Lucille
08-27-2012, 09:52 AM
Times: Neocon Power, Despite Few Voters in Favor, Lives On!
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/times-neocon-power-despite-few-voters-in-favor-lives-on/
Bill Marsh in the Times has a large graphic-style spread (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/26/sunday-review/a-new-guide-to-the-republican-herd.html?ref=politics) on the factions of the GOP — generally a less ideologically diverse party than it was a decade ago. I don’t want to dispute here the relative weight he gives to “Main Street Voters” as opposed to Tea Partyists and the Christian Right. He is correct I think in depicting libertarians as a smaller, less loyal faction, but still a sizeable part of a potential GOP coalition.
What fascinated me was the slot given to neoconservatives. In the graphic, they didn’t even rate a real elephant, just a dotted outline of one. Marsh writes:
Neoconservatives, advocates of a hawkish foreign policy, took a beating in 2006 amidst broad opposition to the Iraq war. Their constituency has largely disappeared, but the agenda lives: Mitt Romney is offering an updated version to an electorate now less focused on foreign policy.
A lot to unpack in this paragraph, which has the appearance of an afterthought to a larger graphic essay about big GOP constituencies. I think it’s largely correct: the neocons don’t have many voters in the party. How many Republicans do you speak to anywhere outside of Washington and New York for whom making war on Iran is the most critical thing they want Washington to deliver? But – despite that – they still hold the reins guiding Romney’s foreign policy...
Related: The Monster That Wouldn’t Die (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2008/02/13/the-monster-that-wouldnt-die/)
Like vampires risen from the dead each night, these creatures who shun the light and feast on pain and suffering, are refreshed and ready to take wing again. What they seek is what makes them feel alive and energizes them to want more, and that is war. They are the War Party, and they are Democrats and Republicans. They are columnists and publishers and academics, as well as politicians and publicists. They don’t have much of a mass base: they prefer to work in the shadows, manipulating rather than inspiring. By such Machiavellian means have they managed to stay viable, in spite of the disasters they have wrought through the years – giving them more scope for fresh disasters yet to be imagined.
Also related: The Times and “Isolationism” (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-times-and-isolationism/)
About that nifty little chart in yesterday’s Times Scott McConnell noted below, I have a serious bone to pick. In his list of libertarians’ motivating issues, Times editorialist Bill Marsh puts “fiercely isolationist.” I am no libertarian, but the isolationist canard is too common at the Times to let it pass.
Let me quote directly from Ron Paul’s website on his defense policy:
* Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.
* Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.
* End the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight.
* Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.
* Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.
I don’t see the isolationism. In fact, the last point comes directly from Colin Powell. As for the first and third points, let’s recall another GOP presidential contender who stated them more succinctly:
[...]
That was Jon Huntsman on September 8, 2011. Isolationist? And if he’s not isolationist, neither is Paul. Mr. Marsh and his editors could make the distinction between a non-interventionist and an isolationist if they would merely give it two minutes worth of thought. One wants to engage the world but not impose our will on it with extravagant exercises in military force. The other, if there is one left, wants America to enjoy its own little cocoon. If this distinction is too taxing an exercise for the Times, I’m sure Daniel Larison would be willing to help.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/times-neocon-power-despite-few-voters-in-favor-lives-on/
Bill Marsh in the Times has a large graphic-style spread (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/26/sunday-review/a-new-guide-to-the-republican-herd.html?ref=politics) on the factions of the GOP — generally a less ideologically diverse party than it was a decade ago. I don’t want to dispute here the relative weight he gives to “Main Street Voters” as opposed to Tea Partyists and the Christian Right. He is correct I think in depicting libertarians as a smaller, less loyal faction, but still a sizeable part of a potential GOP coalition.
What fascinated me was the slot given to neoconservatives. In the graphic, they didn’t even rate a real elephant, just a dotted outline of one. Marsh writes:
Neoconservatives, advocates of a hawkish foreign policy, took a beating in 2006 amidst broad opposition to the Iraq war. Their constituency has largely disappeared, but the agenda lives: Mitt Romney is offering an updated version to an electorate now less focused on foreign policy.
A lot to unpack in this paragraph, which has the appearance of an afterthought to a larger graphic essay about big GOP constituencies. I think it’s largely correct: the neocons don’t have many voters in the party. How many Republicans do you speak to anywhere outside of Washington and New York for whom making war on Iran is the most critical thing they want Washington to deliver? But – despite that – they still hold the reins guiding Romney’s foreign policy...
Related: The Monster That Wouldn’t Die (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2008/02/13/the-monster-that-wouldnt-die/)
Like vampires risen from the dead each night, these creatures who shun the light and feast on pain and suffering, are refreshed and ready to take wing again. What they seek is what makes them feel alive and energizes them to want more, and that is war. They are the War Party, and they are Democrats and Republicans. They are columnists and publishers and academics, as well as politicians and publicists. They don’t have much of a mass base: they prefer to work in the shadows, manipulating rather than inspiring. By such Machiavellian means have they managed to stay viable, in spite of the disasters they have wrought through the years – giving them more scope for fresh disasters yet to be imagined.
Also related: The Times and “Isolationism” (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-times-and-isolationism/)
About that nifty little chart in yesterday’s Times Scott McConnell noted below, I have a serious bone to pick. In his list of libertarians’ motivating issues, Times editorialist Bill Marsh puts “fiercely isolationist.” I am no libertarian, but the isolationist canard is too common at the Times to let it pass.
Let me quote directly from Ron Paul’s website on his defense policy:
* Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.
* Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.
* End the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight.
* Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.
* Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.
I don’t see the isolationism. In fact, the last point comes directly from Colin Powell. As for the first and third points, let’s recall another GOP presidential contender who stated them more succinctly:
[...]
That was Jon Huntsman on September 8, 2011. Isolationist? And if he’s not isolationist, neither is Paul. Mr. Marsh and his editors could make the distinction between a non-interventionist and an isolationist if they would merely give it two minutes worth of thought. One wants to engage the world but not impose our will on it with extravagant exercises in military force. The other, if there is one left, wants America to enjoy its own little cocoon. If this distinction is too taxing an exercise for the Times, I’m sure Daniel Larison would be willing to help.