Jeremi Suri best describes real conservative foreign policy in his biography about Henry Kissinger. Kissinger believed that the public could not be trusted to conduct foreign policy and that it should be directed by elites like himself. Kissinger thought that grand ideological crusades would appeal to the masses and a more pragmatic technocrat like himself should conduct foreign policy. Kissinger's foreign policy was based on accepting the best options available and not to go on great ideological crusades.This placed him against the neo-comservatives in the early seventies who thought that they could some rollback communism through the threat or use of force. The only weakness of Kissinger's foreign policy is that he ignored the human rights abuses in South America and Iran.

Who has set the post WWII new nuclear posture of the USA?

First, Truman (D), who ordered the use of the bomb and saw us into Korea at a restrained level. Then Eisenhower (R), an extraordinarily pragmatic Rep, seen WWI and WWII, who presciently tried to warn the nation about the pervasive evil of the (political-)military-industrial complex. Kennedy then Johnson (both D) who got us into an unwinnable war but carefully never escalated it to world proportions. And so on.

The USA, cooperating with allies, along with NATO, the UN, the World Bank, IMF, SEATO, EU, leading through all the treaties including the arm's limitation treaties from the 60s to the 90s, all along, both Democratic and Republican steered a pragmatic course, keeping the world moving towards negotiated and common-resolution of problems.

These last 8 years and some leading in, Conservative, not least because few conservatives stood up in the hubris of the time and called it wrong, has come to mean:

Dumping 50 years of progress and success in cooperative world achievement.

Adopting new, belligerent, preemptive war policies that contradict international law.

Ignored scientific data and world opinion of matters that threaten millions of people: global climate change. Then refused to sit down and even talk reasonably abut it.

Believed that 49 0r 50% of a vote is a mandate to marginalize and repel the other half of your nation.

Shredding the legal and constitutional structure of the nation to pursue goals that have proved not only disastrous for the nation, while trampling personal rights and freedoms embedded in same.

Pursued policies using lies, bias, racism, greed, extraordinary hubris, and a disastrous lack of reality and judgement in leading this nation into war and occupation grounded on ideology which has remained totally unexpressed or explained to the electorate.

Administration based in ideological bias and qualification. You only get the job if you are Republican enough, who cares if you can do it, then using that loyalty to undermione the operation of crucial areas of government agains their mandate. GAO, FDA, etc., etc. etc.

Ad Nauseam.

The Conservatives have allowed this assministration to lead the nation to disaster without so much as a witter of dissent, and without the nation having any realistic idea of where they were being led.

I don't remember any Republicans bravely standing against this wind and declaiming it.

There is the shame.

Hang your heads.

And I'm not forgiving the compliant Democrats, either. But at least are some that rail against their follies, like Byrd against this war. No one has an excuse for not thinking, judging and hearing, and being critical.

But the Republicans forgot their feality to the nation, preferring party.

Just like Col. Ollie North forgetting his nation and its laws for crime.

One may have a hard time trying to understand the idea that there should exist such a creature as a specific Conservative brand of foreign policies, neither in the United States, nor anywhere else.

...with the possible exception of a general tendency to support movements, governments and/or nations abroad that are considered to be similar to the own culture and ideology.

It may be less confusing to use specific lables, such as Nationalist, Chauvinist, Racist, (neo-) Colonialist, Militarist, Anti-democratic or whatever. Some of these -isms may be common elements in the foreign policies of Conservatives, but are they Conservative per se?

Conservatives in nations that have experienced war in its own country do obviously pursue a somewhat different foreign policy agenda than do both Radicals and Conservatives in the United States, where the public opinion and the elites alike have been spared the experience of losing vast numbers of citizens, or huge swathes of buildings, infrastructure and territory.

. First, Peter's right about the pre-World War II isolationist streak among conservatives. He points to the "tradition that William F. Buckley came out of--as a boy he opposed U.S. intervention against Nazi Germany

This is somewhat off the thread since it has only limited implications for today's sitution . But
just as a matter of historical fact ,that 1930 isolationism was substantially fueled by a noxious mixture or anti communism and anti semitism.

The "Ship of Fools" event was emblematic when the St. Louis was turned away from Miami and forced to return its passengers to their deaths in Germany. Harold Ickes' diaries describe the internal conflict within the administration behind that. In brief, it came down to anti-semitism. Just ask Phillip Roth.

Further , Franco had wide spread , if not majority support. Certainly a majority in my catholic neighborhood where Social Justice was sold on the church steps and the high point of Sunday afternoon was listening to Fr. Coughlin.
Of course that was particularly the case with
Irish Catholics because of their hatred of England.

There is some relevance of that history in that
American exceptionalism played a part. Even in the worst of the depression flag waving was as prominent -and mindless, even pernicious- as it is today. The Veterans' organizations had largely evolved into supporters of anti minority positions. I recall watching an Armistice Day parade with a friend who remarked :"the most dangerous organization outside of the KKK".

Fortunately anti semitism has ceased fueling the right. But exceptionalism is alive and well throughout our society.

Just imagine the consequences of any public figure who quoted(I think) Swift's "Patriotism, the last refuge of scoundrels." Don't even have to imagine. Some NPR figure did that in the 70s and was taken off the air.

I'd still maintain that conservatism as defined by Peter fits pretty squarely into the broad tradition of American foreign policy as practiced by all ideological camps: namely promoting American economic, military and political power overseas under the guise of do-gooding.

This hits the nail on the head, both internationally and domestically; Howard Zinn lays it out pretty well in 'A People's History of the United States.'

I'd still maintain that conservatism as defined by Peter fits pretty squarely into the broad tradition of American foreign policy as practiced by all ideological camps: namely promoting American economic, military and political power overseas under the guise of do-gooding.

Exactly. Ever since the first use of USA military force in sending the Marines after the Barbary Pirates to protect the interests of USA mercantilists.

A real conservative doesn't lie or invoke God to make a political point.

If you can't debate using wit and honesty, then your ideas are crap.

This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v hosting, iscsi target howto