.
In any case, I want to revisit this article and the “liberty committee”.