Posted on 11/18/2006 9:46:14 PM PST by beckett
Ideology Has Consequences
Bush rejects the politics of prudence.
by Jeffrey Hart
Many Republicans must feel like that legendary man at the bar on the Titanic. Watching the iceberg slide by outside a porthole, he remarked, “I asked for ice. But this is too much.” Republicans voted for a Republican and got George W. Bush, but his Republican Party is unrecognizable as the party we have known.
Recall the Eisenhower Republican Party. Eisenhower, a thoroughgoing realist, was one of the most successful presidents of the 20th century. So was the prudential Reagan, wary of using military force. Nixon would have been a good secretary of state, but emotionally wounded and suspicious, he was not suited to the presidency. Yet he, too, with Henry Kissinger, was a realist. George W. Bush represents a huge swing away from such traditional conservative Republicanism.
But the conservative movement in America has followed him, evacuating prudence and realism for ideology and folly. Left behind has been the experienced realism of James Burnham. Also vacated, the Burkean realism of Willmoore Kendall, who aspired, as he told Leo Strauss, to be the “American Burke.” That Burkeanism entailed a sense of the complexity of society and the resistance of cultures to change. Gone, too, has been the individualism of Frank Meyer and the commonsense Western libertarianism of Barry Goldwater.
The post-2000 conservative movement has abandoned all that to back Bush and has followed him over the cliff into our calamity in Iraq. On top of all that, the Bush presidency has been fueled by the moral authoritarianism of the current third evangelical awakening.
(Excerpt) Read more at amconmag.com ...
I'd be willing to wager you haven't even read the article that Dr. Hart is referencing.
Nor have you read my comment that I agree that historians might rank him that way, even though I wouldn't.
And I don't have trouble with an ideological approach, per se, but the ideology must be appropriate. Note that President Bush did not use the term "democracy" for Iraq for quite some time...he spoke of "liberty" and "freedom." These distinctions are VERY important. A theocracy is not a democracy, yet may or may not offer liberty.
Some FReepers might call this boring and unimportant, but it goes to the heart of what FR has stood for through its history.
And as you must well know, you actually skipped the beginning of the Declaration. You seem to be trying to avoid something:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....
Considering what these words say upon their face and the documented political ideology which they represent, the aim of conserving, and further winnowing out, applying and building upon the principles of our national inheritance is a strongly ideological pursuit.
The War on Terror is not the same thing as what's going on in Iraq. One could be in favor of fighting the Axis after Pearl Harbor,* but against firebombing Dresden. One could be in favor of D-Day, but against Lend Lease to Russia.
And yes, the traditional conservative postition would be to be against the war in Iraq, while the neocon position is to be in favor of it.
As noted in the American Conservative mission statement: "And we will discuss, frequently, America’s role in the world, turning a critical eye on those who want to cast aside every relevant American foreign policy tradition—from Robert Taft-style isolationism to prudent Dwight Eisenhower-style internationalism, in favor of go it alone militarism, where America threatens and bombs one nation after another, while the world looks on in increasing horror."
Do you deny there might have been better ways to prosecute the War on Terror?
*in fact, recall that it was the Dems who wanted to join in overseas adventures, while "Mr. Republican" Taft represented the isolationists.
Yes, and by the principle, if I'm attacked by someone, I can't go out and shoot his friend in "self-defense"...
The "conservative movement" didn't 'follow' Bush into Iraq America demanded that he respond.
Iraq did not attack us. America was behind the move on Afghanistan. The action against Iraq, however, relied upon trust of a link that is not nearly as strong as was believed at the time. Instead of relying on the strength of the UN resolution violations, etc., as the reason for the action, President Bush pushed the WMD idea--as I wrote at the time, that was a very bad idea. Now, we are seeing the results. :-(
I correctly assumed we both knew what they were. I was avoiding length.
Reality cannot be summed up in a few paragraphs without great distortion. If the Declaration is an ideological document, why does it so quickly descend into specific grievances and commendations of the reasoned judgments of men?
Ideologues wish to institute their ideology at any cost. The American revolt was limited in aims and goals, thus attainable. Excepting Canada, its proponents had little intention of spreading an American ideology elsewhere. They knew too well that liberty is a fragile thing, requiring the right culture for it to take deep roots.
Generality does not equal distortion.
If the Declaration is an ideological document, why does it so quickly descend into specific grievances and commendations of the reasoned judgments of men?
Because these grievances were numerous specific instances of violation of the rights declared in the first paragraph.
They knew too well that liberty is a fragile thing, requiring the right culture for it to take deep roots.
It takes a culture of respect for our Creator endowed human rights, yes. I can agree with you there.
I wouldn't think they could be raised by a blackbird with such bad manners.
What happened to all the Freepers who once posted on this forum who actually read history and political philosophy? Those fondly remembered souls would have grasped the stark differences Hart points out between Burke and Bush, and would have seen how deeply and drastically UN-conservative the elective war in Iraq really is.
In any case, George W. Bush is not a conservative. No conservative could ever say, "When someone is hurting, it's the government's job to be there." Dubya comes from an old-line Republican family, one steeped in the noblesse oblige of the upper-class. He knew that to be elected he had to hitch his wagon to the vulgar term "conservative" (he displayed his distaste by nonsensically prefixing it with "compassionate"), but in his heart -- strike that -- in his mind (a not very good mind, I might add), he doesn't even know what conservatives believe.
Sell crazy somewhere else.
Head bobbing and bowing to high-brow semantic arguments isn't proof of intelligence it's just a desire to be part of the intellectual elites. Or put another way; denying reality with a sophisticated tongue is just putting your head up a perfumed butt.
Quite frankly, this article is crap.
Who is Jeffrey Hart to decide that realists and ideologues cannot be the same people?
AFA "conservatives following W over the cliff," that is simply not true. The Bushbots, by and large, are not conservatives the way the term is commonly understood.
Show me a conservative argument to justify invading a foreign country with a deeply alien culture in order to bring democracy to its people and you'll have done something that might impress me. And please don't tell me we had to do it to get Osama.
Every benefit that was supposed to result from the invasion of Iraq has failed to appear. Israel is less secure. Iran is not chastened. Iraq is poised on the verge of civil war, and will undoubtedly tumble into it as soon as we evacuate the premises.
...denying reality with a sophisticated tongue...
It's exquisitely representative of the quality of argument on this thread, and, indeed, on this forum in the last several years, that you think Hart's article, which he wrote to proclaim his undying reverence for "reality" and its unavoidable directives, is actually about "denying reality."
It's a denial of reality to pretend the United States is not in the middle of major, historical, military failure, all thanks to its pretend conservative president, George W. Bush.
Childish arguments holding out Osama as if he were the only terrorist in the world mean nothing to me. It's the stuff of arrogant elitists.
The fanatic has an elitist view of himself. He holds a firm belief that he is in some way special and has something that others, not like him, do not. Because of this basic self-view any disagreement with the elitist or any resistance to their actions causes anger. This "supreme" view of himself is an excuse for justifying his anger and thus justifying any act from deception to murder against those who disagree with or refuse to comply with him. He is comfortable with hatred, revenge, lying or any gross deception in defense of his special "superior" position acted out against those (the "others") who do resist him or refuse to validate his view(s). It is impossible to reason or negotiate with someone who believes that they are morally and/or ethically superior to everyone else. Anything and everything you do to accommodate their "concerns" (demands), short of complete capitulation, will be discounted due to your "obvious" inherent inferiority. Any resistance to this, anything other than complete submission, actually becomes self-evident proof of their superiority and your inferiority. The elitist's mindset presupposes the rationale of rightness and righteousness as inherent only to themselves by virtue only of this self-superior self-image and not at all as a measure of the quality of their actions or their resulting consequences. That mindset becomes the entire basis of their world-view. They may rest it on an ideology or philosophy that they choose to use as support or camoflage for it but the doctrine itself may or may not, loosely or strictly, support their view. It doesn't really need to as that is of secondary or even tertiary importance. The doctrine has relevance only as a tool. An indoctrinated fanatic may be completely unaware of this yet still be very skilled in its method. "I'm right you're wrong and this is where it says so" goes his thinking. The founders and leaders of fanatic movements know full well that the doctrine is nothing but a smokescreen. They're still right and you're still wrong but it "says so" in their minds only. When it gets down to brass tacks they "don't need no steenking doctrine" to support or hide their superior self-view. Of course the opposite is true for the non-elites in the fanatic's mindset. You can never be right if you're not one of the "righteous." That is why a fanatic is so dangerous. Any and all evil acts can be justified on the basis of any disassociation whatsoever with the personal views and goals of the fanatic. With his identity. The intent and motivations of an outsider are irrelevant no matter how positive they are. Even the results of an outsider's actions are irrelevant no matter how accommodating or constructive or beneficial they are to the fanatic elitist. The outsider is always wrong because he won't submit to the fanatic's view. The world is full of fanatics of many varieties and they can base their superior self-view on any pretext that works for them. Some belong to large groups of like-minded fanatics, some belong to a group that is not in itself fanatical but lends itself to the their needs and some are individuals under the delusion that they alone are special. In today's world the United States in particular and western civilization in general are under a concerted assault from two separate groups of fanatic elitists. Fundamentalist Muslims and leftists. The Islamo-nazis and the Marxists. Both leftists and Islamo-fascists hold a firm belief that they are special and have something that "rednecks" and "infidels" don't have. For the leftists it is supposedly "superior intellect" and "social sophistication" that they possess and for the Islamo-nazis it's a "call from Allah," a "holy annointing." Both groups are manifestations of a mass psychological disorder of fanatic elitism. Both are extremely unstable and are neither founded upon nor affected by sound logic or reason. Convinced of their own inherent superiority both groups will press their respective agendas as far as they can without regard for the consequences to themselves or to others. As with any fanatic the blame for all of their actions will logically fall on the shoulders of the "others," the outsiders. Negative consequences of their actions simply become another tool for self-vindication in the form of propaganda turned back on the outsider as "proof" of his inferiority. The mindset of the fanatic elitist is the same as that of a rabid dog. The mindset of "us-and-them" on an inviolable scale. Nothing else has a valid existence for them if it doesn't submit completely to their view. Anyone and anything that doesn't submit is "total enemy." The outlook of neither the rabid dog nor the fanatic elitist can be affected by outside influence. The dog's mind is controlled by the fevered ravages of a virus; the fanatic's mind is controlled by a self-chosen paradigm that holds anything contrary to its own superiority in all matters as automatically self-negated and both the dog and the fanatic view anything that is other as a threat that must be destroyed. For the fanatic elitist change can only occur from within and that means a change in their most basic self-view, the view that they are special and unique in a superior and dominating way. A view that all reasonable people must either fully reject or completely submit to. Those are the only choices the fanatic leaves to the others.
One of the most sophomoric essays I've ever read. It's nothing but unsupported presumption and moral preening. I was a fool to even engage with you.
You are most definitely a fool. No doubt about it. My essay has recieved good acclaim from those who count. If you had anything intelligent to counter my views with you would have taken my points in my first post and substantively rebutted them. You avoided them because you have no basis in fact to refute them and you are bereft of individual thought.
Except for the fact that 2003 doesn't equate to 1991. At all.
The same problems are there; but a satisfactory solution is now necessary.
In launching a War on Terror (or, more accurate, Islamic jihadi It can be argued that democracy (in some form) is the most powerful weapon we have in this war.
And nobody ever said it would be easy.
To say Cheney's words of 1991 no longer apply because a "solution is now necessary" is, forgive me, total nonsense. The implication, that we're engaged in an existential struggle, is simply not supported by the real facts of this asymmetrical conflict. Where is the power of this great enemy whose only victory was a sneak attack using somebody else's airplanes? Where are its armies?
This stuff is just not cutting it. Cheney's '91 admonitions have proven true, and it's kinda sad to watch good conservatives twist themselves into a pretzel denying that fact.
Might as well ask "Where is its air force, its ICBMs?" As if that was the only way to deliver a nuclear weapon anymore.
Sorry, but I believe we are involved in an existential war. One that actually began centuries ago and may well last generations into the future. And involves decidedly unconventional means of warfare -- which are nonetheless deadly and dangerous.
It's not a stretch to see Islamofascism, if allowed to develop unabated, eventually assuming mainstream status with potentially a billion-and-a-half followers.
It's not a stretch to see jihadis, given access to a nuclear weapon, finding a way to import it into the United States (or Israel).
By the same token, it's not a stretch to see Europe eventually subsumed by Islam. The demographics are a powerful indicator.
And it's not a stretch to see the danger that the American left and MSM are capable of imposing on America in this environment. Fact is, if the left had not courted treason and the MSM had not chosen to propagandize for the terrorists, I believe the situation in Iraq would have been resolved successfully by now.
In my view, Islamofascism is a very real threat to America -- especially over the long term. I should say that I've read Steyn's "America Alone" and find myself in general agreement with his theses.
By the way, understand that I'm not defending Bush as a conservative. I've never believed that he was actually "a conservative". That said, he is still the third most conservative politician to serve as a candidate for President in my lifetime -- after only Goldwater and Reagan. A fact that, over the long haul, I'd consider progress.
I had no doubt you'd play the nuke card if I denigrated the strength of our opponent, but I wanted to wait and see. Sure enough, that was your pavlovian comeback. Nuke 'em before they nuke us seems like it will be the next step in this deadly progression.
But let's move to another area. Was it too much for Americans to expect the administration to have a plan, a quiet diplomatic plan, in place to bring peace to the Middle East once we poured the precious blood of our sons and daughters into the sands of that godforsaken desert? Would it have been wrong to expect Bush and company to have charged into Iraq forearmed with a plan for the Israelis and their neighbors? I don't think that was too much to expect. But we see that nothing was planned for, nothing contemplated about how to bring an over-arching strategy to justify our expenditure of blood and treasure.
It was wrong to commit the American people to the Iraq War just so George W. Bush could finish his father's business. He needed to have a strategy for peace in the Middle East. He had none.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.