When it comes to national defense, how are the mainstream positions of the two parties fundamentally any different? Sure you can find some disarmament liberals, but the neoconservative movement is much more vocal and would seem much more counterproductive.
> When it comes to national defense, how are the mainstream positions of the two parties fundamentally any different?
There are some differences, but the point I was making wasn't about the defense position itself as the position of defense relative to other government priorities.
> the neoconservative movement is much more vocal and would seem much more counterproductive
Neoconservatism can be viewed (at least in it's overt priorities; the concrete methods often seem to contradict this, at least in the short term) as aggressive exportation of the kind of government priorities on which right-libertarians and the broader right tend to agree.
Libertarians are, it seems to me, more united in the role of the state vis-a-vis it's own citizenry than it's role vis-a-vis other states, and there seem to be both nationalist (our government should provide us liberty, but maximize our collective position where dealing with outsiders) and internationalist (our government must as a matter of fundamental principle reflect our libertarian ideals, and so must all governments) strains of libertarianism that are compatible with the kind of aggressive foreign policy that neoconservatism embraces.
