Hating those dreadful neocons (Part II): Right and Left unite
As I wrote yesterday in Part I, neocon-hatred is sometimes connected with poorly-veiled anti-Semtism. But there are many other reasons that some people on both Left and Right hate neocons. This post will, of necessity, contain many generalizations; I don’t mean to say that all on the Left or Right hate neocons, or even that all neocon-haters are motivated by the factors I’m about to discuss.
On the Right, paleocons have plenty of ideological disagreements with neocons. There’s a certain amount of anti-Semitism among a few paleocons (think Pat Buchanan), but more commonly there’s the idea that neocons have perverted the conservative agenda for their own nefarious and antithetical purposes. In other words, they’ve hijacked the party and infiltrated the mind of George Bush, wielding undue influence, hypnotizing him into betraying conservative impulses.
Paleocons believe in liberty and justice for all, but the “all” doesn’t tend to include anybody outside our borders, at least not though our own direct efforts. They are willing to defend this country—and will do so vigorously—when it is attacked. But otherwise, isolationism is common (although not universal) among paleocons. And, when not isolationist, paleocons tend to be of the school of realpolitik, supporting whatever dictatorship happens to be perceived as best fitting our interests.
President Bush has betrayed paleocons by being a big spender. But their perception of even greater betrayal stems from the fact that Bush listened to the siren song of the neocons, who managed to talk him into a costly and useless war that has, among other things, caused the Party to lose the control of Congress so recently gained and hard fought.
Another factor is that paleocons, unfortunately, don’t have much of an answer to the underlying problem of the rise of Islamic totalitarianism. This may be another part of the reason for their anger. Their traditional answer: pulling back, hunkering down—doesn’t cut it in the modern world as easily as it did even fifty years ago. This time, the enemy came here; in fact, it probably is here. The world forces that created Islamic totalitarianism are not going away easily, and the other traditional paleocon approach—realpolitik: supporting, dealing with, and in many cases allying with and helping whatever dictator happens to suit our purposes—has failed to contain it.
The neocons offer an alternative that goes against the paleocon grain. As for the justifications behind the Iraq War, the WMD argument is the only one a paleocon would tend to see as valid, and the postwar failure to find actual WMDs only adds to the sense of betrayal.
Some paleocons actually see neocons as liberals by another name. And they’re not that far off, in a way; neocons do not tend to share much of the cultural and social conservatism of paleocons; in this, many neocons do have more in common with liberals.
But of course, liberals seem to hate neocons even more strongly and universally than paleocons do. In a way, this is puzzling; after all, the neocon agenda involves the liberation of third-world peoples from tyranny. Is that not a traditional liberal, (and Leftist—although Leftists have different goals for any such “liberation”) agenda?
For liberals, though—at least recently—one of the subtexts of liberation around the world is that it must be altruistic and for humane purposes only. That is, our motives need to be pure. The neocons are considered much too bold about our own stake in the matter. Their belief that liberal democracy (meaning: democracy accompanied by guarantees of human and civil rights and liberties) is a desirable thing for those countries themselves is not so bad. The problem is their idea that this is not merely an altruistic principle, but rather that furthering the cause of democracy around the world would benefit the US, and that this could at times be done by military means.
Liberals see the neocon agenda as a form of imperialism and/or colonialism, another big no-no (see here for my previous discussion of colonialism and Iraq). That’s the underlying reason that wars of liberation are only defended by liberals if there is no US self-interest involved; that’s the only way the war would be free of the “colonialism” taint.
Any hint of self-interest is not only defined as colonialist exploitation in the economic and political sense, it also smacks of the violation of certain sacred cultural relativistic principles. Cultural relativism, originally a corrective to certain racist ideas of innate superiority, has slowly morphed into something quite different: a morally relative inability to make judgments about the actions of any country—with the strange exceptions of the US and Israel, who are always guilty, by definition. That way, the Left asserts its superior tolerance of others.
Liberals and the Left feel they have the corner on nobility and humanitarianism: it’s their territory. Those on the Right are defined as heartless red (not blue) meanies. So the motives of those on the Right when they cite humanitarian concerns are always suspect. The Right, by definition, is about money, exploitation, bloodthirstyness. Only when the Left wants a war of liberation can it really be one of liberation.
So we have the odd spectacle of watching liberals twist themselves into pretzel-like contortions trying to fit the old isolationist stance of the Right into the liberal agenda. People are supposed to get whatever dictatorship they deserve, I suppose; that’s most respectful of their cultural mores.
For liberals and the left, Bush Derangement Syndrome comes into the mix, as well. Even though he’s not a neocon, he listened to neocons. So those who hate Bush anyway hate neocons more because of their connection to him, and those who hate neocons anyway hate Bush more because of his connection to them–in an ever-increasing loop of anger.
This why liberals and Leftists who criticize the Iraq war must downplay the justifications for it given earlier by the Clinton administration, or the fact that it involved vioations of international UN agreements on the part of Saddam. No, it must be a solely neocon war, and its flaws are due to the stupid neocons, not just the flawed (and correctable) execution of a just and correct war that many of them supported when Bill was talking about it (such clips exist, by the way; I’ve heard them).
And so we have the interesting spectacle of Right and Left united—perhaps temporarily—in the chill grip or realpolitik and/or isolationism, and against the neocons.
I’ve noticed in the last 30 years or so that democrats and the left don’t just simply “lose” elections anymore. It’s always some nefarious plot: “The October Surprise”, Willie Horton, “Vote Manipulation”, etc. When they “win” however(even pluralities such as Clinton’s 42%), it’s a “mandate”, the “clear will of the people”, etc. The “Conspiracy Theory” has been with us a long time. They never can answer how the neocons were so smart to know exactly where to park cop cars to intimidate blacks from voting, manipulated little old Jewish ladies to vote for Pat Buchannan, etc., but forgot to plant wmd’s in Iraq to justify enriching themselves rather than take the criticism for an unjust and illegal war.
Many years ago, when I was a young Democrat at Berkeley, I used to characterize myself as so centrist that I got hit by political traffic coming from either direction. Who knew that when I moved right, I’d still be getting hit by political traffic from either direction. Apparently it’s my political fate to be road kill.
Bookworm – Indeed! 🙂
Paleocons and liberals are practically siblings under the skin. Both groups are doubtful about democracy and approve of rule by the elite. Both are isolationist and protectionist. Both are somewhat suspicious of globalization and the new economy, though for different reasons. Both are extremely paternalistic toward women and racial minorities, though they express it differently.
The chief distinction, really, is that paleocons think gays getting it on is kind of icky, while liberals HATE wearing neckties.
But of course, liberals seem to hate neocons even more strongly and universally than paleocons do. In a way, this is puzzling; after all, the neocon agenda involves the liberation of third-world peoples from tyranny.
If we were dealing with true liberals, Neo, then it would not be puzzling. Since we are dealing with fake liberals, then the threat of liberating their slave forces strikes fear into their hearts. Fear that they turn into rage and anger against you.
If everyone became liberated, then what would be the purpose for the existence of the Left? No purpose at all. They cannot handle true freedom and liberty for all, because their entire existence is based upon slavery and class warfare. They perpetuate warfare in order to gain its benefits, while at the same time accusing folks like you as being warmongers that cook up a threat to gain power. They know that strategy quite well, Neo. They’ve been perfecting it for centuries.
For liberals, though–at least recently–one of the subtexts of liberation around the world is that it must be altruistic and for humane purposes only.
Smoke and mirrors, that is all it is. They do not truly want to liberate the folks of Darfur. Because when the people have power, as in Ukraine and Eastern Europe, they will often times side with their American benefcators. Can’t have that. Also can’t have apostates either that disagree with the Left.
Liberals see the neocon agenda as a form of imperialism and/or colonialism, another big no-no
Since slavery in the US was eliminated by forced re-unification and invasion of the South… it kind of destroys the fake liberal argument that Empire building runs against freedom and liberty. At least when dealing with the US. Certainly the French were not very good abroad or at home when it came to defendng the rights of humans, Jews or otherwise.
Only when the Left wants a war of liberation can it really be one of liberation.
Only when the master says to do something, may the slaves be authorized to do it.
Nothing is a better example of Left and Right collusion than the Baker Commission. The so called you know “bipartisan” crap? Realpolitek meets fake liberalness. Nice.
when Bill was talking about it (such clips exist, by the way; I’ve heard them).
See Bill’s, Iraq Liberation Act (1998)
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm
He was definitely talking about it.
Virginia Postrel wrote an awesome book in the late 1990s titled The Future and Its Enemies. In short, she wrote that there are two approaches to deal with globalization — stasis and dynamism, and this is realigning the political landscape. We see it today, with Lieberman and Giuliani at one pole, and Nader and Buchanan at the other.
I predict the Republicans will continue to be the party of the future, and those like Schwarzenegger will continue to win where the Ralph Reed types only fail. The Democrats will continue to go down the isolationist, protect the culture for the common good attitude of Buchanan, as seen by the cavemen like Jon Tester and Jim Webb they elected last election.
Lee,
Great points!
Considering the Klan loving antics of the liberal heroe in Tehran, I’d welcome both the paleo’s and liberal’s hatred.
Neo says:
‘Paleocons believe in liberty and justice for all’
‘the neocon agenda involves the liberation of third-world peoples from tyranny’
Wow! Sign me up! What awful, small-minded person could be against such things?
Herein lies the difficulty in comparing political philosophies from within: every sect has their own opinion of what their values are, as well as a different take on all the other little orthodoxies competing for our minds. This is far from solely a paleo-or-neo con problem, but is practically universal.
Some time ago a formerly neocon (now thankfully on the road to recovery) friend of mine asked me, in the sweetest way, why I didn’t believe in ‘a robust foreign policy’. My answer was that, of course I believed the US should have a ‘robust’ foreign policy, but that the neocons’ vision of ‘robust’ seemed less hale and hearty and more reckless and counterproductive.
In rather the same way, Neo wonders why the liberals could be opposed to the advancement of liberal democracy by military means, and comes up with a rather elaborate psychological explanation. A simpler answer might be, I dunno, that so far it hasn’t actually led to liberal democracy but chaos and ruin. One might well ask why non-Communists are opposed to providing food for everyone by collectivizing the farms: duh, it doesn’t work and people starve. You can disagree all you like on the factual analysis, but Neo doesn’t seem to acknowledge that people might view the facts of the case somewhat differently than she does. To poison the well still further (if you’ll pardon the expression) she starts out by saying that not ALL opponents of neoconservativism are closet Nazis, which is a discussion killer if ever I heard one.
To make amy point a littler clearer: imagine, if you will, a new political philosophy called Freedomism. Its thinkers and exponents have founded their outlook on the idea that freedom is a good thing, and that public policy shold work towards that goal. Devotees of the freedomist way of thinking gain control of the federal government and advance a number of policies which they say (and, presumably, believe) will lead to more freedom, not only in the US but around the world. What these policies are doesn’t matter; what matters is that more than a third of the country strongly supports them, and more tha a third strongly opposes them. Leaders of the opposition even go so far as to say that these freedomist plans will give us less freedom, and say unflattering things about the freedomist pundits, think tanks, and public officials who support them. The freedomists are dumbfounded. After all, isn’t freedom a good thing?
Thanks for this much needed primer on current events.
loyal–
I believe you’re misunderstanding the position.
Radicals always see ideals as plans to be realized. Neoconservatives see them as standards to judge present behavior. Realpolitikers think like Machiavelli — there may beretail sanity, but there is only wholesale madness. Neoconservatives like Leo Strauss have the guts to say Machiavelli is evil.
But I’m certain you’re not advocating that the United States act like an imperial power, gobbling up countries to enrich itself. I can only hope it is not something more wild, like the bogus theories of Lenin, who believed corporations inevitably control liberal democracies, who use war and religion to further their greedy ends. A prudential critique is welcome and fair, a radical critique of the Iraq policy needs to be reexamined.
With this out of the way, we need to recognize a fundamental fact: Revolutionary Islamists are at war with us, whether we are at war with them or not. Our strategy contains three-parts: keep nukes out of the hands of the theocratic fascists when they manage to take over a government, support friendly autocrats when bin Laden-worshipping fanatics are the alternatives, and prevent liberal democracies from being toppled by the revolutionaries at all costs.
As you can see, the approach above contains a mixture of war and appeasement. But it is a matter of getting such policies in the proper balance.
Let me take two examples. The left always attacks conservatives for the inconsistent policies in North Korea and Iran, as if they believe an egalitarian premise that all regimes are of the same nature. As neoconservatives teach, regimes are not of the same nature. North Korea is not an Islamo-fascist country– they are ruled by atheist, materialist do-gooders trying to blackmail the west into handouts. The proper policy is here is to say through back channels to stop your programs, let the inspectors back in, and *then* we’ll buy you off. North Korea doesn’t want to commit self-destruction, so diplomacy is the proper way of handling the situation. To bad people like Kerry and Clinton are giving the North Koreans the courage to hold out with the promise that they may get handouts AND keep the nukes.
Iran is a bit different. Jimmy Carter droppped the ball in 1979, and the regime has been ruled by Revolutionaries trying to export their achievements through the region and ultimately the world. Their current leader believes the apocalypse is imminent, and that he has been appointed by Allah to go on the final jihad at the end of times. He openly promises to annihilate neighbors like Israel in one storm, hangs out with KKK members, and his regime stones women for adultery and hangs homosexuals. Does this regime deserve diplomacy, or perhaps something more firm, like robust and periodic airstrikes? Well, if you value your own survival, one must choose the second option and live with the consequences.
(con’t)
Which brings us to Iraq. One, I didn’t support the invasion when it occurred; I argued airstrikes would do the job if a WMD threat was real. But now that we’re there, we have to win– standing up a liberal democracy where over 70% of the voters have participated in the process, even with the threat of terrorists. This is a longterm deal, which is why I didn’t support it in the firstplace, but with appropriate resolve, we’ll get it done. Think about previous wars– we lost over 400,000 people in world war II, 600,000 people in the civil war, 50,000 people in Vietnam, and 33,300 people in Korea. Losing any amount of people sucks, but losing 3,000 people is a small price to pay when we consider the consequences of failure in Iraq. We’d see a complete bloodbath first, and the aftermath would be an environment from which international terrorists of all stripes would come in and set up shop to wage war against the west.
After all, the revolutionaries are at war with us, whether we are at war with them or not. So let’s get it right.
I apologize for spelling mistakes and any grammar weirdness in advance. 😉
Bowden, I could argue the factual and logical content of what you’ve just written all day, but it seemed to me that Neo was arguing in a more theoretical/philosophical way, at least in this case.
Of course the neocons have noble-sounding ideals; I can’t think of a major political movement that didn’t. But we shouldn’t confuse any group’s stated ideals with its actions.
loyal–
There is a 1967 essay by Irving Kristol I strongly recommend titled “American Intellectuals and Foreign Policy.”
In the essay, Irving Kristol notes that the entire tradition of Western thought has very little to say about foreign policy. The reason why, Kristol explains, is simple– foreign affairs are radically affected by contingency, fortune, and fate, which excludes speculative enlightenment.
In expediential situations being an intellectual may not be useful. Intellectuals, however, think that if foreign policy was fused with sufficient ideological rationality, we can arrive at what are called “political solutions.” The statesman, Kristol explained, always replies that he is not dealing with problems, but with an series of crises, and that there is no way of knowing what “solution” will work in advance. This admission unfortunately only strengthens the intellectual’s conviction that the managers of foreign affairs are not only wicked, but stupid.
LA: Its thinkers and exponents have founded their outlook on the idea that freedom is a good thing, and that public policy shold work towards that goal. Devotees of the freedomist way of thinking … advance a number of policies which they say (and, presumably, believe) will lead to more freedom, not only in the US but around the world.
This description of an imaginary “Freedomist” party isn’t far removed from actual neoconservatism. And if the only debate were over the effectiveness of the particular policies proposed, well, at least that would be an improvement. (The same couldn’t be said, for example, over an imaginary [but also real] “Equalist” party.) Unfortunately, Loyal has already ruined his effect by deliberately misrepresenting neo: “Neo wonders why the liberals could be opposed to the advancement of liberal democracy by military means”. Really? Here’s what neo actually wondered, in the post above this: “Is [the liberation of third-world peoples from tyranny] not a traditional liberal, (and Leftist–although Leftists have different goals for any such “liberation”) agenda?” I don’t see the words “by military means” anywhere there, do you? She does say, a little further on, that “that furthering the cause of democracy around the world would benefit the US, and that this could at times be done by military means”, so maybe that’s what LA’s referring to. But then that would imply that his view of “liberalism” is that democracy’s cause could never be furthered by military means. Is that in fact what liberals believe, all of them? Because, if so, we now have a theoretical debate worth having, with “liberals” forced into defending a quasi-pacifist position that not only offends common sense but runs counter to some major and relatively recent historical examples.
(Of course, maybe if liberals just turned into the Equalist party they could find a cause that might be advanced by military means.)
Loyal: I’m preparing another post on this, but the short short version is that I’m talking about hatred of neocons here, not mere disagreement with policies. If it were the latter, neocons would not be demonized so. It’s not as though their policies have let to the death of many millions (like Communism did), or the oppression of a country that wasn’t terribly oppressed before (see this). And, in fact, most people today (not you, no doubt, but most people) believe it was in great part neocon policies that helped lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the freedom in eastern Europe for its former satellites. As I said, more later.
“We shouldn’t confuse any group’s stated goals with their actions”. So, tell me LA, why then do you continue to defend liberalism and the Democratic party? Been one total cluster**** since the beginning, been rejected around the world(at least, where they have the power to reject it). Is the only defense of liberalism “You fu**ed up, too!”?
Why do people seem to ‘hate’ neocons? I guess because they’re in power. When Clinton was in the White House, it was an endless stream of vitriol against middle-of-the-road liberals. I have to confess, before Bush came into office I’d never even heard the word ‘neocon’.
Lee, I think you’re wrong. But I don’t have to spew profanity to say it.
TC, I’m not wrong, you’re wrong. And I don’t “have” to spew profanity, just feel like it from time to time. Deal with it.
But, of course, this isn’t about my profanity or some other deflection, this is about your inability to offer anything other than opposition when you have no ideas of your own.
In fact, it always amazes me how much the left works so hard at “controlling” vocabulary. TC says he heard vitriol about “middle of the road liberals” while Clinton was in office. I’m sure TC calls himself this. While Clinton may have run as a “moderate” or “New Democrat”, his policies were far-left “kook” fringe, and the Democrat Party seemed more and more embrasive of their types(Ted Kennedy, Dean, Chisholm, Boxer, etc.). I heard vitriol about “them” and other like minded types, but never the “moderates” or “middle of the road liberals” that you assert. So, any criticism of YOU and your kind is seen as opposing “common sense” and “what most of us think”. Well, “most” Americans rejected that in 1994, and even today “most” Americans haven’t accepted YOUR ideas so much as they rejected the current administration for “abandoning” core neo-con principles and running wars like “Democrats”. What do you think of that?
See, TC and others are the “moderates”. They don’t “hate” neo-cons because they define what “hate” means. Burning down ROTC bldgs. and smashing Starbucks isn’t “violence” because they define what “violence” is. They can’t be “racists” because they define what “racism” is. “I’m not anti-semitic, I disagree with ‘Israeli policy’ and the ‘Israeli Lobby’.” So forth, so on…..
‘Achates’ starts with an A, not a C.
‘Achates’ starts with a ‘faithful’, not a ‘loyal’.
Maybe I’m stretching isolationism (but I don’t think so), but I’ve gotten the impression Neocons specifically don’t welcome immigrants from the Muslim Middle East?
Just a question somuch, do you advocate or oppose National Socialism?
I don’t suppose the Neocons support the immigration from neighboring countries into Iraq either. They’re anti-immigration there and not here. “Oh, but Holmes, it’s only terrorists there and they are causing problems. Not the innocent Mexican farm worker.” As if those are the only people that slip by our porous borders. How can we be for building nation states, which are defined by borders, yet we can’t enforce our own? I’m not even for eliminating immigration, hardly anyone this side of Pat Buchanan is, but getting a handle on it for our own security is important. I think Neo is a bit naive when it comes to that issue.
It was France who gave us the Statue of Liberty. Other countries can keep their poor now and we’ll give them capitalism instead.
Really great posting neo-neocon. Thanks!
BTW, sorry for calling LA “TC”. sometimes I get confused when the same crap comes out of different people’s keyboards.
Lee|quote| Just a question somuch, do you advocate or oppose National Socialism?|quote|
American national socialist seem to believe (among other odd things) the media is controlled by Jews (which if true, seems like the slant would be for the war). Anyway, no. Not an advocate.
Here’s what American GIs are fighting and dying for: from the Iraqi Constitution
|quote]Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.|quote|
Here’s what Lee said earlier in response to TC:
|quote|For the sake of brevity, I,m not going to list the other 900 or so similar Quranic verses or thousands of other quotes from the Sira, Sunnah, or Hadith. It should be obvious to anyone who can read: They kill us because their god commands them to. Simple as that. No geo-political interaction, no avenging the exploitation of the west, or any other rationalization the left tells them to tell us. READ the Qur’an and hadith for yourselves.|quote|
Can you clear up your support or lack of support for Islam, socialism, theocracy, the war, Iraq, democracy?
Hey Neo,
How are you on the domestic front? Most of the derision I’m getting from liberals in my home town center on what they see is the hypocrisy of conservatives (neo or otherwise), vis-a-vis what people do in their own bedrooms.
They say conservatives, (any and at all), are hypocrites in the morals department, in the family values arena, often being publicly busted for the same sins they have committed.
The running joke is: Why dont Republicans use bookmarks? Because they like to bend pages over!
The people I talk to know Im not religious or homophobic, racists, or any other trait they identify with and traditionally hate, yet they will throw me in with those people, I suppose, for the expediency.
Its not just foreign policy Neo, We cant win the war at home because we cant convince liberals that we are who they used to be.
Id like if somebody could address this.
“Id like if somebody could address this.”
I thought I did above. The Buchanites and the Naderites are coming together, pimping protectionism, vitriolic nativism, military isolationism, no-growth economic policies, destroying successful businesses, and talking about how it takes a village and other nonsense. These people increasingly make up the Democrat Party, as you can see by the knuckledraggers like Jon Tester and Jim Webb they elected in 2006.
At the other pole, you have people like Joe Lieberman and Rudy Giuliani. The ideal here is open trade, a cosmopolitan society, a foreign policy that helps our friends and punishes our enemies, rapid economic growth, and respecting the human individual.
That’s basically where the two parties are heading, and the unifying idea is how to deal with globalization and the challenges it poses. Do Americans look inward or outward, do we look to the past or the future, do we want a homogeneous or heterogeneous communities, and so forth.
Democrats basically purged people like Mark Warner and Joe Lieberman, so they’ve pretty much decided they’re going to be the reactionary party since Clinton left office. With Republicans the change will be more painful — do we go with Giuliani, McCain, or Romney — or a reactionary like Hunter, Tancredo, or Pence? I suspect the Republican Party will remain the party of the future, just as it has been from Lincoln to Eisenhower.
bowden says: The ideal here is open trade, a cosmopolitan society, a foreign policy that helps our friends and punishes our enemies, rapid economic growth, and respecting the human individual.
Oy vey, here we go again. What did I just say?
I didn’t say ‘never’, and if I did I apologize because I was mistaken. I think that liberals in general are less willing to use military force with the avowed purpose of advancing/spreading ‘liberal’ democracy, because for the most part they don’t believe that such a thing can work.
Speaking of liberal democracy, somuch quoted some rather iliberal passages from the US-backed Iraqi constitution. I’d just like to add the platform of the ruling United Iraqi Alliance, which calls for (among other things) full employment, expansive welfare benefits, and the nationalization of Iraq’s natural resources, including oil. Democracy it may be, but liberal it ain’t.
“because for the most part they don’t believe that such a thing can work.”
This is true today, just as it was true in the 60s — the 1860s. The Cold War Democrats from Truman to Kennedy to Johnson are anomalies that prove the rule. In contrast, from McKinley to Lincoln to Eisenhower to Bush, Republicans generally have been on the same page.
In contrast, the Democrats have commonly attracted generals like George B. McClellan who opposed the way Lincoln was running the war rather than his own ability, anti-war idiots like William Jennings Bryan who opposed the democratic endeavor in the Philippines as imperialism, Jimmy Carter who appeases medieval theocrats, and so forth. Why have war? Economics can be altered at will in their minds. But culture– whether it be slavery, theocracy, or third-world peoples– is a pristine, noble state in the radical mind that shouldn’t be touched by humanist, cosmopolitan partisans.
I guess people get the slaveowners and the Saddams they deserve, and we’re all slaves to history. Who can tell who is right, the leftist proclaims!
LA: I didn’t say ‘never’, and if I did I apologize because I was mistaken. I think that liberals in general are less willing to use military force with the avowed purpose of advancing/spreading ‘liberal’ democracy, because for the most part they don’t believe that such a thing can work.
You didn’t say “never”, but you implied it by attacking neo’s description of a neoconservative principle that the furtherance of democracy’s cause “could at times be done by military means” (emphasis added). But, apology accepted.
Contrary to leftist myth, neoconservatives don’t actually believe that democracy can or should be actively spread by military means; they do believe that when military means are necessary, as they unfortunately are from time to time, then democracy can and should be furthered along with the other goals. I think, more generally, it’s true that liberals are less willing to use military means than neoconservatives, on the one hand, but also generally more willing to countenance or tolerate its use against their own country and/or their own friends and allies. It’s a little hard to see how or why that would make them better.
Neocons also seem to conflate a country’s domesic policy with its foreign policy. That is, since the US is a free country, our influence must have a positive effect on other countries. The truth, so far as I can tell, is that there’s really no correlation between how ‘free’ a country is at home and whether it advances or undermines those values elsewhere.
An old example: Athens was the original democracy, a center of art and learning. It was also brutal, warlike, and inclined to slaughter the civillian inhabitants of places it captured. Some people in the Assembly would get upset and give speeches about it, but it didn’t make a difference.
LA: The truth, so far as I can tell, is that there’s really no correlation between how ‘free’ a country is at home and whether it advances or undermines those values elsewhere.
But we’re not talking about “correlations” here but rather about actual principles and policies. I think, as an aside, that you’re wrong about the lack of a correlation in any case, and your old counter-example too remote and particular to count for much (though it’s interesting to note that the Athenian example, for all its faults, was powerful enough that it still resonates today). But the neoconservative idea is that spreading democracy is not simply a matter of passive correlation, but rather of active policy, a policy that best serves our own long-term interests, as well as the interests of most of the world, as it happens.
It would be nice if it were true, Sally, but I don’t think it’s so.
… but I don’t think it’s so.
Fine, we can agree to disagree. I’m curious what “it” refers to, though — that neocons believe that spreading democracy is good policy, or that it actually is good policy?
Gee, somuch, I asked you a simple direct question( this in respomse to your assertion that neocons are anti-immigrant). A lot of rambling, but no direct answer. It’s just a simple “yes” or “no” question. Do you support or oppose National Socialism?
LA sez: “Neocons also seem to conflate a country’s domesic policy with its foreign policy. That is, since the US is a free country, our influence must have a positive effect on other countries. The truth, so far as I can tell, is that there’s really no correlation between how ‘free’ a country is at home and whether it advances or undermines those values elsewhere.”
This betrays a remarkable ignorance of history, Loyal. You’re saying that unfree countries advance freedom abroad? Do you have an actual _example_ of this, or are you just pulling stuff out of your ass?
While it’s true free societies can be imperialists with the best of them, they aren’t imperialists with the _worst_ of them: Gandhi was able to win independence for India precisely because the British colonialists _could_ be shamed into granting it, whereas I doubt he would have gotten very far under the Russian empire (either Czarist or Communist versions).
Or to put it another way, it’s pretty significant that the most stable, prosperous post-colonial societies tend to be places which were ruled by liberal/democratic empires.
It is strange, indeed, that in discussion of possibility to promote liberal democracy by military intervention the whole 3 elephants in the room were totally ignored: Nazi Germany, imperial Japan and South Korea. Of course, in all these examples promoting democracy was not primary goal. Intervention was aimed at defeating enemy. But once victory was achived, the next goal was exclude necessity to fight these countries again. This can be done by two options: occupy them permanently and turn them into colonies, alike British Empire, or establishing there democracy. This is clearly less costly and, to tell the truth, much more in American tradition.
Because, somuch, if you oppose National Socialism, then by your standard I can conclude that you oppose immigration from the Germanic Central Europe. By your standard, no other conclusion is possible. You hate Germans.
On neo-cons being anti-immigration, or specifically anti-middle-eastern-immigration: I am sure there is diversity of opinion on the matter, but many “neo-cons”, including me, understand that America is the great country it is because of the immigrants it has assimilated.
Immigration, which must include assimilation and a path to citizenship, is a good thing. And from a purely Machiavellian standpoint, loyal Americans fluent in Arabic would be a Very Good Thing in the near future.
Red Pencil makes a very good point(one apparently lost on the lefties). But, as you know, many aren’t coming over here to assimilate, but to “assimilate” us. Should there be some sort of “vetting” process, or should we simply take them at their word that they are here for freedom?
On the process of vetting, we should use what we already have:
5 years residence, fluency in English, passing a citizenship test, taking an oath of loyalty and abjuring all foreign princes and potentates.
I know many immigrants, Muslim and otherwise, who have taken this oath and mean it.
Red, not sure if we agree or disagree. The immigrants you speak of I encourage and support. Does that mean our borders should remain open and unenforced?
Immigration, which must include assimilation and a path to citizenship, is a good thing. And from a purely Machiavellian standpoint, loyal Americans fluent in Arabic would be a Very Good Thing in the near future.
Whoa there!, if you please. As the Europeans are learning, the first generation of immigrants might be OK, but their kids and their kids are definitely not. Bolt that door now.
Besides, if the aim is to acquire loyal Arabic speakers, take the Middle-Eastern Christians. They have no love for Islam, having suffered under its oppression for centuries.
Sally: Fine, we can agree to disagree. I’m curious what “it” refers to, though — that neocons believe that spreading democracy is good policy, or that it actually is good policy?
I suppose I don’t believe that 1. the neoconservative vision of ‘democracy’ would be a particularly good policy to spread around and 2. that, even if the neocon view of democracy were the best one, neocons are capable of actually producing it in other countries.
Victory Is Not an Option.
I suppose I don’t believe that 1. the neoconservative vision of ‘democracy’ would be a particularly good policy to spread around and 2. that, even if the neocon view of democracy were the best one, neocons are capable of actually producing it in other countries
Better to have no democracy at all, I guess, LA? I think that’s interesting. I thought Neocons were the ones unwilling to compromise. But it’s your “vision” of Democracy, whatever that is, or nothing.
WR, did you read the NIE, or just WaPo’s take on it? “Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scpoe of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.” Quote from NIE 2Feb, 2007. Hardly proof that all is lost, it does say that victory will be hard. It is NOT a cut-and-run endorsement.
LA: I suppose I don’t believe that 1. the neoconservative vision of ‘democracy’ would be a particularly good policy to spread around and 2. that, even if the neocon view of democracy were the best one, neocons are capable of actually producing it in other countries.
Of course, that would make it important to know what exactly is “the neoconservative vision of ‘democracy'”, and why exactly neocons should be incapable of actually producing it. But, okay, let’s just assume that “neocons” are, a priori, bad guys and girls. (A bit infantile, but then that’s only in tune with the original post.) So then let’s just abandon the label (what’s in a name, right?). Let’s just look at the idea of spreading democracy — the “good” democracy, whatever that may be, not the bad, neocon variety (whatever that may be) — as a basis for a foreign policy. Slap whatever label you like on such an idea. Or are you saying that aiding or promoting such a development in other countries is impossible, pointless, or a bad thing, regardless of how we label its proponents? And is that sort of negative claim really what the liberal left — as opposed to neoconservatives — embraces these days? If so, is it any wonder why that belief system is in decline?
LA: I suppose I don’t believe that 1. the neoconservative vision of ‘democracy’ would be a particularly good policy to spread around and 2. that, even if the neocon view of democracy were the best one, neocons are capable of actually producing it in other countries.
Of course, that would make it important to know what exactly is “the neoconservative vision of ‘democracy'”, and why exactly neocons should be incapable of actually producing it. But, okay, let’s just assume that “neocons” are, a priori, bad guys and girls. (A bit infantile, but then that’s only in tune with the original post.) So then let’s just abandon the label (what’s in a name, right?). Let’s just look at the idea of spreading democracy — the “good” democracy, whatever that may be, not the bad, neocon variety (whatever that may be) — as a basis for a foreign policy. Slap whatever label you like on such an idea. Or are you saying that aiding or promoting such a development in other countries is impossible, pointless, or a bad thing, regardless of how we label its proponents? And is that sort of negative claim really what the liberal left — as opposed to neoconservatives — embraces these days? If so, is it any wonder why that belief system is in decline?
LA: I suppose I don’t believe that 1. the neoconservative vision of ‘democracy’ would be a particularly good policy to spread around and 2. that, even if the neocon view of democracy were the best one, neocons are capable of actually producing it in other countries.
Of course, that would make it important to know what exactly is “the neoconservative vision of ‘democracy'”, and why exactly neocons should be incapable of actually producing it. But, okay, let’s just assume that “neocons” are, a priori, bad guys and girls. (A bit infantile, but then that’s only in tune with the original post.) So then let’s just abandon the label (what’s in a name, right?). Let’s just look at the idea of spreading democracy — the “good” democracy, whatever that may be, not the bad, neocon variety (whatever that may be) — as a basis for a foreign policy. Slap whatever label you like on such an idea. Or are you saying that aiding or promoting such a development in other countries is impossible, pointless, or a bad thing, regardless of how we label its proponents? And is that sort of negative claim really what the liberal left — as opposed to neoconservatives — embraces these days? If so, is it any wonder why that belief system is in decline?
LA: I suppose I don’t believe that 1. the neoconservative vision of ‘democracy’ would be a particularly good policy to spread around and 2. that, even if the neocon view of democracy were the best one, neocons are capable of actually producing it in other countries.
Of course, that would make it important to know what exactly is “the neoconservative vision of ‘democracy'”, and why exactly neocons should be incapable of actually producing it. But, okay, let’s just assume that “neocons” are, a priori, bad guys and girls. (A bit infantile, but then that’s only in tune with the original post.) So then let’s just abandon the label (what’s in a name, right?). Let’s just look at the idea of spreading democracy — the “good” democracy, whatever that may be, not the bad, neocon variety (whatever that may be) — as a basis for a foreign policy. Slap whatever label you like on such an idea. Or are you saying that aiding or promoting such a development in other countries is impossible, pointless, or a bad thing, regardless of how we label its proponents? And is that sort of negative claim really what the liberal left — as opposed to neoconservatives — embraces these days? If so, is it any wonder why that belief system is in decline?
LA: I suppose I don’t believe that 1. the neoconservative vision of ‘democracy’ would be a particularly good policy to spread around and 2. that, even if the neocon view of democracy were the best one, neocons are capable of actually producing it in other countries.
Of course, that would make it important to know what exactly is “the neoconservative vision of ‘democracy'”, and why exactly neocons should be incapable of actually producing it. But, okay, let’s just assume that “neocons” are, a priori, bad guys and girls. (A bit infantile, but then that’s only in tune with the original post.) So then let’s just abandon the label (what’s in a name, right?). Let’s just look at the idea of spreading democracy — the “good” democracy, whatever that may be, not the bad, neocon variety (whatever that may be) — as a basis for a foreign policy. Slap whatever label you like on such an idea. Or are you saying that aiding or promoting such a development in other countries is impossible, pointless, or a bad thing, regardless of how we label its proponents? And is that sort of negative claim really what the liberal left — as opposed to neoconservatives — embraces these days? If so, is it any wonder why that belief system is in decline?
LA: I suppose I don’t believe that 1. the neoconservative vision of ‘democracy’ would be a particularly good policy to spread around and 2. that, even if the neocon view of democracy were the best one, neocons are capable of actually producing it in other countries.
Of course, that would make it important to know what exactly is “the neoconservative vision of ‘democracy'”, and why exactly neocons should be incapable of actually producing it. But, okay, let’s just assume that “neocons” are, a priori, bad guys and girls. (A bit infantile, but then that’s only in tune with the original post.) So then let’s just abandon the label (what’s in a name, right?). Let’s just look at the idea of spreading democracy — the “good” democracy, whatever that may be, not the bad, neocon variety (whatever that may be) — as a basis for a foreign policy. Slap whatever label you like on such an idea. Or are you saying that aiding or promoting such a development in other countries is impossible, pointless, or a bad thing, regardless of how we label its proponents? And is that sort of negative claim really what the liberal left — as opposed to neoconservatives — embraces these days? If so, is it any wonder why that belief system is in decline?
“…WaPo’s take on it…“:
To be precise it is General Odom’s “take on it”.
I think the solution to the confusion that you feel is to read, and comprehend, the first paragraph of General Odom’s op. ed.
Following on you may wish to read a A National Intelligence Estimate on the United States. That should keep you occupied for a time.
By the way, I have no idea how my one comment got replicated so many times, but my apologies for it. (Here’s hoping this one stays single.)
What really bothers me that back in 2002, before most people heard of this neocon business, the Democrats were continually harping on the fact that Saddam was still in power. Like after we invaded Afghanistan, Russert or someone asked Kerry what he thought and the first thing out of his mouth was–yeah okay but what about Saddam! Saddam is still in power! He may have nukes! blah blah. What in bloody hell were we supposed to do, given the UN ultimatums and failed sanctions? If we had never gone in, they’d still be ragging on it.
Just like up until 9/11, I regularly got emails from leftie friends imploring us to DO SOMETHING about the poor women of Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, subjected to circumsicion, stoning and so forth. As soon as it looked like we were going to *do something* the emails stopped.
And for 10 years leading up to 9/11, it was common to hear Joe Blow et all say that Poppy Bush should have gone into Baghdad in Gulf War I.
You just can’t win.
cassandra, you forgot that at the time, Joe Blow et al. were also the ones saying “You better not go to Bagdhad, H.W., you only have a mandate to expel Iraq from Kuwait! Don’t overstep your bounds because WE ARE WATCHING YOU!” Only now do they say “Bush One should have finished the job when HE had the chance!” Ironic, isn’t it?
WR, didn’t take that long. I prefer “The National Intelligence Estimate Report” itself to tell me what the NIE says. Not some other jerk’s spin on it. “Prospects for Iraq’s Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead” from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Published Jan 29, 2007, released Feb 2, 2007. I will ask you for a second time: Did you read the report itself? As the title itself suggests, “a challenging road ahead”, not “victory is not an option”. You really should be more creative in your propaganda techniques, Wild Rice.
Wild Rice, you are as transparent as SARAN WRAP! BAAH…HA..HA..HA..HA..HA!
What’s the matter, WR? A little occupied?
Thanks for the laughs neo. I didn’t realize opposite day came around so often in wingnut world.
You seem to be getting younger by the day.
Justadweeb.
Justaninanedweeb.
Sind Sie noch eine kleine Dirne fé¼r die Palé¤stinenser? Die Protokolle noch lesen? Immer das komische Kind im Garten.
Ariel, I recognize “eine kleine”, a small or a little? Please translate the rest because I would like to get the joke. The only German I think I know is “das ist mein auto”.
It has been a long time since those old “Hogan’s Heroes” reruns.
Lee:
“Are you still another small Dirne for the Palestinians? The Protocols (of the Elders of Zion) still read? Always the amusing child in the garden.”
I think “dirne” is a pejorative term, something like “b***h”—you know—like a “toady”.
dirne = whore (I meant that intellectually)
komische = comic or amusing
I was punning on Kind & Garten (Kindergarten)
My German is worse than rusty, so the grammer is off. And probably some of the words, but stumbley got the gist, which is all I care about.
I do this because Justaninanedweeb started calling me a bigot, racist, Nazi because I had the audacity to write that Sharia was my biggest issue with Islam. I don’t care for religious legal systems, of any religion across the board. And Sharia is just that because interpretation comes from clerics, not elected or appointed representatives (I realize that the “progressive” muslim countries are changing this). Justaninanedweeb (thank you, Lee, for “dweeb”)considered Sharia equivalent to English Common Law but blew up when I wrote that they are equal only in the nominal sense. Obviously when one is a revealed system and the other evolved. He, though from New Zealand, used personal possessive pronouns with regards to Sharia, so it is possible he is an NZ Muslim. Only pertinent in that he presents himself/herself/itself as unaffiliated.
He also dodged any questions regarding the Protocols, Blood Libel, and Mein Kampf, belief in which run rampant in the Muslim ME.
Thank you everyone. But which came first; chicken or egg? Shari’a evolved directly from Islam.