The Inevitable Triumph of the Neocons
Robert Farley expresses skepticism that Bill Kristol’s new Foreign Policy Initiative is going to succeed:
For one, not many people seem to be buying into the efforts of neocons to distance themselves from the Iraq War. Second, the Iraq War hasn’t become notably more popular; it still seems to be widely regarded as a misstep, with the only serious discussion being on how disastrous the mistake was. Finally, the information infrastructure is different; because of the efforts of “Mad” Matt Duss, Stephen Walt, and others, the launch of FPI has been greeted as much by mockery and derision as fear and respect. Bill Kristol is a 20th century guy lost in a 21st century world…
I think that’s way too optimistic. The commanding heights of the information economy remain incredibly friendly to neocon perspectives. Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Charles Krauthammer are still all there op-edding away at The Washington Post. The Council on Foreign Relations is staffing up with neocons, adding Elliot Abrams to its arsenal. The Very Serious People at the Brookings Institution remain more likely to collaborate with neocons than with, say, Stephen Walt. And the FPI’s unveiling was validated by the attendance of Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) and John Nagl, head of CNAS the left-of-center national security think tank of the moment. Basically, neoconservatism continues to be the mainstream voice of right-of-center national security—the perspective that establishment-oriented institutions feel compelled to shower with respect. The odds of a Republican president getting elected within the next 12 years are extremely high, and the odds of such an administration being heavily influenced by Foreign Policy Initiative ideas strike me as good.
In terms of Iraq, think about it this way. If things continue to be fairly calm for a few years, that will “prove” that the surge “worked” so we should be glad that the doves didn’t manage to ruin things back in 2007 and 2008. And if things don’t remain calm, that will also “prove” that the surge “worked” until the doves came along to ruin things in 2009 and 2010. If the military-industrial complex were to suddenly vanish over the next couple of years, or cease to be interested in subsidizing the generation of ideas that serve to justify maximalist levels of defense spending, then neocons might go away. But why would that happen?
39 Responses to “The Inevitable Triumph of the Neocons”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 1st, 2009 at 11:57 am
That is so strange to me. There is a very long history of right-of-center Realism. Rightist Realists – Pat Buchanan, Brent Scowcroft, and plenty of others – look downright prescient on the Iraq War, but the Republican Party and conservative movement continues to shut them out. Where’d they all go?
I don’t know about this. It didn’t work that way during the election. Public opinion hasn’t budged since before the surge.
April 1st, 2009 at 11:59 am
Where’d they all go?
With the exception of Pat Buchanan, I assume they mostly became Democrats.
April 1st, 2009 at 12:03 pm
It’s sad that liberal Jews denigrate fundamentalist Christians for their belief in the rapture while, at the same time, they support zionism and Israel – which is quite analogous.
April 1st, 2009 at 12:23 pm
How high are the odds that a Republican will win the Presidency in the next 12 years?
My “book” sais 3 to 1 against.
Never lay odds with your heart. I’m going to get busted, aren’t I.
April 1st, 2009 at 12:24 pm
If the military-industrial complex were to suddenly vanish over the next couple of years, or cease to be interested in subsidizing the generation of ideas that serve to justify maximalist levels of defense spending, then neocons might go away.
Exactly. There’s nothing new here. Ideology is like anything else. It follows the money.
April 1st, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Don’t blame me, I voted to exile them.
April 1st, 2009 at 12:49 pm
“I just don’t see how a Republican with a neocon foreign policy survives an electorate with so many future voters who came into political consciousness during the Clinton-Bush-Obama sequence.”
Well Obama broke his campaign promise on Pakistan and Afghanistan which will make the kids jaded. They will think it was a cynical campaign tactic. We’re going to withdraw from Iraq and not surge in Afghanistan/Pakistan, but just remain at the same level of troops.
The good thing for the doves about Iraq is that if it falls apart, they can blame the neocons and Bush and say the surge was an illusion.
April 1st, 2009 at 12:57 pm
The thing is, politicians are very good at telling people what they want to hear. And by the next election foreign policy won’t be the subject at hand anyway. That might bode well for Obama, but at the same time it obscures the true views of the GOP candidate. On top of that, the appointments any president makes beyond the Cabinet level generally don’t get too much attention anyway. Since the GOP is all about rewarding the good soldiers, I’d say neocons have a great chance of finding themselves back in power. The GOP certainly isn’t going to reject them.
April 1st, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Is it really the case that the military-industrial complex is subsidizing the neocons? Stephen Walt would suggest a rather different interest group.
April 1st, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Oh really? Exactly which promise was that?
I remember him promising to strike Pakistan if there was actionable intelligence about al Qaeda leadership. I remember him promising to beef up the forces in Afghanistan.
As a matter of act, it was largely because of those promises that I supported him over Dennis Kucinich.
April 1st, 2009 at 1:18 pm
The degree to which the traditional foreign policy establishment is able to serve a “gatekeeper” role, and impose an agenda on US thought and discussion on foreign policy was declining because of the internet. And that decline became a death spiral because or Iraq.
The pre-Iraq neocons are dead as far as effective influence on US foreign policy.
That sounds like a strong statement, but I’m pretty sure it will seem like common sense 10 years from now.
April 1st, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Exactly.
When have the neocons ever been right, going back to the B-team over-estimation of Soviet power?
And when has that ever made a difference to their fortunes?
April 1st, 2009 at 2:04 pm
I’m not sure about “getting elected”. This has become so yesterday’s fashion for the GOP, who much prefer – as per the New York race yesterday – to get courts to appoint them to office. Worked for Bush in 2000, and it is now their strategy in Minnesota and New York.
April 1st, 2009 at 2:15 pm
I think it will succeed. Not in the same way that PNAC succeeded, but it will still be influential.
Perhaps the most important reason why it will be successful is that you guys (read left-wingers) have not done enough to bury these guys after the disastrous eight years of the Bush administration. Instead, you’ve placed hawkish Wilsonians in the State Department to carry-on neocon light (not that light) policies. As Obi Wan Kenobi might say, ‘who’s the bigger fool? the fool himself or the fool that follows him?’ How you guys didn’t learn that lesson amazes me.
The Obama administration has completely botched this one by not reaching out to Republican realists to build the foundation of a truly bipartisan foreign policy. Had he put someone like Hagel at State, then these guys would have zero influence.
I’m really beside myself on this one, especially as I watch them fucking up what was left of our relationship with Russia, botch up our European foreign policy, and potentially wreck whatever chance we had to improve the Iranian situation. Afghanistan also is a major concern as you actually have people in the State Department that believe that we can tell their farmers to stop growing opium and that enough money will make it into a functioning state.
What a disaster. Once again, you need to listen to your conservative friends with a conscience.
April 1st, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Oh and giving the queen of England an iPod? Who the fuck does he have advising him? So much for “we need a new tone,” we once again look like a bunch of arrogant morons.
April 1st, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Oh and giving the queen of England an iPod?
I suggest that today may be a good day to take the day off from commenting. Not that I don’t appreciate your comments, otherwise, but today, of all days, is one you should use to relax and not spend so much time online.
April 1st, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Tyro, I thought that too, but it seems to be genuine—or else the AP has been badly fooled.
April 1st, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Obama also gave her a rare songbook signed by Richard Rodgers. Considering the DVD snafu he might have omitted the ipod, but he hardly looks arrogant. At any rate, don’t blame his advisors if you’re dissatisfied. It’s him. He’ll never have Bill Clinton’s natural gift for connecting with people. Who does? My impression is that even Obama’s closest supporters find him rather remote.
April 1st, 2009 at 3:24 pm
It goes beyond just using the information economy. The extremely wealthy and powerful elites who fund the conservative movement have very tight control over information in general through their ownership of nearly every information outlet except the internet.
Over the past few decades, conservatives have pushed to remove restrictions on the ownership of media outlets to the point where a handful of large corporations and billionaires now control nearly everything Americans see, hear, or read. Censorship in the major media is either explicit or self-imposed, lest the offending journalist lose his or her job. This is no secret among journalists, and probably the reason why the quality of journalism has fallen so far. No self-respecting reporter can put up with these conditions.
This is why I expect that at some point in the coming decade, the internet will be compromised in order to control dissent–probably through expensive licensing fees, complete privatization, or both.
Now look at how the American education system has deteriorated in that same time period. Our Prussian-styled warehouses are not meant to educate, but to indoctrinate–to inure students to irrationality and lower their collective level of maturity. As we’ve seen, irrational, overly emotional people are very easy to manipulate and are not likely to be very proficient at critical thinking. And test scores? American 15-year-olds repeatedly rank near the bottom of wealthy nations in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests.
An educated electorate and a free press are two pillars of democracy that have been gradually whittled down, and the whittling has been accomplished by those who stand to profit the most.
To see exactly who set up the neo-con think tanks, read “Tentacles of Rage” in the September 2004 issue of Harper’s Magazine. The must-read on media control is “Manufacturing Consent” by Herman and Chomsky. And for a quick read on who supported the Prussian educational model in the US and its impact, again look at Harper’s, “Against School” by John Taylor Gatto, September 2003. Or read his book, “Dumbing Us Down: The hidden curriculum of public schooling.” I don’t necessarily agree with his solutions, but his description of the problem is quite convincing.
April 1st, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Um, what?
Obama and Medvedev just agreed to open up new arms reduction talks.
April 1st, 2009 at 3:44 pm
So, Matt, the neocons and their influence in the media are really a creation of the military-industrial complex? Really?
I always heard it was the Evangelical Christian who were behind the neocons.
But I guess the main source of neocon money and influence is one of those mysteries we’ll never understand.
April 1st, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Joe,
Noticed that…We’ll see where it goes. Frankly, we both need to reduce our arsenals…it’s kinda akin to a communique that pronounces motherhood a good thing (not that agreeing on things doesn’t build confidence).
DTM,
Gates really doesn’t have the time to really influence FP outside of Pakistan and/or Iran (which I agree aren’t small deals). Moreover, he’s completely outnumbered by Hillary, that moron Susan Rice, and Samantha Powers (a lesser moron).
My larger point though was that the neocons still have significant outlets that the Dems were supposed to take care of. Don’t get me wrong…it could have been A LOT worse with McCain (and that traitor Scheunnerman advising him), but with Dennis Ross and Richard Holbrooke…it ain’t all roses in Foggy Bottom.
April 1st, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Steve,
The neocons are the product of individuals that put their hearts before their heads. In many ways, the way in which they process the world is similar to left-wingers.
Frankly, right-wing thinking ought to be based on facts and analysis. It attempts to divorce emotion from that analysis. There are some people in this forum that may consider themselves to be left-wing or democrats, but in actuality have more in common with the way that I see the world, than someone who’s marching down the street against the G20.
Left wing thinking embraces emotion, which may or may not result in good analysis (it a coincidence thing). This is why many neocons were formerly democrats (and why I’ve always felt that they shouldn’t be Republicans).
April 1st, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Personally, I think we need to get beyond these political labels, and instead examine thinking.
There are three types of people, revolutionaries, stoics, and a mix of the two. Unfortunately, we’ve always had more revolutionaries (or folks that lean that way) than stoics.
April 1st, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Ed Smithe,
not that agreeing on things doesn’t build confidence I was an urban planner in a past life. A Neighborhood Planner, to be precise. Lots of collaborative planning with people and organizations that didn’t have the most friendly relationship with City Hall.
I would go so far as to say that agreeing on things – working together to accomplish a common goal – is the only thing that builds confidence. Not sending love notes. Not declaring your determination to develop a closer relationship.
Actively working together on a job is how you build a relationship.
April 1st, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Well, when your a bunch Jew Scum, what do you expect?
I refer to those guys, as the one that got away from Hitler.
April 1st, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Joe,
Totally agree with you (sorry, my writing today has been sloppy). But I don’t think that we should ignore the fact that the administration sent a letter to the Russians asking them to give up a King for our five of spades. That, like the iPod incident, made us look like a bunch of arrogant morons (which is why the Russians leaked the letter).
That’s not to say that we can’t radically improve the relationship (and things like this do…over a long period of time). But when you’ve got guys like Michael McFaul that really aren’t better than the neocons (it’s our way or the highway with Russia), I’m not terribly optimistic.
This was an easy one. What I’m looking to see (as a positive sign), is the agreements on Iran without completely cutting off Eastern Europe…that would suggest to me competence.
April 1st, 2009 at 5:13 pm
it seems to be genuine … or else the AP has been badly fooled.
If it is true, isn’t the truly hilarious part that the Queen’s gift to the Obama was a framed picture of herself? Which is not only tacky and hilarious, but also funny for showing the Smithe is too fucking stupid to find the truly funny part of the story. then again, he’s a fan of CNBC.
April 1st, 2009 at 5:30 pm
I think you have it right, Matt. For all the pronouncements that press and partisans like to make concerning the death of a particular political movement and/or philosophy in U.S. politics, nothing ever completely fades away. The Republican Party came back after Nixon and it will come back after Bush. When they do, the neocons will come with them. Not so much because the populace will be clamoring for the good old days of the Iraq War and American adventurism so much as there is no such thing as a Republican foreign policy issue other than one defined as such by the neocon wing of the party. They staked-out foreign policy as their domain during the Clinton years and they aren’t going to give it up now.
April 1st, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Yes, I’m still totally at a loss to explain neocons’ emotions, aims, funding, and media influence. Maybe we could recruit some string theorists to tackle this problem, it’s so complex and mysterious.
Or maybe there are things that Science Just Isn’t Meant to Know.
April 1st, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Matt, I’m 40 yrs. old, and you continue to frighten me like I’m a 2 yr. old by making me consider things like this…Thanks, I guess.
April 1st, 2009 at 7:07 pm
You know what would be a cool April Fools Day tradition? If pundits like Matt were allowed to print the truth for one day each year without damaging their careers.
Matt could have headlines like:
“Neocon foreign policy advocates tend to be Jews obsessed with Israel”
“Blacks are better at basketball on average”
But there’d be a Carnaval-in-Rio-style exemption for anything you publish on April 1st that would keep you from getting kicked out of JournoList. You’d have Plausible Deniability. Indeed, you could get all PC and huffy on your critics: “Hey, it’s just an April Fools Day prank. What, you were so naive as to _believe_ it? What, are you some kind of racist? Only a racist wouldn’t realize that was just an April Fools joke!”
April 1st, 2009 at 10:00 pm
I’m still not sure what a “neo-con” is, but I’m sure glad someone finally liberated one Arab nation from tyranny and introduced democracy where there was none.
It’s interesting how “neo-cons” have been for liberation, and “liberals” hate the idea of freeing the oppressed.
That said, there are few remaining totalitarian dictatorships that reasonably can be removed and replaced by outside democratic forces. China has nukes. North Korea has nukes and a huge army on the South Korean border. Iran probably will implode on its own.
Even the “neo-cons” know we don’t have to commit suicide to free the unfree, and that new invasions for liberation are not in the cards. “Neo-cons” will have to come up with new ideas to encourage the end of tyranny.
My guess is, the answer won’t be the appeasement of despotism or simply looking the other way.
April 1st, 2009 at 11:08 pm
DTM,
i think that you’ve raised some good points. with respect to Susan Rice and Samantha Powers, I’m not in any mood to mince words. The two of them are morons…and worse than that, they’re intellectually dishonest when it comes to issues that they think are far more important than consensus at the UN.
on the Republican argument…the problem is that I don’t really don’t know any prominent Democratic realists that would fit the DC bill. Sure, General Jones is a big help, but I haven’t really seen his influence yet…which leads me to believe that the President hasn’t listened to him as much as he should. we know he’s close to Powers…and we know he’s close to Rice. Hillary is the Elephant. I don’t think that bodes well for realism (which you seem to be a member of). I’m concerned…because this was an area that I thought this administration would pay dividends on. I’ve been disappointed.
With respect to where you guys come in…Putting people into power like Hillary Clinton, Ivo Daalder, Holbrooke, Ross, and a whole team of hawkish Wilsonians (who have more common cause with the neocons than anyone else) was a TERRIBLE idea. You guys were supposed to keep people like this out…
I’m sorry…I’m bombed right now…so I’m not sure if I’m making any sense.
One last point…on the facts and analysis side…we’re no different. We may disagree on what the facts tell us…but we’re looking at the facts. The problem is that there’s a whole bunch of folks on the right and the left that ignore those same facts because they don’t conform to their world view. That’s where neocons and their Wilsonian brothers come into play.