Neo-Cons: Stand By Your Man

On Sunday, I happened to come across a column in the Washington Post entitled “Standing by Bush”. I have to admit that I was intrigued by the title and drawn to the column in the same way a passenger in a car can’t help looking at an accident scene on the side of a road. What twisted logic would be presented to back up the title? I had to know.

The column was written by Joshua Muravchik who is a self-proclaimed neo-conservative and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and I invite you to read the column for yourself. After reading it, I was disgusted. The views put forth in this column are directly responsible for making the world the hornet’s nest of violence that it is today.

Muravchik’s goal appears to be to rally conservatives to the side of Emperor Bush to help the President achieve his vision of world order. The fact that Muravchik associates vision with Bush’s policies is an odious thought. That he associates courage with Bush is absolutely repugnant.

The author notes that in the ‘80s, neo-conservatives were even critical of the foreign policies of the revered Ronald Reagan, so in that context, it’s not unexpected that Bush is being criticized by some of his staunchest supporters. Yet, he maintains that while Bush has made mistakes, he has shown the courage to deal with terrorists in a way that no other Administration has including Reagan’s.

One fact that Muravchik fails to tell the reader is that US foreign policy under Reagan was based on Realism, not neo-conservative idealism as it is today. Even in those heady days of conservatism, the neo-cons were shut out of foreign policy. The Realists view foreign policy as a struggle to maintain geo-political power and balance. They don’t subscribe to the vision of an American world order as promoted by neo-con idealists, nor are they terribly concerned with human rights as defended by liberal idealists. Realists will deal with anyone at anytime as long as the balance of power can be maintained. Reagan’s interactions with Iran in the late ‘80s clearly show this to be the case.

Today, neo-conservative ideals drive US foreign policy. Pro-active wars to affect regime change and spread American style democracy to an ignorant world are what must be done to maintain our security and our way of life. In the neo-con world, there is good and there is evil. America is good; those who don’t like America are evil. It’s that black and white. What is good for America is naturally good for the world. America is the beacon of enlightenment.

In reality, what neo-conservative idealism boils down to is American arrogance and stupidity. Bush was not courageous to start a war without end. He was a coward and took the easy way out by blaming the terrorists for all that was wrong in the world. Real courage would have been to force America to look in the mirror and see how our policies might be responsible for terrorism. Real courage would have been to create an energy policy that makes us independent of fossil fuels. Real courage would have been to not go to war and show the world that we are willing to work hard for peace. Real courage would have been to pressure some of our oppressive allies into reforms so that their countries would not be breeding grounds for radicalism. Real courage would have been to attempt dialogue with those who are our enemies. That’s what real courage would have been. Going to war based on lies wasn’t courageous. It was arrogant and stupid. To believe otherwise is foolish and naïve, and demonstrates a severe lack of global perspective. Oftentimes, naïveté is what unbridled idealism boils down to – even neo-conservative idealism as preached by Joshua Muravchik.

Terrorism and Revolution

I left this thought in a comment on Glenn Greenwald’s Unclaimed Territory and I thought I would expand on it further here. If the equivalent of the American Revolution were taking place today, say in some other country outside of the United States, what would the perception of it be in the US? If the US had good diplomatic relations with the imperial power, would the Colonists be framed as terrorists?

America is a country that was born from revolution, yet as we have matured as a nation, we tend to forget our revolutionary roots, especially when viewing other conflicts in the world. Perhaps that’s natural as revolution by definition is a strike at the status quo and that thought can be terrifying to many because of the unknown change that revolution could bring. But has our maturity as a nation-state clouded our ability to view conflicts in the world fairly? Or does it come down to our perception of the nation-state in conflict and whether that state is an ally or not?

Twentieth Century US history tells us that the latter is certainly true, while the former is more a function of man’s inability to view a conflict from all perspectives rather than his own. However, the further in time we move away from our own Revolution, the harder it becomes for us to identify with its ideals. Note how the Contras in Nicaragua were lauded as Freedom Fighters, while the Palestinians in the Middle East are branded as terrorists. The labeling of both of these groups is clearly tied to the US’s diplomatic relationship with the nation-state involved and has nothing to do with the merits of either side’s position.

In one of his Common Sense letters, Thomas Paine noted (and perhaps advocated) that it would be simple for the American Colonists to go to England and commit acts of sabotage because of the ease in which they could integrate into English society. In today’s vernacular, sabotage equals terrorism, yet we would never label the Colonists as terrorists. But perhaps Fox News would if the conflict were occurring today in some far-away land.

Terrorism is one of the most politically charged and over-used terms in our vocabulary today. To be associated with terrorism in any way can be a death knell for one’s career and/or credibility, yet the term is so broadly applied these days that the true meaning of the word has been obscured. Is it possible that acts of terrorism could also be defined as acts of revolution? Is one man’s terrorist another man’s revolutionary?

The current conflict in the Middle East between Israel and Hezbollah provides and interesting context for this discussion. The coverage of the conflict by American media has been exceedingly pro-Israeli and based on the above that’s understandable. But there are always two sides to a conflict and to not understand both of them is a disservice to peace. Of course the conflict between Israel and its neighbors is heavily nuanced and thoroughly complicated by centuries of problems between Jews, Christians and Muslims. There is probably no one alive who can fully articulate all of the dynamics involved in the region, which highlights the comedy of boiling down this conflict to Israel versus the terrorists. There’s much more to it than that, yet a large segment of the American public won’t hear of it.

Criticizing Israel publicly in America is a difficult proposition as not only will you be lumped in with the terrorists, you’ll also be branded as an anti-Semite (just ask Alan Dershowitz). However, criticizing Israel is not equivalent to anti-Semitism. Israel is a nation-state; it is not Judaism. Criticizing the acts of a nation-state is not the same as denigrating a race or creed of people. Equating the two is as ridiculous as those that say since I’m against the Bush Administration, I must hate America. For the record, I don’t hate America, but I also recognize that America and the Bush Administration are not the same thing.

The point of this post is to remind us to look beyond the simple labels, especially during times of conflict. Our own revolutionary past should teach us that not all oppressed peoples are terrorists and that sometimes change is a good thing.