Posted on 08/22/2003 6:56:29 PM PDT by Brian S
Paul Weyrich Saturday, Aug. 23, 2003
My friend Irving Kristol, the father of neoconservatism, has an explanation of same in the Weekly Standard, the L'Osservatore Romano of neoconservative politics.
He says that although neoconservatism is not a movement as such, its purpose is to "convert the Republican Party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy." As usual, Irving is candid and honest.
He says this new conservatism is "hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic." Its modern political heroes? TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower and Barry Goldwater are, in his words, "politely overlooked."
I am surprised that Woodrow Wilson is not among neocon heroes. It is he who wanted to make the world "safe for democracy." And if neocon foreign policy is directed toward that end, then I don't understand it at all.
In any case, Kristol says that neocons are really at home with Bush 43 as he recognizes the responsibility the United States has to use its enormous power acquired following World War II. We either will use this power, according to Kristol, or the world will come up with ways that will require its use.
I will comment on that view in a moment, but first let me say that other parts of the neocon agenda are a welcome influence on the Republican Party. This is a party that didn't really want to govern. I recall some years ago that a coalition of Republicans and conservative Democrats seized control of the lower house of the New Mexico Legislature. Conservative Democrats, even though there were far fewer of them, had to assume the chairmanships of double the number of committees than the Republicans chaired.
Republicans simply didn't want to govern. They had been in opposition so long they did not know how to use power. When the Republicans unexpectedly assumed control of the U.S. Senate following the 1980 elections, the only committee chairmen who were effective were former Democrats, such as Strom Thurmond and later, Phil Gramm.
Neocon influence in the GOP has changed that. Today, Republican officials in Congress ranging from Tom DeLay and Roy Blunt in the House, to Bill Frist and Rick Santorum in the Senate, as well as committee chairmen such as Sen. Jim Inhofe and Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (just to name a few), are strong, able governing officials. That influence is welcome.
In addition, neocons have generally supported religious conservatives (and opposed libertarians) in looking toward government solutions for cultural problems. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest neocon support gave legitimacy to the claim by religious conservatives, now 40 percent of the party, that abortion and pornography and the absolute decline in our schools, were real problems that needed government intervention.
In addition, the neocon emphasis on economic growth, which usually means tax cuts, was another welcome influence on the green-eyeshade Republicans. We are in total agreement there, although we worry more than they do about government spending being out of control.
Where I part company with neocons is over foreign policy. Kristol claims this is their least-defined issue cluster. I disagree. I think their influence, at least with this president, is the greatest in this area.
First, let me make it clear that I agree that we should maintain military superiority to the point that a potential adversary would think twice about challenging us. It worked with the Soviet Union. The Soviets were a conservative power in the sense that they attacked only when they believed they were sure of winning. Their only miscalculation was Afghanistan, and there only because the United States equipped the Afghan rebels.
I also welcome their unabashed support for the concept of patriotism that was all but lost in the 1970s. Neocons presented an intellectual backdrop for its revival. Only the Republicans picked it up.
Having said that, I believe our intervention should be limited to cases where our vital interests are at stake. That is where the neocons and I march down a different path.
Kristol says: "A smaller nation might appropriately feel that its national interest begins and ends at its borders, so that its foreign policy is almost always in a defensive mode. A larger nation has more extensive interests. And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns. Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from non-democratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated calculations of national interest are necessary."
There is some truth to what he says, although in aiding England and France we were on the defensive mode. We had been attacked at Pearl Harbor, and Germany had declared war against us. As to defending Israel, she is our only reliable ally in the region, so our national interests are at stake if her survival is threatened.
But what of Kosovo? How about Bosnia? And now Liberia? Can anyone really make the case that our national interests are at stake there?
We toppled a regime in Afghanistan because we were attacked on 9/11. The case was made that our national interests were at stake in Iraq. Time will tell if that charge will hold up. But there are 26 places right now where there is active warfare. We could just as easily have intervened in one of those places as in Bosnia or Kosovo.
In the Sudan, the Christian population has all but been wiped out. Why not intervention there? In Angola, the late Jonas Savimbi gave refuge to Catholics fleeing from their Communist government. If we had to intervene somewhere, that intervention would have at least protected innocent people (except for the fact that we sided with the Communists against Savimbi).
We can pick any of these places (how about Northern Ireland if war breaks out there again) to intervene. We can't be everywhere. The only rational approach is to intervene ONLY when our interests are directly threatened. Otherwise we will become, as that great President George Washington warned against, entangled in foreign wars.
To what end? We were to have been out of Bosnia "in a year." It was "several years" when candidate George Bush suggested he might well bring the troops home. They are still there. No one ever speaks any more of a departure date. The same for Kosovo. And despite what President Bush has said, it remains to be seen how long we will be in Liberia.
All this would sicken George Washington. Many of us who believe he was right are not feeling very well either. While I welcome neocon intervention in the GOP on a number of fronts, I find their domination of this administration's foreign policy troubling.
Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation
Just how much has the federal budget decreased in the last 3 years? The last 11? Can anyone tell a difference. </sarcasm>
Is a sarcasm tag really needed?
I certainly hope you re-phrase that to comport with Just War theory.
"Threats" are not sufficient for attacks.
And maybe that's a good goal to attain. I would never want one-party rule. If you can have two viable parties which are at their core pro-America, the nation would be the better. But we know that Democrats are not for America's best interests. They need to be destroyed.
First of all, "the powerful idea" to which you refer is not something which can be implanted in the minds and hearts of people NOT familiar with European legal traditions--the Judeao-Christian heritage--in a matter of months, or even a couple of years. This implies that there will be lengthy engagement of one sort or the other.
Secondly, while your post makes sense in an over-arching philosophical way, the practical reality is that, in fact, we ARE going to acquire territory--because the presumption is that the newly-elected(?) leadership of these places will be friendly to our interests.
Beyond that, if you define 'American interests' as does Rush Limbaugh, who is certainly not an extremist, such 'interests' include natural resource availability for the USA. Let us mention oil. If the free flow of oil is in 'our national interest', as Rush states, then our interest is, in fact, to acquire land (or what's underneath the land) exactly as did other empires.
I think your statement needs a little work.
For the most part, I think you're correct. A house divided against itself can not stand. And this is why I've dropped the "conservative" title. Ask 10 conservatives what conservatism truly is and you'll get 10 different answers.
Go up to my home block and think that way. You wouldn't last long.
Saddam was openly sponsoring terrorism. He had to go after 9/11.
Maybe you don't. But like I said, keep that mindset.
Must be.
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.