The True Path

Spackerman draws my attention to Heritage foreign policy honcho Kim Holmes' big new idea which is basically that New Left ideology has taken over the "newsrooms and the halls of universities, churches, movie houses, European foreign ministries, and the United Nations" and, therefore, while America's traditional allies "continue to espouse a rote commitment to the basic principles of freedom and democracy, they no longer believe that these principles are the ideological heart of the free world."

What follows from this, for some reason, is the idea that we need to double-down on unilateralism, militarism, and assertion of hegemony.

Spencer takes apart most of Holmes' specific points, so I would just add a historical note. If you're the American conservative movement and the question is "what should we do about our foreign policy" the answer is always to double-down on unilateralism, militarism, and assertions of hegemony. There's a tendency toward amnesia on this, as if the right-wing was the original architect of NATO and containment, when in fact just as Holmes is right now arguing that liberals and diplomats and Europeans are selling out freedom and Americanism back then this was their argument to. If conservatives hadn't gotten us bogged down in fruitless invasion of Russia in 1946, they would have destroyed the world in a nuclear war in 1956, had the United States spend the entirety of the 1970s bogged down in Vietnam, rebuffed Gorbachev's efforts to wind down the Cold War, etc. To a striking extent, American security and prosperity has relied on the fact that not only have Democrats usually propounded a sounder course, but at key moments Republican presidents have turned off the true path of the movement.

George W. Bush has been different, of course, in consistently rebuffing the entreaties not just of liberals, but also of right-of-center establishmentarians like James Baker and Brent Scowcroft to show some appreciation for reality. And we can see all around us what it's wrought. Homes' theory is that the massive failures of conservative foreign policy can be blamed on a vast swathe of the democratic world turning its back on the true path. The truth, however, is that pre-9/11 we've almost never seen the United States actually try the true path for any period of time -- we've never tried it because the true path is crazy and impractical -- and what's happened since then is just the result.

Comments

It's always funny when wingnut welfare whores, the beneficiaries of a parallel institutional structure maintained by a few rich johns, complain that they just don't get any respect.

They don't just want to be whores: they want a commitment. But the reason they get any attention is precisely because they're whores -- in the case of foreign policy, whores whose clients like leather and whips and being told they're very bad boys who need punishing.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 22, 2008 1:32 PM

I would just add a historical note. If you're the American conservative movement and the question is "what should we do about our foreign policy" the answer is always to double-down on unilateralism, militarism, and assertions of hegemony.

Well, I hate to make this "Dump on Matt" day, but poor Matt must have early memory-loss or perhaps he's just a lot younger than I realized.

Recall that in 2000, *Bush* was the one running on the "humble foreign policy" side, denouncing our ridiculous Clinton-Gore "nation-building" and basically preaching a sort of "soft isolationism". And he had total and committed support from the conservative movement on that stance (though obviously the rather politically-marginal neocons weren't happy).

I guess Matt must have been in Kindergarten back then and was too busy coloring to follow the Presidential campaign...

Posted by RKU | April 22, 2008 1:34 PM

If you're the American conservative movement and the question is "what should we do about our foreign policy" the answer is always to double-down on unilateralism, militarism, and assertions of hegemony.

I dunno RKU, it looks like it'll be Dump on Matt day with a statement like that above. After all, for much of the history of American conservatism, conservatism was associated with complete isolationism.

I guess what would be a fair statement is that

If you're the American conservative movement and the question is "what should we do about our foreign policy" the two conceivable answers are (1) always to double-down on unilateralism, militarism, and assertions of hegemony or (2) to be an isolationist or appeaser.

to the extent that, e.g., before the Iraq war the conversation as the media framed it was "either you are wanting to go to war with Iraq or you are a dirty hippy who would never, ever want to go to war", it represented a complete conservative framing of a war time debate. The reason why conservatives felt that those of us who were against the war must have been pacifist Saddam snugglers is that is the way any foreign policy debate has always been in the conservative movement in this country.

Liberal internationalism, containment, etc., are indeed, well, liberal foreign policy ideas. But to think that the conservative view is unilateralism, etc., is a bit ignorant as the conservative point of view has always been bifurcated between militarism and isolationism (with a regional split with Southerners tending to favor the former and midwesterners tending to favor the latter). That's why liberals pushing internationalism were told "well, then you support the war" (and convinced to "give Bush the tools he needs") while those of us who wanted containment were equated to appeasers.

That being said, RKU -- are you actually believing Bush's 2000 campaign rhetoric? He said many things when he was campaigning that didn't turn out to be the case, didn't he? Of course, he'll blame 9/11 ...

Posted by DAS | April 22, 2008 2:00 PM

Excellent post.

What the fuck is wrong with these people? I like me a good war movie too, but come on. What does America being an asshole actually accomplish, other than to make a bunch of chickenhawks wet themselves?

Posted by Chris | April 22, 2008 2:03 PM

rku writes : "Recall that in 2000, *Bush* was the one running on the "humble foreign policy" side and basically preaching a sort of "soft isolationism". And he had total and committed support from the conservative movement on that stance (though obviously the rather politically-marginal neocons weren't happy)."

that might has been true as a campaign message, but when it came to governing, bush's foreign policy and military advisers were pretty much all neoconservatives who were no longer politically-marginal. the temperate views of bush 41, scrowcroft and others were treated with total disdain.

Posted by dj spellchecka | April 22, 2008 2:09 PM

Matt, I think you need to read a history of American foreign policy in the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon/Ford, and Reagan Administrations.

Posted by Will Allen | April 22, 2008 2:12 PM

Well, you can prove anything this way. If you claim that any foreign policy success of any Republican president was due to his turning aside from the conservative path, and that any unsuccessful policy, be it isolationism, interventionism, or whatever, is the essence of conservatism, than you will always find that conservative foreign policy is a complete failure. The problem with this analytic method is its lack of predictive power.

Posted by y81 | April 22, 2008 2:16 PM

That being said, RKU -- are you actually believing Bush's 2000 campaign rhetoric? He said many things when he was campaigning that didn't turn out to be the case, didn't he?

Well, I personally think that Bush was/is so totally ignorant and clueless about policy---foreign or otherwise---it's just not a meaningful question to ask "whether he meant it". Basically, he read and "believe" whatever speech he was handed, and if he were handed a totally different speech that day day, he'd then "believe" something different.

Think of him as a vacant house. For a while, the "realists" like Powell and Condi Rice were living there, then after 9/11 they lost the lease and the new tenants were the neocons. Think of Dick Cheney as the landlord.

And it's certainly true that over the last 80-odd years, America's conservative movement has been the main and nearly only home for "isolationists", though during the Cold War they were obviously in a small minority.

But look, I never expected poor Matt to know anything about American politics in those dim, distant days of the long-vanished 20th Century. I just vaguely assumed he "sort of" half-remembered the foreign policy debates of 2000 election campaign.

Posted by RKU | April 22, 2008 2:22 PM

RKU's stupid rhetoric about coloring books notwithstanding, he simply shows that, when choosing between the logic of their positions (i.e. the insanely aggressive resolutions on Iraq and Iran passed by the Republican majority congress in 1998-2000) and deciding that conservative means, I hate teh librul, the conservatives always choose the latter. Madly aggressive they are, a lynch mob waiting around for some reason to lynch somebody, but the madness is so admixed with a Pavlovian tendency to stupidity that they often accidentally lynch their own positions, under the mistaken belief that this will piss off, rather than amuse, liberals. A good guide to conservative behavior can be found in Paul Wenger's classic book about Attention-Deficity Hyperactivity Disorder in Children and Adults. Simply apply to the Bushcore. Or one can watch this Monty Python sketch about the Twit race , which remarkably foreshadows the Bush Pentagon. I believe Douglas Feith is even in this race.

Posted by roger | April 22, 2008 2:24 PM

roger, the Iraq Liberation Act, which I assume you're referring to, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton (D). It isn't a "resolution."

RKU, Condi Rice is currently serving in the Bush administration, isn't she? I think you over-simplify the divisions in conservativism over Iraq, both in 2003 and today. That's dj's error as well. (Bill Kristol is a neo-conservative; Dick Cheney is not.)

As for Matt's ridiculous post: If Republicans had gotten us bogged down in fruitless invasion of Russia in 1946 we couldn't have gotten bogged down in a fruitless Democrat war in Korea. I thought I'd continue in this fashion, but the rest of the counter-factuals are so outlandish that there's nothing to say. Except, perhaps: this is the sort of crap that passes for analysis of foreign policy on the Democrat side.

Posted by Thomas | April 22, 2008 3:01 PM

Regarding the 2000 campaign. There was another candidate in the race and he, not Bush, was running as the standard-bearer of crazy conservative foreign policy. He advocated a policy of "Rogue State Rollback," meaning invasions of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Maybe you've heard of him, his name is John McCain.

Posted by mike | April 22, 2008 4:09 PM

Regarding the 2000 campaign. There was another candidate in the race and he, not Bush, was running as the standard-bearer of crazy conservative foreign policy. He advocated a policy of "Rogue State Rollback," meaning invasions of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Maybe you've heard of him, his name is John McCain.

Posted by mike | April 22, 2008 4:09 PM

Regarding the 2000 campaign. There was another candidate in the race and he, not Bush, was running as the standard-bearer of crazy conservative foreign policy. He advocated a policy of "Rogue State Rollback," meaning invasions of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Maybe you've heard of him, his name is John McCain.

Posted by mike | April 22, 2008 4:17 PM

basically that New Left ideology has taken over the "newsrooms and the halls of universities, churches, movie houses, European foreign ministries, and the United Nations" and, therefore, while America's traditional allies "continue to espouse a rote commitment to the basic principles of freedom and democracy, they no longer believe that these principles are the ideological heart of the free world."

True, IMO. And sapped the will of the Euroweenies such that they believe that NOTHING is worth fighting and dying over, but EVERYTHING is worth moaning about if that gives the New Left the "moral high ground".

"Moan" genocide! Darfur! Why doesn't someone else DO SOMETHING! "Moan!"

"Moan" Poor oppressed brown peoples! Poor little brown folk. We would do something but as colonial white oppressors we lack the standing.."Moan".

"Moan" Awful tidal wave! What can we do but wait for Kofi to instruct us? "moan" "moan".

"Moan" All those awful human rights violations...Best we keep it to wringing our hands except when the US or China does it. Then we can morally lecture them..."moan"

"Moan" If everyone would just listen to us New Left whine so ernestly, and obey our spendid idealistic international laws, treaties, and courts, the world would be so happy, happy, happy! "moan"

Posted by Chris Ford | April 22, 2008 4:47 PM

Thomas: I believe the adjective is "Democratic."

Chris Ford: You're off your meds again.

Posted by Henderstock | April 22, 2008 6:30 PM

Chris Ford has never been ON meds.

Except of course alcohol.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 22, 2008 7:06 PM

RKU, Condi Rice is currently serving in the Bush administration, isn't she? I think you over-simplify the divisions in conservativism over Iraq, both in 2003 and today. That's dj's error as well. (Bill Kristol is a neo-conservative; Dick Cheney is not.)

Actually, I'd describe Condi Rice's ideology as being "semi-Bush", namely semi-vacuous, blow-with-the-wind and ignorant. She used to be considered a Realist, then the neocons gained power and she became a semi-neocon. Bill Lind calls her "the Tea Lady"...

And Cheney was always considered a pragmatic Gerald Ford-type Republican (e.g. during the First Iraq War). His transformation is the real mystery, not entirely explained by his age, poor health, and his entire senior staff from Libby on down being hard-core neocons.

We always need to simplify our analyses for space reasons.

Posted by RKU | April 22, 2008 9:06 PM

Go back a little further. Had the Confederate traitors gotten their way, their agrarian, slave-fueled society would've been highly vulnerable to Marxist revolution. The illiterate flag would've had little sickles and hammers on it, and the Cuban missile crisis would've been the Virginia missile crisis instead.

Good thing nobody really listens to those people.

Posted by Aatos | April 22, 2008 10:22 PM

Go back a little further. Had the Confederate traitors gotten their way, their agrarian, slave-fueled society would've been highly vulnerable to Marxist revolution. The illiterate flag would've had little sickles and hammers on it, and the Cuban missile crisis would've been the Virginia missile crisis instead.

Good thing nobody really listens to those people.

Posted by Aatos | April 22, 2008 10:31 PM

More Republican projection, of course: Scalia is the one out saying that the Constitution is nothing but our particular tribal law and offers no guidance or significance to anyone else, nor do its principles. He gets no criticism for this from the right, of course.

Posted by Bruce Baugh | April 22, 2008 10:59 PM

With all due respect, Matt, horsesh*t.

In 1959, Dwight Eisenhower, having pulled us out of the Korean War and presided over eight years of Peace and Prosperity, was attempting to negotiate detente with the Russians. But along come the Democrats and JFK with a towering mountain of horse manure about the "Missile Gap" and the need to confront communism in, of all places, Indochina.

Nixon loses, Kennedy wins, we go to Vietnam.

Liberals are still getting over the catastrophic war that THEY started, and that Nixon was elected to get us out of.

Jesus, Matt, it's called HISTORY. Read it sometime.

Posted by section9 | April 23, 2008 12:01 PM

Thomas writes "RKU, Condi Rice is currently serving in the Bush administration, isn't she? I think you over-simplify the divisions in conservatism over Iraq, both in 2003 and today. That's dj's error as well. (Bill Kristol is a neo-conservative; Dick Cheney is not.)

in my defense i wrote most of bush's advisers were neocons, not all. but still even though condi came into bush's circle as a protege of realist brent scrowcroft, she got bum rushed by the more assertive neocons and before you knew it she was sitting in on the torture discussions.
[just the other day, while in Iraq, she alluded
to al-sadr being a coward. realists aren't that bellicose.

cheney and rumsfeld weren't classic neocons [they had their own reasons for invading iraq] but the neocon's in the vp's office and at the pentagon where the ones whose views won the day.

Posted by dj spellchecka | April 23, 2008 3:48 PM