Bush’s triumph conceals the great conservative crack-up

[emad]

Sunday Times
Comment: Andrew Sullivan: Bush’s triumph conceals the great conservative crack-up



It should be the best of times for American conservatism. Republican majorities in the House and Senate, a re-elected Republican president, an increasing number of Republican governors and a rightwards tilt in the judiciary. While the British Tories and German Christian Democrats flounder, America’s right seems to flourish.

Well, that’s the cover story. Beneath the surface, however, American conservatism is in increasing trouble. The Republican coalition, always fragile, now depends as much on the haplessness of the Democrats as on its own internal logic. On foreign and domestic policy alike the American right is splintering. With no obvious successor to George W Bush that splintering will deepen.

Take foreign policy. At the moment Bush is riding high as his democratisation push seems to have made some modest progress in the Middle East. But the Iraq war was deeply controversial among conservatives before the war and it has become more so since. Old school conservatives — or “realists”, as they call themselves — had no time for nation building or for wars of liberation among cultures they viewed as irredeemably undemocratic.

Neoconservatives — many of them former Democrats and liberals — saw spreading liberty as integral to a successful foreign policy. The Iraq war brought the two wings together on the threat from Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1533089,00.html

[Jesus Saves]

1. "Neoconservatives — many of them former Democrats and liberals"

Huh?

[pnorman]

2. Actually, many of them are former "leftists";

either right-wing social democrats, or far-left Trotskyists. You were correct to say: "Huh?"

pnorman

[eallen]

3. Spreading democracy by military action traditionally is a Democrat stance.

Truman and Korea. Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs. LBJ and Vietnam.

And think of their advisors who wrote the theory behind this, such as Acheson, McNamara, etc.

Now yeah. It clearly doesn't work much of the time. The pessimist could point out that South Korea is the only clear success since WW II. The optimist would point out that any objective comparison of South and North Korea would measure this a huge success.

Truman, Kennedy, and LBJ all were Democrats. Yeah, Nixon was President for the last part of Vietnam. And advisors were sent as early as Eisenhower. But it really took off after the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

[adwon]

10. Not really

Democratic presidents of the 20th century had no inclination to 'spread democracy.' They were busy enough just trying to stop communist expansion via 'wars of national liberation.' If the Cold War had been a crusade to bring good government to foreigners, we'd have lost it in the 50s. You just can't expect nondemocratic allies to overthrow themselves :P.

[htuttle]

5. One of the 'fathers' of the neocons is Scoop Jackson

Former Democratic senator and überhawk. Perle, Feith and Abrahms all used to work for Scoop Jackson. Wolfowitz never worked for him, but collaborated with Jackson on several missile related issues.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001834779_jackson12m.html

[Leilani]

14. Exactly..

Add David Horowitz, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, & I believe the Cristal family, Irving & his son Bill, come out of this movement.

[BlackVelvetElvis]

9. Every book I've read on NeoCons

From conservatives and liberals, describe them as originating from the left.
It's origins date back, embryonically, before Vietnam. Many of todays neocons got disgusted with Carter's lack of aggression with communism and Iran and changed course to what we see today.

[adwon]

11. It would be more honest

if the author had said, "One or two former Democrats and quite a few apologists for Stalinist genocidal maniacs." But hey, I'm biased.

[GCP]

4. Does anyone have a free link?

These pillocks require paid registration.

[emad]

7. Check your inbox for the full story:

Emad

[ComerPerro]

6. Triumph?

Are they saying that it was Bush's plan all along to waste thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars on a gamble that there might possibly mabye be some change in the middle east, a change that we haven't fully seen yet and may not know for years if it was for good or bad?

That's a triumph? Sounds more like the actions of a dangerous psychopath.

But, anway, about the article...

Well, I was going to comment on it, but I just can't get past the bullshit.

"Neoconservatives — many of them former Democrats and liberals — saw spreading liberty as integral to a successful foreign policy. The Iraq war brought the two wings together on the threat from Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction."

That last line is just all BS. Neocons aren't about spreading "liberty". They don't care. They are about spreading US power and influence. About increasing their own wealth. If they really were concerend with spreading liberty, why are we allied with Saudi Arabia?

Unless, of course, the author is trying to use this lie of an example of how the right is coming unraveled.

But I don't think they are. I think they are more lockstep than ever.

[Wilms]

8. .

[Wilms]

12. kick n/t

[Dr Fate]

13. I repeat- the GOP/media will NEVER fall on it's own sword.

DEMS will have to stab them- over and over and over.

[Wilms]

15. kick n/t