Bush After Bushism
Derek Chollet and James Goldgeier, co-authors of an excellent new history of America’s 1990s foreign policy, observe that in recent months the Bush administration has large rejected Bushism in favor of something more like the pragmatism and traditional diplomacy that has normally dominated American foreign policy. Intriguingly, they argue that this is “more than the product of a desperate president” but rather “symbolizes the downfall of the conservative national-security establishment that has dominated the foreign-policy debate since the end of the Cold War.”
On that point, I’m not entirely certain. I definitely hope that the conservative national security establishment in question has experienced a downfall, but it seems to me that not only is Dick Cheney still very much around and still very much a believer in the “Bush Doctrine” but that a McCain administration would likely lead to a revival of the sort of ideas that Bush has moved away from. They say that in McCain’s campaign we see both pragmatists and neocons creating a campaign where “advisers of [both of] these factions exist under one roof.” That’s true, but the neoconnish influence is, in my view, clearly the dominant one both because it reflects McCain’s instincts and his record over the past ten years and also because the neocons are just numerically dominant. Look at McCain’s current statements on the Russia-Georgia situation and you’ll see that despite his campaign’s brief flirtation with getting serious about arms control he’s mostly focused on a very aggressive anti-Russian posture.
16 Responses to “Bush After Bushism”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 11th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Welcome back, Matt-
The question is what line Obama will take when in office. You’ve already written about his huge mess of advisors, who seem to range from liberal pragmatist (his Clinton people) to conservative realist (Brzezinski). Which ideological bent do you think he will take once in office?
August 11th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Not only does the McCain camp lean more toward a Bush-circa-2003 view of world affairs, I think there is a real likelihood that a victory in November would be seen as a vindication of their policies.
This brings up something I wish was discussed more often. Even more than most presidential campaigns, this election probably has massive consequences for how both the Democratic and Republican parties will operate over the next few decades.
If McCain wins in November, Karl Rove, more than anyone else, is going to be seen as the architect of his success. Does anyone doubt what politicians from both parties will learn from this election? What campaign strategies would the candidates from both parties adopt? What foreign policies would the two candidates put forward?
August 11th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
This period may be teh Bush administration’s Thermidore, but recall what happened in Russia when Trotsky suggested Stalin’s reign was also a period of Thermidore. Who knows how McCain would handle trying to balance radical neocon ideas with traditional common sense foreign policy?
That’s a serious question. Does anybody know what McCain is planning on doing?
August 11th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
This sort of talk – about Bush becoming a “diplomat” is mostly based on recent actions vis-a-vis Iran – and that’s completely off the rails.
Bush hasn’t done ANYTHING different in dealing with the Iranians except make noises he can use to justify a future war with Iran by claiming that he “tried diplomacy” and “the Iranians rejected it.”
There have been plenty of analysis of the recent Iranian overtures and it’s clear that the entire approach of the “deadline” was a farce. There was no “deadline” offered the Iranians – that was entirely made up by the Bush administration. Neither the Europeans nor the Iranians saw any “deadline” in the offer. Even the State Department had to back down on it. But not Bush and the rest of the neocons.
Nothing has changed. Either Bush has to capitulate and accept Iranian uranium enrichment or Iran has to stop uranium enrichment – and Iran is NOT going to do that. Period. End of story.
So that leaves only Bush capitulating – or an Iran war.
Take your pick. Some people believe Bush is capitulating because of the impact an Iran war will have on oil prices and the US economy. I don’t believe it because Bush and Cheney don’t care about the “US economy” – just the oil company and military-industrial complex economy.
And even if Bush does capitulate, Israel doesn’t give a damn about the US economy either – they will find a way to attack Iran regardless of whether the US gives them permission.
And on that topic, Condi Rice just said that the US has no influence over Israel on attacking Iran. Yeah, right. The US can dictate to Iran, Russia, China, and everybody else in the world – but not little Israel. She might as well wear a yarmulke from now on as a symbol of her fealty to Israel. The reality is that her comment was once again giving the green light to Israel to start an Iran war.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Incredible site!
March 14th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 3:35 am
Incredible site!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:38 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:29 am
buy viagra online
I want to say – thank you for this!
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:30 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
buy cheap viagra
April 8th, 2009 at 4:31 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
viagra