In the last two days, I have had an interesting dialogue with Rich Casebolt in the American Power blog. The original piece is entitled "Neoconservatism: America's Tradition" Filled with neocon rhetoric and misinformation about the Iraq war, the article concludes that neoconservatism is about America's stress on "moralism and power." It attracted some 23 comments (four of them mine), which get to the heart of neoconservative philosophy (though to suggest that it is in any way "conservative" requires an Orwellian use of the English language).
Here, I shall share with you part of the exchange I had with Mr. Casebolt (My words are in roman, his are in italic):
... It is difficult to know where to start.
"...neoconservatism usually has a recognizable meaning. It connotes a potent moralism and idealism in world affairs, a belief in America's exceptional role as a promoter of the principles of liberty and democracy, a belief in the preservation of American primacy and in the exercise of power, including military power, as a tool for defending and advancing moralistic and idealistic causes"
There is nothing "conservative" about using military power as a "tool for defending and advancing moralistic and idealistic causes." George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both warned about entering into entangling alliances with other nations.
"In the hands of more hostile critics, the neocons are not merely idealistic but absurdly and dangerously hubristic about the unlimited capacity of American power to effect positive change; not merely expansive but imperialistic, seeking not only American pre-eminence but ruthless global dominance;...
Isn't it "dangerously hubristic" to add trillions to the national debt so we can engage in "nation-building" in Iraq, a country that doesn't really appreciate our efforts? How can we be sure that we are "effecting positive change" as opposed to spawning terrorist movements that will haunt us for years, if not decades? How about respect for the sovereignty of other nations -- so our own may be respected by them? From a Constitutional perspective, I would say the "more hostile critics" are on target.
"[Neoconservatives are] ... not merely willing to use force, but preferring it to peaceful methods;"
Okay, how much diplomatic effort in the Middle East did the neoconservatives engage in before deciding to invade Iraq? No, we heard for months before the invasion how the White House was practically rubbing its hands in anticipation of using "shock and awe" in Iraq.
Try TWELVE YEARS and a whole bunch of violated-by-Iraq UN resolutions ... including two years after 9/11 showed us just what kind of threat a nation like Iraq could pose, were the thugs running it to choose to become Afghanistan 2.0.
Iraq violated many UN resolutions, but even the President has acknowledged that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, the removal of which was the stated purpose of the war! There is also no evidence that any terrorist groups used Iraq as what you call Afghanistan 2.0, and in fact would have had little reason to do so, given the fact that Al-Qaeda and their ilk were promoting Islamic fundamentalism, which Saddam Hussein himself viewed as a threat.
"I think that's key, at the end: the combination of moralism and power."
"Moralism" doesn't make sense unless you are referring to "morality." What is "moral" about starting a war? How is this in the national interest of the American people?
We didn't start this war. Hussein had been committing acts of war upon our civilization ... including aiding those who perpetrated the 1993 WTC bombing ... for years.
Please cite one objective source (mainstream media or academic) to support this contention.
We just didn't treat it as a war, until the attack of another group of like minds killed 2996 people and brought us to our senses.
You do not suppose that if the United States had begun pursuing a sensible energy policy, and (prior to 1996-2001) avoided a military involvement in the Middle East; that Al-Qaeda might have lacked the motivation to attack us?
I think the writer has so wrapped himself up in Manifest Destiny that he forgets that the purpose of the United States government is to serve its people. As HarrisonBergeron2 wrote in Conservative Heritage Times, "By replacing the Articles with the Constitution, the Federalists did indeed pave the way for a more centralized, more powerful government. As Patrick Henry deduced, the rats were indeed busy. Lincoln landed the body blow in 1865, and others, notably Wilson, FDR, and now W the Great, have built upon the centralist counter-revolution by expanding government power at the expense of our liberties." Have you actually read the Patriot Act?
This is not about Manifest Destiny ... it is about doing what it takes to protect the American people in this day where a few thugs can leverage our technology and freedom of movement to inflict more damage, in the same time frame, as six aircraft carriers and hundreds of aircraft did at Pearl Harbor ... and with even more surprise than on that bloody Sunday morning.There is only one way that has been proven reliable -- thoroughly proven so by history -- to do this: transform the nations that allow these threats to exist and expand, into rights-respecting nations that will never again provide safe haven and support to the thugs. When they have nowhere to run, their threat diminishes ... eventually, to that of garden-variety criminals as more and more are killed off and/or rendered unable to coordinate and support their efforts. Your views, Harold, started sliding into obsolescence with the advent of the Boeing 707 and container ship. When the world is as tightly interconnected as it is today, the rules have changed from those our founding citizens considered wise for their time.
Well, you know, my log cabin out here in the Northwest Territory still gets a daily newspaper and obviously has Internet access. The Constitution is not a dated document. While amendments are sometimes necessary, its essential principles are timeless. The genius of the Constitution is that it considered human nature with all its faults and developed effective institutions for dealing with them. When we change the rules, we open the door for tyranny. “Eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty.”
Prior to 1980, we had a very successful policy, called deterrence. Effective border controls (which we do not have) and defensive weaponry will deter Al-Qaeda and their ilk that it is too costly to invade us. The most effective way to control terrorism is to persuade the Arabs and Iranians that it is in their own interest to get rid of the terrorists. Our military involvement in Iraq has had the reverse effect. A better way is to create propaganda targeted to Arab and Iranian sensibilities.
Limiting the defense of a Fortress America to only at her shores and borders, is as obsolete as the Maginot Line.Welcome to the 21st Century.
And its opposite, which appears to be what you are advocating, will lead to tyranny by a government that thinks it is wiser than the people they rule. It will also lead to hyperinflation (think $9.3 trillion national debt), economic ruin, and possibly civil war.
What you call "neoconservatism" has nothing to do with the Constitutional purposes of government: to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, and to secure the blessings of liberty on ourselves and our posterity. In fact, I suggest that the movement has done the reverse. Secessionism in America is a very small movement now, but is gaining personal interest and media attention as Americans seek a return to their core principles. The neocons have perverted justice beyond all recognition (ever hear of the 4th Amendment?), and they certainly don't seem to care much about the blessings of liberty.
-----
It is frightening to read intelligent people buying so much into the arrogance of power, so much so that they forget the reasons the United States was founded and what made it unique, even rejecting the Constitution. I am no liberal, but if neoconservatism is as Mr. Casebolt has defined it -- I certainly want no part of it!
No comments:
Post a Comment