Sanders wins "The American Conservative" Foreign Policy report card

[Recursion]

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/a-2016-foreign-policy-report-card/

(Also: read anybody on that site except Dreher, whom I wish they would drop; don't even bother there.)

Hillary Clinton

Clinton has a record of supporting unilateral military interventions, particularly for humanitarian reasons. She seems more likely to escalate the situation in Syria than her former boss Obama, and the role she played in destabilizing Libya is well known. Clinton provides only vague answers on military spending, making room for a more hawkish stance in the future.

...

Bernie Sanders

Sanders is the least hawkish of all the candidates. He supports diplomacy and restraint abroad, and has an established record of voting against military interventions in the Middle East. He made a rare deviation from this anti-interventionist stance on Libya.

They also go on to eviscerate every single Republican candidate except Kasich on their foreign policy stands.

[Fawke Em]

1. This group must be conservatives of the old-fashioned variety.

They certainly don't sound like neo-cons, given the quotes you gave.

Who is this group?

[PoliticAverse]

2. It was founded by the handfull of conservatives who were against the Iraq war. n/t

[Recursion]

5. Paleocons, and generally interesting ones (again, except Dreher)

Think Bill Buckley or (probably moreso) Michael Oakeshott (he's the guy who said "you can't just leave a white fencepost alone and expect it to be the same white fencepost: if you actually want the same white fencepost you have to repaint it white every day", which is a challenge a lot of conservatives still haven't admitted to). It's Noah Millman's site, who uses it mostly for his literary and film criticism (he has a very interesting series on Tolstoy, in which he did the first "right/left" taxonomy that really clicked for me: rightists think government should favor society's winners, and leftists think it should favor society's losers). They are definitely non-interventionists; Larison is the only one who even comes close to neoconservatism, and that's not often. (Larison's also probably their second-weakest contributor after Dreher.)

Along with Tim Carney at the Washington Examiner and (formerly) Andrew Sullivan, it's just about the only conservative site worth reading.

[Uncle Joe]

3. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Recursion.

[retrowire]

4. Hey look, wise conservatives. They do exist. nt

[VulgarPoet]

6. Well I'll be damned. n/t

[Wilms]

7. I would have given Sanders a "C" on Libya.

And I think they gave Clinton a pass on Iraq and Iran.

[Recursion]

9. Trump does surprisingly well too, especially since that site hates him so much

I think they're assuming he's only playing crazy for the rubes, which could well be true but not a bet I'm willing to take...

[Wilms]

11. I think they're calling it as they see it.

Here they're just talking about foreign policy. And Conservatives are getting tired of spending on wars.

[tk2kewl]

10. Bookmarked for reading on the train tomorrow

But, yeah... Hillary's Iran rhetoric has been too hawkish for me and not just her Iraq vote but the degree to which she parroted the Bush BS...

I'll have to check out the reasoning

[JudyM]

8. Rubio gets straight F's. There's something to run on.