[lit-ideas] Re: Victor Hanson in Iraq
- From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:42:02 -0000
"After the Cold War ended, a number of people on the American Conservative side
(not so much, interestingly, on the Liberal side) thought we should abandon
realpolitik and operate out of principle. We should advocate American
principles around the world and not engage in realpolik any longer."
Unless, that is, we're talking about dictatorships like Pakistan...in which
case realpolitik is once again valid. Conversely, of course, there's the notion
that American Principles, as understood by the American Conservatives, are
actually met by dealing with a dictatoriship that shelters the very terrorists
that everybody is supposed to be fighting. Perhaps Lawrence should list these
principles so that we can be made to understand.
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:22 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Victor Hanson in Iraq
Does anyone believe what Omar implies, namely that Conservatives are engaged
in hypocrisy for supporting Saddam in the 80s and criticizing the Liberals for
supporting him in the 00s? Well, yes, some people do believe that -- those who
hate America and credit it with the diabolical pursuit of evil -- which is the
real "complete nonsense."
I won't try to guess what Omar and those who hate America should know, but
for the rest, and this is something discussed previously, we were once upon a
time engaged in a Cold War and the operative Foreign Policy that we and our
enemy both engaged in was realpolitik. We would support those who sided with
the West and oppose those who did not. It was believed that Communism
represented the "diabolical pursuit of evil" and the tried and true European
realpolik seemed the way to bulk up our side and detract from theirs.
Presidents whether Democratic or Republican all practiced realpolitik during
the Cold War. It wasn't a uniquely "conservative" characteristic. Information
exists describing the thought processes that led up to supporting Iraq against
Iran during their war. I've read about this period. It was decided at the
time that it was safer to support a "thug" than a religious fanatic bent upon
converting the Middle East to his form of fanaticism. You will find no
Conservative at that time suggesting that Iraq was better off with Saddam than
without him.
After the Cold War ended, a number of people on the American Conservative
side (not so much, interestingly, on the Liberal side) thought we should
abandon realpolitik and operate out of principle. We should advocate American
principles around the world and not engage in realpolik any longer. These New
Conservatives had their name shortened to NeoCon.
Perhaps Brian is more of a NeoCon than I am because I have read Fukuyama's
repudiation of the particular Conservative position he helped create. Also,
even if it is good to advocate Liberal Democracy around the world I don't see
how we can make much headway when a significant element in government sides
with our enemy. Yes, there are Liberals who repudiate this Liberal hypocrisy
(Paul Berman, for example, in Terror and Liberalism), but the Leftists don't
seem to care and make such anti-Liberal (at least they used to be anti-Liberal)
statements as those Brian mentions.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
