I really like palaeocons, because they loathe neocons so much. It's my version of lesser-evillism, I guess.
There's a wonderfully droll piece in The American Conservative:
Neoconned AgainNice to know, of course, that opportunism is not solely the property of liberals.
Discredited under Bush, the superhawks reunite for Obama.After successive elections unseated the Republican majority and sent John McCain to defeat, neoconservatism seemed like a spent force....
One would expect neoconservatives to be friendless and circumspect, grumbling about Obama’s inevitable failure as they slump away from Washington. Instead, they are jubilant, palling around with liberals again, enjoying renewed respect. Obama is their hero.
On March 31, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan, and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations Dan Senor launched the Foreign Policy Initiative, the latest neoconservative think tank. Its first conference, dedicated to “Planning for Success” in Afghanistan, had the spirit of a family reunion. Sounds of backslapping and gossip filled the hall at the Mayflower Hotel....
Nearly every attendee, it seemed, was president of another grandly named neoconservative outfit. In one corner was Clifford May, head of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. In another stood John Nagl, who leads the Center for a New American Security. Near him, Randy Scheunemann, the disgraced lobbyist and—bear with me—former president of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a program of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)....
The first order of business at FPI was a stern warning against “isolationists.” An article, “Yes, We Can,” by Max Boot, Frederick Kagan, and Kimberly Kagan was distributed to the crowd.... A panel comprised of Nagl, Robert Kagan, and the Washington Post’s deputy editorial page editor, Jackson Diehl, focused on defending the foreign-policy consensus that has been developing since Obama announced his decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan....
Kagan warned that “opportunistic” Republicans might attack the administration’s escalation of the Long War. Gushing over the new president’s strategy, he exclaimed, “Obama made a gutsy and courageous decision.…"
.... Frederick Kagan, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, outdid his older brother Robert in lauding the commander in chief: “I fully support the president’s policy as stated—and I will work as hard to make this president’s policies a success...."
Republican Congressman John McHugh provided a model of bipartisan obedience to the president—“I can only say to the president, ‘Sounds good to me, boss.’” Jane Harman, a Democrat, dismissed progressives who criticized her for working with “the new neocon group” ....
Robert Dreyfuss, a contributor to the Nation, could not believe the respect being accorded to Obama. “They’ll turn on him. They’re just so toxic,” he predicted.
Perhaps not. As Senor told the New Republic that week, FPI began because Kristol and others had been “discouraged” by conversations they were having with members of the House GOP leadership. Republicans balked at their suggestion of increased military spending as an alternative economic stimulus plan. Senor continued, “Our objective right now is to give President Obama cover in the eyes of those who would otherwise be skeptical on the Right.”
[E}stablishment liberals... are ready to forgive neoconservatives for everything. Many FPI attendees sported nametags that read Brookings Institution or Center for American Progress. Liberal interventionists... agree... that Obama “will be counting on some significant amount of support from his political opponents” to win in Afghanistan.
... For [Matthew] Yglesias, this feels like a replay of the ’90s, where neoconservatives guarded the Right flank of the Kosovo consensus: “By making themselves useful to Clinton and his supporters... the neocons were able to elevate their status...."
The hawks who went hoarse trying to defeat [Obama] are [now] celebrated by liberals as the responsible faction on the Right.... PNAC becomes FPI, and the neocons become the new Obamacons.
I paid a visit to the brand-new FPI web site. It was kind of uncanny. I had just read through fifty pages of turgid prose from Clinton and Obama apparatchik Dennis Ross' "Jewish People Policy Planning Institute" for an earlier post, and the material on the FPI website seemed awfully familiar. Different redaction, slight changes in wording, but it's very much the Synoptic Gospels:
In 2009 the United States--and its democratic allies--face many foreign policy challenges. They come from rising and resurgent powers, including China and Russia. They come from other autocracies that violate the rights of their citizens. They come from rogue states that work with each other in ways inimical to our interests and principles, and that sponsor terrorism and pursue weapons of mass destruction.Presidents come and presidents go, but the permanent government is, well, permanent.
Comments (8)
Real question: Is this neo-con opportunism, or just more evidence of the real nature of the Democratic Party?
I dared my Soc of War & Peace students to find any major differences between GW Bush's official worldview and Susie Rice's Phoenix Initiative report (http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/SlaughterDaalderJentleson_StrategicLeadership_July08.pdf)
Ain't none to find, my students concluded.
Posted by Michael Dawson | April 15, 2009 1:30 AM
Posted on April 15, 2009 01:30
Or, to put it another way, isn't Madeleine Albright Dick Cheney in drag?
I'll defer to OP for the appropriate Scorpion analogy...
Posted by Michael Dawson | April 15, 2009 1:32 AM
Posted on April 15, 2009 01:32
"Real question: Is this neo-con opportunism, or just more evidence of the real nature of the Democratic Party?"
That's one question that doesn't answer itself. Is there no such thing as allies, only interests?
If anything distinguishes the two camps, at least in the geostrategy realm, I think the Wilsonian interventionists are a little bit more attuned to how crusading anti-"illiberal capitalism" can lead to the nightmare scenario of a full-blown Sino-Russian alliance. The two cliques may be on the same page regarding the encirclement of Russia, but the neo-cons are positively Rumsfeldian vis a vis China, whereas the DLC attaches understand that the US cannot afford to bluntly antagonize the number one-and-a-half holder of its foreign debt, and the prospective number one guzzler of Russian hydrocarbons.
Posted by gluelicker | April 15, 2009 5:00 AM
Posted on April 15, 2009 05:00
md
no cheney is mad A butched up
we're back to HUMANIST EMPIRE
naked and real
i must confess
father S tracks neo cons and zionics better then me...by far
youthful prejudice
ala
my pin up gal eleanor R
http://z.about.com/d/history1900s/1/0/n/G/fdr127.gif
like trots which of course many were
the piles of scat left by these THUNDERING NERDS ..do not charm me by their specific brand of stink
i prefer the reek of wall street
to meritoidal "them" infested grub street anyway
in that sterling blueberry
and henwood doug and ME all agree
its a prepster rentier thing
in my case
Zhou enlai would understand
only
a fairly tight party harness
makes me
of prol class use
Posted by op | April 15, 2009 9:40 AM
Posted on April 15, 2009 09:40
glue
i concur
with your distinction
the kennan wing
plays split the buggars
this sites patron gargoyle
richard m nixon
had the native crookedness
to grasp
the superior gambit this really is ..
neocons
now obamacon ( like that eh ?? )
remain terminator angels
to the last line of their internal code
they lack dexterity to say the least
and the flexible wilsonian wizardry
only a
preacher's boy or second generation academic
has by birth right
pardigmatic persona
dean acheson
Posted by op | April 15, 2009 9:50 AM
Posted on April 15, 2009 09:50
MD is right of course -- there's nothing "opportunist" about the neocons' embrace of Obama. They form part of the substance, of which the parties are only shadows. And if they think Obie is likely to give 'em what they want -- well, no doubt they have their reasons.
Posted by MD | April 15, 2009 12:07 PM
Posted on April 15, 2009 12:07
MD, of course you think MD is right!
Okay, op, I'll bite: what makes Trots "thundering nerds" (never heard that combination of words before)?
Posted by Save the Oocytes | April 16, 2009 11:27 PM
Posted on April 16, 2009 23:27
For some weird reason a comment of mine, above, got misattributed to MD (4/15, 12:07) -- hence StO's understandable puzzlement.
Posted by MJS | April 16, 2009 11:46 PM
Posted on April 16, 2009 23:46