ONE moment last week epitomised the current quandary of American neoconservatism.
During the latest bout of conflict in the Middle East, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued the following statement: "The Israeli attacks and air strikes are completely destroying Lebanon's infrastructure. I condemn these aggressions and call on the Arab League foreign ministers' meeting in Cairo to take quick action ... We call on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression."
So, suddenly, the neoconservatives found themselves in the position of having fought a war to construct a democratic polity in Iraq ... only for that polity to join Iran and Syria in condemning democratic Israel. The circle closed, and the irony was airtight. Andrew Sullivan The Times (London)
That, in itself is a fascinating insight into the waning powers of the US right; and with it we hope the worlds willing camp followers.
But it comes from an article which is making an even more critical point; the neo-cons are dividing into the rigid ‘post 9/11’ camp and believe the mindset is past its use-by date.
To Joe Public, what the political elite, the theorist espouse is unadulterated crap, they just want those throwaway confirmations and affirmations.
Of course 9/11 was a horror, so if the left is accused of ‘pre 9/11’ thinking, well anyone can see that is bad. Fox et al have no problem selling the concept.
But for those watching closely, the neo-con edifice is starting to crack, the theorists are beginning to question their own certainties. ‘Stuck in a ‘post 9/11’ mindset will slowly become a stick with which the right will beat themselves. The tables are turning.
reality-based educator introduced me to one of these theorists, George Will (George Will Slaps Down Kristol, Neo-Cons), but I failed at that reading to understand the import of Will’s comments.
Will, last week finally unleashed a real tirade against his Republican brethren. He called neoconservatism "a spectacularly misnamed radicalism" and urged patience, prudence and restraint in the war.
I recently wrote about Australian lawmakers having to personally face the repressions of draconian anti-terror measures in that country, a wake up call we hope.
Conservatives [in the US] who cherish individual liberty have lost faith in an administration that has wire-tapped Americans without warrants, tortured military prisoners and violated the ancient Anglo-American principle of due process and the rule of law.
My Bob Dylan days are long gone now, but the thought still comes to mind – ‘The times they are a’changin…’
8 comments:
I wish the times were changing faster than they are - too many of the wingnuts still remain on board w/ the administration's idiotic policies. Andrew Sullivan is off the bandwagon, as is Will and William F. Buckley. Pat Buchanan was never on the bandwagon. But most of the rest of the cons - FOX News, The Weekly Standard, National Review - have put party above conservative principle and become simple administration apologists.
Well, RBE, I've already confessed to being slow... But thanks for the insight on Will.
I used to destest gradualism, until I learned that is all there is. But even this seemingly obscure split in the ranks (and there are others) gives hope that we are reaching a critical stage.
'Critical mass'? The chain reaction is generally fairly rapid.
But the current quandary of "American" Liberalism, and the past and future quandary, seems to evolve around the words "run away" or "we're sorry" or "anti-war, regardless if the enemy is kicking our sorry asses."
Do we need to strike up a review, reminding the half-brain dead libtards of this board, on who voted for the war resolution, namely one being the liberal darling called John Kerry?
It's always rather a bit convenient how the liberal blogger of this board can leave out the facts behind the stories that are spun up here - just as it is never too surprising never to see my posts making it past the Joseph Goebbels who runs the blog here.
Anon, for a gutless sniper, you are just too bloody funny. I do let through those posts which shine a light on your stupidity, ignorance and inability to do even basic research to support your comments.
It is encouraging to see that 'the other side' is truly bereft of critical faculties. I’m more than happy to watch you march into oblivion mouthing moronic epithets.
I'm going to avoid the discussion except to ask... didn't William F. Buckley turn on Iraq though? Maybe he still holds the neo-con torch, but I thought he bailed out on Iraq.
And I was right!
I think that the realization that discarding with all of history's lessons because of a single event, is a mistake.
You posited this notion quite well here, C. Nice work.
PT, We are still talking Junior of course? Not a patch on the old man, even if he does have some flex.
I still argue there should be fewer historians and more historians among our lawmakers. Novelists I'm not so sure :)
Thanks
Buckley did indeed criticize the current office's mess of Iraq, and I couldn't agree more.
While I can admit that Bush has made a mess of a lot of things, I think we all differ in opinion that the war against terrorism should be fought in a different way.
MY way would be a bit drastic; and this is where even Buckley and I would sharply disagree.
And then their are the anti-Will conservatives who believe (according to Cathy Young in today's Boston Globe), that "the administration's foreign policy toward North Korea, Iran, and Syria is so dovish as to amount to appeasement."
Somehow I think anon is one of those neoconservatives.
But the good news is that yes, there are serious cracks in the political right.
Post a Comment