Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I'm not sure what a neocon is precisely, but empirically I think it lies somewhere at the intersection of authoritarianism and the notion that America needs or should have something that resembles an empire.

But a wingnut is just someone who believes that the current administration is either trustworthy or competent, or especially both.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at November 8, 2007 07:13 PM

But a wingnut is just someone who believes that the current administration is either trustworthy or competent, or especially both.

No,Jane. In my experience, being a "wingnut" means not thinking that the current administration is the second coming of the Nazi Party, and the fourth Reich, and that GWB may not be the worse president in history, forever...

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 8, 2007 07:34 PM

Well, I'm uncomfortable with the WWII metaphor for obvious reasons but I think that possibly the greatest beneficiary of the current administration has been the posthumous reputations of Warren Harding and James Buchanan.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at November 8, 2007 07:42 PM

So, ummm, what do you call those of us who think Bush hasn't been aggressive enough in fighting the war?

Posted by Big D at November 8, 2007 07:50 PM

You lose Jane, Neocons believe in foreign affairs that there's got to be something better than Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia; nihilistic Twelver
Shiaism in Iraq, the hodgepodge juntas that are
the Alawite legacy in Syria. They think that China
and Russia are authoritarian, and more importantly
shortsided political systems. If you think all of this is normal; then you can slam neocons all you want.

Posted by narciso at November 8, 2007 08:19 PM

Narciso, I believe it was Goldwater who said "We are friends of liberty everywhere, but guardians only of our own." I think that attitude is now derided as paleoconservativism, but I'm not sure i disagree with it.

The things you point out are foreign policy concerns. They are not existential threats to our nation.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at November 8, 2007 09:04 PM

Jane, there might be a Democrat or two who would disagree with you. I can't quite remember who said this, but I don't think he was a Republican: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Posted by Jim C. at November 8, 2007 09:20 PM

Alas, Jane, nukes have made the Islamist threat existential.

I remember how Kos wrote once how it would be no big deal if Iran destroyed one or two American cities (that article prompted Instapundit to declare "Moulistas for the Secretary of State!"). The issue is, if you wait for them to be able to destroy a couple of cities, what do you do if they don't, and continue to work on their capabilities? They can wait until they can destroy 5, 10, 20 cities and destroy them only then. When does this threat becomes existential for you? At 7.5 cities plus minus 1.2? Or elsewhere? The only answer is not to let them become able to destroy even one.

Posted by Pete Zaitcev at November 8, 2007 09:30 PM

A nuke going off in a single city is a dire threat to the survival of the nation.

How long will our cities, our economy, our way of life survive if everyone is terrified that they might die in a nuclear holocaust? Always before, we had MAD, and the reasoning that surely "they" wouldn't be nuts enough to deliberately hit the button. Once nuclear deterrence fails--and who here believes that it will succeed?--there's not dang much to protect us, other than nuking so many folks that *might* potentially have supported or support in the future our attackers, and thus re-establish a most terrible form of deterrence.

I don't want it to come down to that choice.

Posted by Big D at November 8, 2007 10:27 PM

It's generally my experience that "Neocon" is way for leftists to say "Dirty Jew" without being called antisemitic.

Posted by Trimegistus at November 9, 2007 06:32 AM

The things you point out are foreign policy concerns. They are not existential threats to our nation.

Don't worry! The building was designed to withstand a 5.05 Richter earthquake and we've never had one over 5.00...

Posted by Jonathan at November 9, 2007 06:35 AM

Alas, Jane, nukes have made the Islamist threat existential.

Nukes are not in themselves an existential threat. That is they don't threaten the existence of the US or its society. Our reaction to a nuclear attack though could be an existential threat (and certainly would be to the instigator!) in that we could destroy the freedom of our society, but it's not the fault of our foes that we are weak in this way.

Why hasn't Israel been invaded in the past quarter century? Deterence works even against a somewhat irrational foe because any act of spite (like a suicide bombing) has to cause enough harm to the enemy to rationalize the harm caused by retaliation.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at November 9, 2007 06:53 AM

Excellent definition Jane.

I expect a lot of flailing as the possibilities for Empire diminish.

Karl, your statement is also true with regards to Iran. And very well stated.

As Gen. Abizaid has said, Iran is not a suicidal country. This despite the many and varied attempts by the neocons (use the above definition) to paint it as such.

No, neocons are not a way to say dirty Jew. There are hugely more Jews on the left than on the right. It's just that a nutty few, backed by a rich few, have become self proclaimed foreign policy experts. I'm referring to the Kagans, Kristols, Krauthammers etc., who, no matter how wrong they are proven, pop right back out of the hat and on the MSM with deep views on how to solve the problems of the world. And I gather Giuliani has the same bunch of advisers. It must be the wheel of Karma working with the intent of diminishing the Empire.

Posted by Offside at November 9, 2007 07:41 AM

Frankly, I find the notion that the US either has, or wants an empire nuttily hilarious.

Those who think this are apparently completely clueless about what an empire is and does.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 9, 2007 07:56 AM

I find Jane's attempt at a neocon definition hilarious. The LAST thing a neocon wants is an empire or authoritarianism. I am amazed at the labels liberals attach to what they regard as the "other" without comprehending what they say and write. Name one "neocon" who wants more than democracy for subjugated people and the benefits that go with trading among free peoples.

Speaking of nutty, Offside....Where is our empire?

Posted by Bill Maron at November 9, 2007 09:25 AM

It appears that Jane Bernstein has once again offered a moderate, reasonable and darn near irrefutable assessment of the topic at hand.

= = =

An Iranian A-bomb is not existential, especially if it is too big, and fragile to place on top of a Shahab missile. H-bombs are where we begin to get existential.

Also, not all Islamic nut-jobs look or act alike.

al Qaeda is inherently suicidal and therefore an A bomb in their hands is a much bigger worry than in the hands of Shia Persians. Thus, an unstable Pakistan is a far larger threat than Iran.

Of course, our working to enhance the Iranian standard of living would increase our ability to deter any actual use of a Persian bomb.

A too effective sanctions regime? That would decrease the effectiveness of deterrence.

Posted by Bill White at November 9, 2007 10:23 AM

Bill: Jane's only right "empirically" in that people who throw around the term "neocon" with abandon doubtless believe their targets are authoritarians who want an empire.

Show me actual examples of self-identified "neocons" who want this.

Hell, show me anyone who actually wants this who has political power in the United States. (I'm sure there are authoritarians who want an empire; the US is a large and diverse nation and certainly we must have such people - beyond people trolling on the internet, we must even have some sincere ones.

But they're not in any sort of power, last I checked.)

(And no, "The President, because he totally is and does", will not suffice.

Anyone thinking that's authoritarianism and wanting an empire should study actual authoritarians and actual historical empires again, since they missed the first time.)

Posted by Sigivald at November 9, 2007 10:44 AM

Frankly, I find the notion that the US either has, or wants an empire nuttily hilarious.

Why are you casting it in terms of what "the US" wants or doesn't want? The country isn't monolithic. Such statements make no sense.

I think I'll give up on defining neo-conservative though I think Jane's definition would work once one considers the definition relative to a certain baseline (say the US in 1980 or 2000). There are obvious moves towards a more powerful federal government and a decrease in personal freedoms. These moves can reasonably be labeled authortarian even though they probably will never result in a government that ceases to be a democratic republic. They are a relative move towards a more authoritarian government not the actual creation of an authortarian government.

Similarly, an American "empire" probably will never resemble traditional empires with all control in a central location. But there is a clear hegemony with the US at its head and an impulse to centralize some aspects of global governance in the hands of the US (eg, preservation of NATO, US dominance of global military power).

My take is that there is a distinct and notable political category of people who believe in a stronger federal government or whose beliefs result in that outcome (eg, increasing security by reducing individual freedoms) particularly increasing the power of the US military and law enforcement rather than increasing the power of federal regulatory bodies or the court system, who favor a more pronounced foreign policy that exploits the US hegemony, who support Israel to some degree, and who tend to be socially conservative.

Some politicians that appear to me to belong to this group include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Rice, Wolfowitz, and Gingrich. It appears to me that Giuliani and G. W. Bush attempt to identify with this group as well.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at November 9, 2007 11:45 AM

I think Jane's definition would work once one considers the definition relative to a certain baseline (say the US in 1980 or 2000). There are obvious moves towards a more powerful federal government and a decrease in personal freedoms.

That has been going on since the early part of the twentieth century, and has nothing to do with the people called "neocons."

Yes, there is a group of people like that (with the possible exception of a more powerful federal government). They're called modern-day "conservatives."

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 9, 2007 12:06 PM

BW:"Of course, our working to enhance the Iranian standard of living would increase our ability to deter any actual use of a Persian bomb.

A too effective sanctions regime? That would decrease the effectiveness of deterrence."

Good Lord Bill, what are you smoking??

The Iranian standard of living goes up and you think the Iranian people are going to credit the US and overthrow the Mullahs?? That is insane-speak. Sane people living in great economies generally credit those in charge with the economy being great (liberal US politicians being the obvious exception).

I will partly agree with you that sanctions, either over/under effective, will not work. Dictatorships like the one running Iran (or the one that ran Iraq) do not respond to sanctions that they make sure only harm the people and not the rulers.

There is only one way to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and that method will be demonstrated prior to January 2009. And since Iran has announced they have achieved the magical number of 3000 centrifuges, those who act may well be taking orders from Jerusalem and not from DC.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at November 9, 2007 12:20 PM

"That has been going on since the early part of the twentieth century, and has nothing to do with the people called "neocons.""

Of course not, that is a textbook definition of a so-called 'progressive'.

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 9, 2007 01:31 PM

I agree Jane, Iran as a country is not insane; but Ahmadinejad and Saedili his proxy at the Foreign Ministry; are members of the milleniast
Hojatieh and supporters of the nihilistic Basij
suicide bomber units. He has stated on not a few
occasions his desire to bring about Armageddon to
further the arrival of the Mahdi.

Posted by narciso at November 9, 2007 06:43 PM

Cecil, I don't see any reference to the US's reputation here. I can see easy ways that deterence is improved by higher standards of living in Iran. Partly it's an indication that a considerable portion of the society is more interested in doing business than in commiting suicide and second, it gives Iranians something to lose.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at November 9, 2007 06:54 PM

I can see easy ways that deterence is improved by higher standards of living in Iran. Partly it's an indication that a considerable portion of the society is more interested in doing business than in commiting suicide and second, it gives Iranians something to lose.

Why do you confuse the goals and desires of the Iranian people with those of their unelected and unaccountable government?

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 9, 2007 07:14 PM

Rage of Reason
__
By Eugene Robinson
Friday, November 9, 2007; A21

It's official: Bush Derangement Syndrome is now a full-blown epidemic. George W. Bush apparently has reduced more of his fellow citizens to frustrated, sputtering rage than any president since opinion polling began, with the possible exception of Richard Nixon.

That should be a pretty good indicator of where Bush will rank when historians get their hands on his shameful record -- in the cellar, alongside the only president who ever had to resign in disgrace.

A Gallup Poll released this week showed that 64 percent of Americans disapprove of how the Decider is doing his job. That sounds bad enough -- nearly two-thirds of the country thinks its leader is incompetent. But when you look more closely at the numbers, you see that Bush's abysmal report card -- only 31 percent of respondents approve of the job he's doing -- actually overstates our regard for his performance.

According to Gallup, if you lump together the Americans who "strongly" approve of Bush as president with those who only "moderately" feel one way or the other about him, you end up with about half the population. That leaves a full 50 percent who "strongly disapprove" of Bush -- as high a level of intense repudiation as Gallup has ever recorded in its decades of polling.

Gallup has been asking the "strongly disapprove" question since the Lyndon Johnson administration. The only time the polling firm has measured such strong give-this-guy-the-hook sentiment was in February 1974, at the height of the Watergate scandal, when Nixon's "strongly disapprove" number was measured at 48 percent. Bush beats him by a nose, but the margin of error makes the contest for "Most Reviled President, Modern Era" a statistical tie.

The Gallup Poll found that among Bush's shrinking Republican base, he has unusually strong support. Independents, though, have joined Democrats in the Bush Derangement Syndrome clinic: They, too, "strongly disapprove" of the job the president is doing.

Bush didn't come by this distinction with help from family connections or the Supreme Court. No, he earned it.

Look at the situation Bush's successor will inherit. Throughout much of the world, the United States is seen as an arrogant bully whose rhetoric about freedom and the rule of law is disgracefully empty. The lawyers and students who are being tear-gassed in the streets of Pakistan's cities will long remember that, when push came to shove, Bush chose to stick with a cooperative dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, rather than live up to his words about the universal value of democracy.

The next president will be left with more than 100,000 U.S. troops bogged down in Iraq, with an unfinished war in Afghanistan -- and, between those two crises, a strengthened and emboldened Iran that hopes to dominate the world's most dangerous region. Nice work.

Bush's successor will, incredibly, assume control of a United States government that interrogates suspected terrorists with "enhanced" techniques known throughout the world by a much simpler term: torture. The new commander in chief will almost surely take custody of hundreds of people detained without formal charges and on questionable evidence, and held for years in secret CIA prisons or at Guantanamo. The next president will take over a government that claims the right to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens without meaningful judicial oversight.

Whoever takes office in January 2009 will be left with a more polarized economy -- an America where the rich have been made richer during the past six years with generous tax cuts, while more than 40 million people struggle without health insurance. The new president will be left with a government that not only failed miserably in its response to the most extensive natural disaster the nation has ever faced but that also reneged on Bush's pledge to rebuild a better New Orleans -- and to make it possible for all those who lived in the city to return.

The next occupant of the White House will find the nation's coffers depleted by Bush's wars -- the price tag doubtless will have reached $1 trillion by Inauguration Day -- and by whatever it eventually costs to keep the housing market afloat.

He or she will inherit, in short, a dismal mess. It will take most of the new president's first term to begin to set things right.

It's easy to understand why Americans have come to think of George W. Bush as the worst president in memory, perhaps one of the worst ever. What's hard to fathom is how we'll make it through the next 14 1/2 months. But who's counting?

Posted by at November 9, 2007 07:44 PM

Why do you confuse the goals and desires of the Iranian people with those of their unelected and unaccountable government?

I don't. Point is that if the government is playing Jihad while the citizens just want to work and prosper, then somethings going to give. I put money on the government. Also, keep in mind that their government does have some features of a republic. It's not a genuine republic due to the concentration of power in the unelected Council of Guardians and the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. Among other things, they screen who can run for office. But it has an elected president and legislature. And looking around, the elections appear genuine.

Point is that a considerable portion of the government is accountable through elections. Sure, the Supreme Leader could go nuts and attempt to bomb the US. But unlike Iraq, I can see them evolving naturally to a democratic republic.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at November 9, 2007 08:07 PM

Is everyone born with rose colored glasses on Planet Karl, or do they issue them too you?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at November 10, 2007 05:46 AM

Yes Anonymous Coward,

We all agree with your post. We all agree that you and Eugene Robinson are total retards who would not know 'Reason' if it were a Rattlesnake and bit your ass.

That was the point of your hate-filled post?

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 10, 2007 09:28 AM

Post a comment