I’d say the Carter Doctrine which formally set US foreign policy to pre-emptive war to protect the supply of oil was probably close to such a golden mean

Carter spoke of pre-emptive military attacks in response to the Iranian hostage crisis & the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Really?

Does anyone believe that?

I’d say the Carter Doctrine which formally set US foreign policy to pre-emptive war to protect the supply of oil was probably close to such a golden mean.

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/speeches/su80jec.phtml

No subsequent president has thought otherwise.

.

Neocons are agnostic on the government’s role in the domestic economy. From the mid 197080s, they decided (correctly) the intergenerational transfer of welfare dependency was very bad for national security, but would approve of the current massive injections of funds for the same reason. Remember, while the neocons were always anti-communist, they have never been particularly partisan when it comes to economics. They are not rabid ideological free marketeers.

But today we have involved ourselves in a colossal muddle, having blundered in the control of a delicate machine, the working of which we do not understand. The result is that our possibilities of wealth may run to waste for a time — perhaps for a long time

I think it’s clear that the Salon writer isn’t referencing JMK the policy wonk but rather JMK the down-to-earth philosophy bloke. Keynes’ is a lot like an educated version of Orwell that way–good commonsense Englishness expressed in prose.

I think BHO is merely translating this into midwest Americanese. Only he has to shear it of the obvious pessimism first.

Obama goes Bollywood!

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end

Which seems to me to be the real question viz govt. After all people like Bush talked up the virtues of small govt but proceeded to build a (more) massive behometh.
.
I just hope that a. He means it, and b. They won’t fuck him over trying to do it.
.
I also hope he is a Keynsian stricly in the sense that he isn’t a slave to some defunct economist – including Keynes.