I vehemently disagree with conservative talk-show hosts (Jeff Kuhner, Michael Savage, Mark Levin) on two seminal issues: 1) The viability of the tea party, and 2) the overall analysis of radical Islam.
1) On the tea party, I believe it offers absolutely no substantive or practical foreign policy for the 21st century. Absolutely nothing. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, I believe, would be as disastrous as Obama leading our military. Latent within libertarian foreign policy is a variation of progressive ideology. Once the left realizes that internationalism codifies American hegemony – without the U.S. military, these international institutions have no teeth. The U.N. is a charade – they'll soon fuse with conservative libertarians.
The neocons are wrong, in my opinion, to treat war as sport and to impose no economical or financial limitations on United States military affairs. But they're 110 percent correct in their analysis of a cruel, volatile, Hobbesian world without American influence. I think the tea party would be great for the vice presidency and Congress, but catastrophic for the commander in chief.
Advertisement - story continues below
And there's another dormant issue with the TP: It offers nothing on hotbed social or cultural issues, either.
2) There's a serious problem with the conservative analysis of radical Islam: It accepts the reality of global jihad, true – something progressives simply cannot – but it seriously downplays their sophistication. Michael Savage, for example, incessantly refers to Islamists as "14th century throwbacks" – which is also true: Politically, socially and economically, they're seven centuries away from liberalism – but they are very much adept to 21st-century technology. Treating them as backward in strategy and tactics is a serious miscalculation on our ends. These people are evil, but ferociously smart.