The Clinton/Pelosi fault line
Is Hillary a repeat of Bush?
POLITICO-Clinton’s and Pelosi’s differences of detail cumulatively add up to something large — two distinct strands of thinking about where threats to U.S. national security lie and how aggressive to be in confronting them.
Liberal Democrats will have to get over it: Clinton is an authentic hawk. Her support for the Iraq war resolution five years ago this month, whether motivated by politics or principle or some of both, was not an aberration. Nor is her tough talk against Iran.
Assuming she wraps up the Democratic nomination over the next couple of months, she will almost certainly emphasize these interventionist views.
John I always laugh when I see you tearing into Clinton for behaving like a conservative. I agree with you, but it always strikes me as a bit ironic.
A neocon not a conservative!
Sorry, John, but we all know the “con” part of “neocon” is short-hand for “conservative.
David
The roots are liberal Democrats like Scoop Jackson.
Are you saying that neocons are a variation on liberals? That’s rich.
captan,
I think after reading this you will see why Hillary is so simular with Bush on his world view. NEOLIBS/NEOCONS see the world the same outside of social issues.
From Wikipedia,
Captain,
Some argue that NEOCONS just used social issues to gain support for their spreading democracy foreign policy.
Am struck by how unnervingly similar politics in the USA and Australia are at the moment, after reading this thread.
Have just come a local blogsite in my hometown of Adelaide where a similar sort of debate is going on as to culture wars pertaining to Aussie politics and my angle was similar to John Konop’s.
The neocons here are panicking but many respectable conservatives abandoned ship, figuratively speaking, a long time ago.
Many ‘Control Congress’ contributors are probably aware that Australia goes to the polls in a month. A year ago, the natural order of things would have had it that the Howard government be returned, as a matter of course. Populist Howard is the local equivalent of Dubya and has been in power since ‘96.
But in the last year a dramatic shift has happened, with Labor( think Democrats ) finding a chrismatic, Clintonesque new leader and an increasingly hunted Howard suddenly in trouble wherever he turns.
The first thing that strikes me is that Kevin Rudd, an overt Christian, is also relatively conservative compared to many sections of his party and thus an excellent “small target” leader so far because of it. No pesky social, anti-USA or or greenie stuff to crop up and scare the livestock, yet he has been able to differentiate himself in a positive way from near climate denialist Howard, for example.
As mentioned above, the split between conservatives and neo cons John talks of has
happened in Australia, also. Many rationalist conservatives in Australia have become ever-more critical of Howard for the same reasons and policies that alienated rationalist, centrist conservatives in the USA.
Everything from illogical spending patterns to Iraq and Civil liberties have aliented small “c” conservatives as much as social democrats, so that op-ed pages in Australia carry layer after layer of resentment-laden anti-Howard sentiment and the only columnists still supporting Howard are Murdoch neocon and neolib zealots. These are strident as ever, but the incumbent government is carrying a lot of baggage and the old aura of invincibility is “shot”, short of a miracle.
Paul
Nice to hear from you.
Great information from down under!
THANKS JK
Those are good and accurate evaluations of neo-cons. They are so different from the old class of conservative that it is like night and day.
I think much of Hillary’s popularity is due to Bill Clinton’s popularity during and after his Presidency. I think many hope Hillary will be a “Bill-clone” in economic, tax and foreign policy.
While much of his presidency was smoke and mirrors, just like the current one, he was very popular among the majority of people who don’t study the long term effects of policies (longer than the 2 to 4 year lag factors).
Also, she will still have to deal with a Congress with its entrenched power blocks in both parties that may not see eye-to-eye with her.
Paul
Welcome back. The U.S. and Australia are both “former” colonies. (or are we?) I hope people “down under” start thinking “Australia first”. Throw everything else under the bus. (my own personal opinion of course)
Yes, indeed Bill. Who colonises and who is is colonised?
Nothing changes and nothing stays the same. We presume Clinton’s Presidency to be oppositional to the Bush Presidency, with the Democrats intending a seemless transition to Gore until the cunning Bush Republicans ambushed this.
So goes the common lore.
But the way for Bush must equally have been prepared in some ways by the approach of the Clinton Presidency. The Republicans were well able to operate within the paradigm set by during the Clinton years. All of these people have been smart asses along the way, so we come back to complexity baffling the natives or paradoxically, even quite sophisticated people undone by sheer unpredictability.
Paul
Basically all real conservatives hate Bush. So frankly I hope you guys get out of Iraq ASAP. Because he’s scum. So are the Clintons. I really don’t think most people (including me) can comprehend the evil involved.
Mr Konop,
Let me get this straight.
I really, really don’t want to get this wrong.
.
Are you saying Harry Truman, Ted (Bobby? Jack?) Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey and Henry Jackson are the founders of what is today known as “neocons” ?
Is that what you’re saying?
.
It is no secrete that Irvin Krystal and Scoop Jackson were liberal Democrats who wanted an aggressive spreading democracy style foreign policy.
Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton all played to them during their administration. The NEOLIBS and NEOCONS were frustrated with them when at the end the containment policy formed out of the Reagan administration ruled till Bush 3.
The mistake that was made is the pandering to NEOCONS and NEOLIBS by have a strong military on Muslim soil is driving terrorism via experts, CIA, 9/11 report, NIA report and Military intelligence,
That is why when Bush said we needed a humble foreign policy and not be the policemen of the world I voted for him. When he did the opposite I spoke out. That is why I find it strange anyone would call Bush’s policy conservative.
Well, it looks like most of us are thinking along the same lines. The sober reflection that was missed earlier in the century is setting in after events that canot be mistaken as anything but warnings as to the future and our own overconfidence.
John uses the word key word, “humility” and with lustre of Western power exposed and other nations no longer quite so in awe of the West, the real footslog begins.
If we are to remain free and accomplish something worthwhile for recitation to our kids, we have to ensure our politicians are more accountable and be very sure of who our friends are, now that friends and enemies are no longer prepared to wear signs around their necks for our benefit.
The world will no longer be prepared to accept that we are automatically benign and civilised and unless we are sincere in what we hope and strive for in the world, the rest of it will lie in wait for us, and quite rightly so.
Mr Konop,
I think I begin to understand.
If I read you right, you think pushing the USSR to let the Berlin Wall come down was a mistake.
.
More important, when you find something that is currently at the core of the Republican’t political philosophy, like neocons or needlessly invading and destroying other sovereign nations with utter incompetence, your first instinct is to blame Democrats.
.
Not nice.
David,
You are for being the policemen of the world!
Paul
GREAT POST!!!
Mr Konop,
Policeman of the world?
Who would you prefer to have in the job?