There's been a lot of speculation about what the Democratic takeover of Congress meant in the eyes of the American voter. Here at the Blue South we think we've reached a bit of a consensus. It has been said by many that people don't necessarily vote for something or someone so much as they vote against something. This sentiment definitely meshes with the efficacy of negative campaigning (despite being detested by us ideologues). And I don't think there's much argument from any side of the political spectrum that the Democrats never really formulated an affirmative message prior to the mid-terms. So what, then, were the American voters against?
The obvious answer here is the Iraq war. That idea has been beaten into all of our heads by the media, but we here at the Blue South think it's not entirely accurate. The real thing that the voters spoke out against, at least as far as we can see, is the specter of neoconservative thought as manifested in our foreign policy. Of course the Iraq war is exactly that, but it is important to point out that Americans have rejected an approach to foreign policy, not one instance of bad judgment and poor execution.
Beginning after WWII, as the Cold War began to rage, early neocons such as Irving Kristol (pictured above) began to formulate their opinions. The idea, originally, was all about the containment of communism and fighting an indirect war with the Soviet Union. We had the moral high ground at that point because it was the Soviets who were viewed as the ones with imperial aspirations, and we were merely fighting the good fight to contain their influence.
However, the Cold War has been over for a while now. Communism has exposed its fatal flaws, namely the social-engineering catastrophes that lead to the deaths of millions and millions of people. If any lessons can be learned from the failure of the communist utopia they must be that utopias don't, and never will, exist and that societies and governments are best left to evolve in their own ways without intervention from outside ideological forces.
This brings us to the tragic flaw of the contemporary neoconservative- the idea that America's best interests are served by spreading democracy throughout the world. On its face it seems like a good a idea. No one here will argue that Democracy is not a good thing. It has been a major contributor to the vast freedoms that we have grown to love in this country. However, the policy of spreading democracy at the barrel of a gun, toppling regimes and then forcing elections, has become the subject of the ultimate democratic criticism- the voter. The fact is that, while spreading democratic values is a good idea, it is not a good in and of itself. The method matters, as do the results and, most importantly, the will of the people being "democratic".
5 comments:
Excellent blog, blue. However, I still think that you give the voter too much credit. One of the exercises that I have used in the past whenever someone would mention neo-conservatism, is to ask the complainant what it was. To date, no one has been up to the challenge.
I suspect that in their mind, it just sounds sinister like, neo-nazi.
A final thought on this response; democracy is still an experiment.
I agree with lester, neo-conservative is a slippery animal to get a hold of. Part of it is the claim of supreme penny pinching fiscal conservatism, but the practice of it has been outrageous spenind (at home and in foreign policy). I say this not to take an obvious cheap shot at repubs, but because the same people who are advocating all the tax cuts AND fiscal responsiblity are the same ones arguing that deficits don't matter.
I think Iraq was most definitely a big issue, but just as conservative dems like myself feel there is not party left for us to be in if the national democratic party goes way off to the left, the same thing has happened to fiscally conservative Repubs (the whole no where to go issue). They feel, rightfully so, that they have been forsaken by the Republican party for the Religious right. I think this had a huge thing to do with the democratic take over 1) fisc. cons. not showing up to vote Republican or 2) when offered a conservative alternative by the dems, showing up to vote for the opposite party.
Perhaps, if the American people were offered an appealing candidate (from any party) they would be less likely to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Neo-Conservatism is a post Cold War animal at its core. Ledeen stated it rather nicely this way:
"Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business."
Conceptually it isn't such a bad plan. From the standpoint of machtpolitik, which to my knowledge has not been discredited in the real world, such activity is necessary to maintain superpower status. To some, many perhaps, flexing military muscle abroad undermines our stated goal of peace and prosperity, both here at home and around the world. Maybe it does, but probably not. And who are we to argue with one hundred and twenty thousand years of human history?
But this is neither here nor there. Before World War II, the United States threw crappy countries against the wall every ten years. Americans had no need of radical Zionist explanations of the deterrent effect of such thrashings. The list is long: England, Tripoli, England again, Spain in Cuba and the Phillipines, Mexico, The Confederacy, Mexico again and then Germany. First we fought for our independence, next we fought to protect our merchants from piracy. Then we fought to preserve our independence from invasion and also to protect the integrity of our trade fleet. Next we smashed Mexico to let that country know that the United States was the dominant power in North America. Then, we fought a brutal war to preserve our constitution against rebels. The war against Spain was to enforce our hegemony in the Western Hemisphere consistent with the Monroe Doctrine. The next war against Mexico was again to preserve our territorial integrity, and then against Germany in the Great War we fought to secure our trade link with Britain and France.
In short, the United States has flourished by expending blood and treasure to protect our own interests. All of the conflicts have been political, but never ideological.
But after World War II, we've begun to get into the game of fighting ideological fights. This is insanity. We have never had a hat in that ring until now. As misguided as Vietnam was at least war could be linked in rational minds with a legitimate global threat.
This war in the Middle East isn't even our war. It makes less sense to blame Iraq for 9-11 than it does to blame Israel and the war on terrorism makes the war on drugs look winnable. So what the fuck are we doing?
Where does the United States draw the line? We've sallied forth into North Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, the former Yugoslavia and Iraq twice. And all this in just the last half a century. And for what gain? The United States has accomplished absolutely nothing. For who's interests did America spend its treasure and expend its blood? Surely not our own. North Korea is a rogue, completely unpredictable and perhaps insane enough to actually push the button. Vietnam is now a decent trading partner to the United States. I doubt Kuwait is doing very much for anyone but the Kuwaitis. Talk about unjust enrichment! Iraq is now far worse off than before Saddam. We cant even say we had to take lives in order to save them. It appears that we've taken lives in order that more lives would be needlessly wasted.
Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan both failed in Afghanistan. Even Tamerlane's terror only pacified the place during his lifetime. What chance do we think we have when half of our population goes into hysterics when they hear that the war criminals we're dragging out of the place are being subjected to horrific torture like being forced to listen to Boys 2 Men albums at all hours of the night and that the Gitmo marines are pissing on the Koran. The Koran for God's sake. Its a book, you know what happens when you urinate on a book dont you? The end of the world! That's reasonable isn't it?
Why doesn't America just go back to doing what made us great? Minding our own business and making money at everyone else's expense.
The only countries we should be throwing against the wall are countries that attack us or that threaten our commercial interests. Let the rest of them do as they wish.
I hope someone at least reads the rant. I suspect I agree with Bluesouth about the war, but probably for very different reasons.
Merry Christmas.
good post, david
Post a Comment