Posted on 02/28/2006 8:46:11 PM PST by jb6
Edited on 02/28/2006 11:09:58 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Being someone of a liberal persuasion, it might come as a surprise that I not only sympathize with neoconservatives, I genuinely agree with much of what they have to say. Unlike traditional conservatism, neoconservative philosophy amounts to more than just “Leave us alone.” It inherently rejects both “Fortress America” isolationism and Kissingerian realism in favor of an activist foreign policy of promoting human rights and propagating democracy.
What liberal could disagree with that?
It’s no coincidence that the two ideologies overlap. Both are grounded in Wilsonian idealism. Moreover, neoconservatism wasn’t initially the product of the right-wing intellectuals, who have since become its standard bearers. Strangely enough, the original neoconservatives were radical leftists.
To be specific, they were Trotskyites.
For those of you unfamiliar with Leon Trotsky, he was one of the chief architects of the Russian Revolution. He was an idealist and a militant. Before the revolution, while he was in prison, Trotsky cultivated his famous theory of permanent revolution: a concept which would later provide the impetus for Soviet imperialism.
An independent thinker (he was originally a leader of the opposition Mensheviks), Trotsky was single handedly responsible for crafting the Red Army into a machine whose purpose was to forcibly spread his idealistic brand of Marxism across the world. Substitute “Marxism” with “democracy” and the leap from Trotskyism to neoconservatism appears remarkably diminutive.
Small as the gap may have been, neoconservatives certainly didn’t make the jump to democracy overnight. It took years of audacious brutality and cynical ideological manipulation by the Stalinist Regime before they were finally disenchanted with communism.
Left in a political vacuum, they eventually gravitated towards realpolitik. This resulted in what Francis Fukuyama calls a “realistic Wilsonianism.” The philosophy essentially boils down to this: the United States is a benign hegemon with the unique ability to create a democratic world order that respects human dignity. Hegemonic as it may be, however, the early neoconservatives believed it was imperative for the United States to act prudently, by avoiding war when possible and cautiously exercising force when not.
As a liberal, I’d say I agree with that doctrine almost in its entirety. But if that’s the case, why is it that I almost always find myself at odds with the policies of the first neoconservative administration ever: the Bush Administration?
Well, the sad fact of the matter is that neoconservatism has become a grotesque caricature of its once great former self. Gone are the days of academic nuance, realpolitik and judicious analysis of international relations. All that remains is its idealism and a throwback to its morphed Trotskyite heritage: the insufferable notion that democracy in and of itself (much like Marxism) has the power to single-handedly cure all the world’s ails.
Neoconservatism for kids – that’s what the Bush Administration is responsible for. They have cheapened their philosophy in order to produce an easily digestible version for the masses. This is more than a little reminiscent of the reductivist logic promulgated by the hippie movement in the ‘60s (when neoconservatism was at its nadir). Replace “All you need is love” with “All you need is democracy” and you essentially have what can only be described as “the new hippies.”
The biggest difference is that, unlike the hippies, the neoconservatives are actually in control of our formal institutions of power. Moreover, they have returned to the Trotskyite militarism of their deep past. What could possibly be scarier than blind idealism coupled with an aggressively militarized foreign policy?
I share President Bush’s idealism. I, too, want to see a democratized world order. In this, I believe that even the neoconservatives of today share far more than they’re willing to admit with their liberal counterparts. But the methods by which the Bush Administration is pursuing its goals are haphazard, ill-informed and overly simplistic.
What a shame it is to have another great political philosophy destroyed by yet another generation of hippies – only this time in jacket and tie.
I think the US (along with other members of the free world) probably did have an agenda and contingency plans regarding Saddam Hussein before 9/11. But I believe this developed long before GWB was elected to the presidency. And who knows what would've happened had not OBL carried out his plans first. I doubt the world would've sat still for Saddam to develop nuclear weapons. Just as I do not believe the free world will sit still for Iran to develop their nuclear weapons.
This is crap, but the fact is, we helped put Saddam's Baathaist into power to remove the communists who had over thrown the king. That is a fact. We also removed the two predicessors in the Baathast Regime.
No doubt, any good command will always have contingency plans dealing with any nation in its area of responsability. However, I still say that after Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia should have been the target. It did attack America and still does, daily. Furthermore, the Saudies have WMD, missiles to deliver them (at least to Israel and maybe Cairo) and told the UN nuclear inspectors to shove it when they wanted info on their nuclear weapons programs.
Danny Kampf is a sophomore majoring in political science. A self-admitted liberal, Kampf is increasingly exploring the politics of moderation and realism. Taking issues one-at-a-time, his interests lie in trying to divorce himself from ideology in favor of pragmatic solutions. His two biggest influences are Fareed Zakaria and Andrew Sullivan. He is the quintessential self-hating liberal.
I recommend Stephen F. Hayes, THE CONNECTION: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered AMERICA, HarperCollins, 2004. The left and its propaganda arm the media are in denial about the relationship between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
But, hey, PEACE & LOVE, man.
Unfortunetly you're right for now. I still believe its a matter of time. They continue to sponsor the very vipers who wish to exterminate us from the face of the earth. After all, only two regimes recognized the Taliban. It's founder: Pakistan and its financier: Saudi Arabia.
There has been much wrong with our foreign policy for many years. Eastern Europe should never have been handed over to communists and we should have been knocking out two-bit dictators and communist regimes like Castro's and establishing democracies all along. Among other things the world be safer, more prosperous and the immigration problems in the West would have been sharply curtailed.
LOL, they would look cute in that 'tie-die' stuff!!
Absolute completely wrong. A total 100% factually incorrect statement. You are completey WRONG. What you are thinking of is the CIA aiding the Shah of IRAN in 1953 to launch a counter coup against a KGB sponsered "peoples revolution" in IRAN. The US Govt had NOTHING to do with Saddam's rise to power. The Baathists were SOVIET CLIENTS. You are completely and totally ignorant of even the most BASIC facts of Iraq's history. Please do NOT arrogant repeat such utter falsehoods.
WW2 was not a mistake. WW1 was. If the Kaiser had won, what would have been the results? More European territory for Germany and some colonies, period. No Hitler or European soviet revolutions. Furthermore, the Whites would have gotten backing and crushed the Reds in Russia.
The CIA aided both the Shah in Iran and the Baathists in Iraq to remove the communists who over threw the king. Why would the Soviets remove the Communist party of Iraq to replace them with milder Socialists? That makes ZERO sense.
That's the difference, Saudi Arabia has already declared war on us, period. I'm not concerned with democracy there, which would only bring a Bin Ladin type to power. I'm concerned with the present powers who are trying to destroy us through a-symetrical warfare, while dropping $60 million plus on DC each and every year for 30 plus years. Saudi Arabia started their war on us a long time ago.
As I said, the historical part of CIA invovlement with the Baathists is all I was looking for. The commentary at the end was stupid crap. Typical of any main media or their lower cousins....state the facts, then spin them.
Why, why, you, you... Trotskyite! I never. Harumph!
I hope that was in jest. I dispise the bastard kiddies of Marx in any form.
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.