April 17, 2005
Rip van Winkles...
Michael Kinsley has an article suggesting that the neocons pulled the wool over our eyes....
...[neocon Jeanne] Kirkpatrick thought that U.S. power should be used to shore up tottering but friendly dictators, such as Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua and the shah of Iran. Carter sat on his hands, she complained. Now we have an administration that -- wisely or foolishly, sincerely or cynically -- claims to have the aggressive pursuit of democracy everywhere as the focal point of its foreign policy. And the Bush Doctrine is said to have the fingerprints of neoconservatives all over it....
...Plenty of explanations are available. The collapse of the Soviet Union (which the neocons did not predict -- their theme had been that the Soviet Union was getting stronger and stronger while the United States diddled) surely changed the calculus. The seemingly easy spread of democracy over the past couple of decades may have disproved Kirkpatrick's pessimism.
But all these explanations require an admission of error, something the neocons are not very good at. They are selling certainty. [Thanks to PowerLine]
The problem with Kinsley's article is that it assumes that the necons were placed in cryogenic sleep about the time of the Iranian hostage crisis, were thawed out in 2001, and have played us a dirty trick by secretly changing their positions while they dozed.
But in fact they were in power for 12 years, holding various positions in the Reagan and Bush I administrations. And while they were dealing with the world's problems they learned some new tricks. There was nothing secret or sudden about it. The big change came, as has been amply discussed, with the fall of Philippine President Marcos, when the decision was made to encourage democracy instead of propping him up. Done for the practical and tough-minded reason that this was more likely to prevent a communist take-over.
The Reagan Administration went on to apply that idea in Latin America, with the truly astonishing result that, by the time Bush I left office, all but one Latin American head-of-state was competitively elected! Far from owing anybody an admission of error, the men of the Reagan and Bush I teams, including several well-known neocons, ought to be showered with Nobel Peace Prizes, and all the rewards and praise we can offer.
The people in deep sleep were the news media, at least as far as recognizing these accomplishments. They are the ones waking like Rip van Winkle, and saying, "Whaa? Neocons? Aren't they supposed to be for propping up friendly dictators? Did I miss something?"
Posted by John Weidner at April 17, 2005 07:53 PM | TrackBackAnother problem with Kinsley's column: it dishonestly mixes up people under the phrase "neo-cons." (Dishonesty, btw, is a characteristic of Kinsley).
As Kinsley obscurely admits, the original group of people called "neo-cons" were born between 1910 and 1920. The only two he names are Irving Kristol and Jeanne Kirkpatrick.
The current group of 'neo-cons' are people born in the fifties and sixties, and labeled 'neo-cons' by liberals and conservative opponents.
At no time does Kinsley cite a single one of the 'old neo-cons' who endorsed Kilpatrick's speech and are now singing a different tune. Nor does Kinsley cite a single line by Robert Kagan ("The chief theoretician of the new neoconservatism") showing he ever endorsed Kirkpatrick's ideas.
It just Kinsley's same old line: distort what people say, then mock the distortion.
THE HOUSE OF SAUD MUST BE DESTROYED -- AND WILL BE!
Posted by: Stephen M. St. Onge at April 18, 2005 02:10 AMYou've got to love the way Kinsley shifts the goal posts over the collapse of the Soviet Union, i.e., a collapse "the neocons did not predict." No Michael, they were too busy CAUSING it than to worry about predicting it. If baseball counted home runs the Kinsley suggests, Babe Ruth would have the only one.
Posted by: Frank at April 18, 2005 07:00 AMAll of this presupposes that the current pro-democracy cant is anything other than rhetoric to support the war. In places where there is still a reasonably stable authoritarian regime favorable to the US (e.g. Saudi Arabia) the current administration still appears to be propping them up.
The real test of a commitment to democracy will come the first time a US sponsored democracy in the Middle East votes in serious opposition to US interests. Will we show the courage of our supposed convictions and respect the will of the people, or revert to our old tactics of destabilizing or overthrowing any government, democratic or otherwise, that fails to toe the US line?
Posted by: tgibbs at April 18, 2005 07:17 AMWell, we supported the Ukrainian democracy movement, even though the opposition parties had announced their intention to withdraw Ukrainian troops from Iraq...
Anyway, the idea is not that democracy will make them all American allies, but rather that they will tend to stop supporting terrorism. This should happen for various reasons, such as because internal quarrels will be fought at the ballot box, and because increasing prosperity and opportunity will undermine the sources of terrorism, and because voters won't support it once they realize it doesn't provide them any benefits...
Posted by: John Weidner at April 18, 2005 08:18 AMI'd have no trouble with the left doubting the neocon's sincerity on democracy in the ME if they weren't so against the promotion of "increased prosperity and opportunity" which used to be part of the left's plank. I think the left needs to address the lack of sincerity in their own positions before counseling the right.
Posted by: Sweetie at April 18, 2005 01:45 PMThe first President Bush had one great line: "A liberal is someone who lies awake at night with the thought that somewhere someone is making money." Nowadays, one might say that a leftist is someone who lies awake at night with thought that somewhere someone is thinking and learning. Critics of what the Left now generically calls "neocons" seem particularly concerned that those who might fit that label have reconsidered any of their positions or policies over the last several decades and perhaps improved upon them. Perhaps many on the left have been so ossified in their own positions for so long, without critical reassessment, that they cannot imagine it happening in others. They also have trouble imagining sincerity, as Kinsley reveals in the quote above. The Democrats today seem to largely dismiss the thought that they might reconsider any of their positions, or actually develop some positions other than opposition, and instead are convinced what they need to do is change their "message," repackage themselves, in short to fool the voters into thinking they are something they are not. So, of course, they project the same mentality upon others and posit that the generic "neocons" must, too, be simply cynically repackaging their same old plans for...um, world domination for multinational corporations(?)...under the rubric of spreading democracy.
Posted by: freetotem at April 18, 2005 02:04 PMI may be uninformed on this topic, but if the US were seriously in the business of destabilizing democracies that oppose us, would we not have our "destabilizing" hands full in Europe right now?
Or is that the point? Will the US being blamed for destabilizing European nations when this or that foolish policy decision comes back to haunt them? Is the scapegoat being set up right now?
:-/
Posted by: Troy Johnson at April 18, 2005 03:12 PM
