from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
- n. The policy or practice of intervening, especially:
- n. The policy of intervening in the affairs of another sovereign state.
- n. The use of government power to control or influence domestic economic activity.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- n. The political practice of intervening in a sovereign state's affairs.
- n. The medical practice of trying to prolong someone's life.
Sorry, no etymologies found.
The problem with the new wave of government interventionism is going to be that governments are always bubble cheerleaders, not bubble-poppers.
If you agree that interventionism is not an option (that is how I interpret your post) then what can you propose?
And only non-interventionism is consistent with classical republicanism and small-goverment conservatism.
The stupid public did not realize interventionism is correct.
The stupid public does not realize non-interventionism is correct.
I don’t know why you think American military interventionism is a positive thing for the world.
I was originally going to do the foreign policy section as two arguments, with one of them being isolationism vs. interventionism, which is the traditional framework.
Unfortunately, he has become a staunch supporter of global military interventionism, which is an embarrassment to me, since he was one of my intellectual heroes.
This brings us to conservative interventionism, which is probably the most flexible and least ideological of the foreign policy doctrines.
Again, this is collectivism/communism aka interventionism or positive individualism... and your choice is?