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.