The Neoconservative Convergence

If at all possible, can we keep the half-baked comments to a minimum?

I would like some understanding and interpretations of this peice by Charles Krauthammer from various members.

1. Krauthammer does't ignore isolationism......he examines it and considers it largely irrelevant in todays global environment.

McGentrix wrote:

If at all possible, can we keep the half-baked comments to a minimum?

I will leave it to others to judge how thoroughly baked my comments are.

I would like some understanding and interpretations of this peice by Charles Krauthammer from various members.

1. Krauthammer falls into a rather simplistic error in equating "liberal internationalism" with "liberalism," just because both share an identical term. A recent Atlantic article by David Kennedy correctly, I think, pointed out that neo-conservatism owes a great deal to Wilsonian internationalism. Indeed, neo-conservatism, as a dog's breakfast of idealistic internationalism and cynical Realpolitik, resembles the foreign policy of William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt more than anything else.

2. Krauthammer criticizes "liberal internationalism" for failing to achieve anything during Clinton's administration (a dubious proposition at best) without bothering to look at the successes achieved by the "liberal internationalism" of FDR or Eisenhower. Apparently, anything touched by Clinton becomes, in the eyes of Krauthammer, a thing to be despised.

3. Likewise, although Krauthammer divides foreign policy into three parts (neoconservatism, liberal internationalism, and realism -- ignoring, for the most part, isolationism), he doesn't really explain why "realism" isn't a viable option to neoconservatism. If Bush I was a realist (another dubious proposition), then certainly Reagan was an überrealist. Although Bush I's foreign policy may have suffered from a "failure of imagination," Krauthammer fails to explain why realism is necessarily inferior to neo-conservatism.

As neoconservatism seemed to offer the most plausible explanation of the new reality and the most compelling and active response to it, many realists were brought to acknowledge the poverty of realism?-not just the futility but the danger of a foreign policy centered on the illusion of stability and equilibrium. These realists, newly mugged by reality, have given weight to neoconservatism, making it more diverse and, given the newcomers' past experience, more mature.

4. Krauthammer describes Bush II's second inaugural as the "urtext" of "democratic globalism" (which is, apparently, a species of neo-conservatism). But if the second inaugural address set forth the principles of Bushian neo-conservatism, then how can we explain Bush's foreign policy before January 2005? If Bush only got around to determining the nature of his foreign policy at that time, what was it when he decided to invade Iraq in 2002? Half-baked neo-conservatism? Krauthammer has no answer to this.

You are very brave....OR....perhaps foolhardy in referring to anything written by a man of Krauthammer's intellectual stature, as simplistic.

You start with such an allegation and then follow with disconnected terms as evidence of your brilliance. You add as evidence, an article that no one can read unless you are a subscriber and then pile on some historical rhetoric about McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt which may or may not be true. All in all a very unpersuasive jumble of words.

Here you truthfully admit that anything favorably accomplished under Clinton's "liberal internationalism" could be considered dubious at best.

I fail to see why he should go all the way back to FDR or Eisenhower in order to criticize Clinton's failures when he had already narrowed the parameters of his article to the past 15 years. You are correct about one thing though, Krauthammer despises anything touched by Clinton

The only reason I mentioned "isolationism" earlier was because you gave me impression that you still considered it a valid form of Foreign policy.

I think the author explains why realism is a failure with this quote from his article:

As neoconservatism seemed to offer the most plausible explanation of the new reality and the most compelling and active response to it, many realists were brought to acknowledge the poverty of realism?-not just the futility but the danger of a foreign policy centered on the illusion of stability and equilibrium. These realists, newly mugged by reality, have given weight to neoconservatism, making it more diverse and, given the newcomers' past experience, more mature.

This is a valid question but only because the administration, as far as I know, DID NOT proclaim it's foreign policy as "neo-conservatism". As I remember it was the opposition that actually defined neo-conservatism mainly from the intent to use peremptive strikes as an act of foreign policy. Remember the title of the article is neoconservative convergence which in itself admits that neoconservatism is still evolving.

The only departure from this weak form of foreign policy was the unilateral action in Kosovo. This was totally out of character for Clinton but it was IMO, a success.

I can fully understand your desire to bash another conservative intellectual but in this case I think you failed. I think you failed because it was such a quick effort, poorly thought out and poorly organized and certainly not up to your ususal high standard

All in all I thought Krauthammer did a sterling job of analysing and supporting the Bush neoconservative doctrine.......but since it is impossible to be all things to all people I'm certain liberals here will find much to fault.

I'm also certain I will find out if my comments are uncooked, 1/4 baked, or half baked :wink:

You add as evidence, an article that no one can read unless you are a subscriber and then pile on some historical rhetoric about McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt which may or may not be true. All in all a very unpersuasive jumble of words.

Just a quickie:

rayban1 wrote:

You add as evidence, an article that no one can read unless you are a subscriber and then pile on some historical rhetoric about McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt which may or may not be true. All in all a very unpersuasive jumble of words.

Just b/c you don't know enough about McKinley and Teddy's foreign policy to judge the merits of Joe's argument (and aren't subscribed to the AM) doesn't make Joe's argument unpersuasive.

"You posit something and by ways of evidence bring up something I don't know about - that's hardly persuasive!" <- non-sequitur.

1. Krauthammer falls into a rather simplistic error in equating "liberal internationalism" with "liberalism," just because both share an identical term. A recent Atlantic article by David Kennedy correctly, I think, pointed out that neo-conservatism owes a great deal to Wilsonian internationalism. Indeed, neo-conservatism, as a dog's breakfast of idealistic internationalism and cynical Realpolitik, resembles the foreign policy of William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt more than anything else.

Indeed, neo-conservatism, as a dog's breakfast of idealistic internationalism and cynical Realpolitik, resembles the foreign policy of William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt more than anything else.

("gunboat diplomacy" is a completely inappropriate term to use with reference to McKinely--it first appears as a description of the kind of bullying Palmerston did with the Royal Navy while he held the foreign portfolio in the 1830's and -40's.). When the forward magazine of Maine blew up (very likely due to the poor quality of the electrical wiring which had been retro-fitted on the vessel), it was the American "yellow" press, with Joseph Pulitzer in the lead, who finally pushed McKinley into war.

Indeed, neo-conservatism, as a dog's breakfast of idealistic internationalism and cynical Realpolitik, resembles the foreign policy of William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt more than anything else.

Joe should know that no one here responds favorably to an unsupported rant and equating it to the "gunboat diplomacy" advocated by Mckinley and TR merely makes Krauthammers support for his arguments appear even more persuasive by comparison.

Joe is ranting with a personal opinion when he calls neo conservatism a "dogs breakfast" of idealistic internationalism and cynical Realpolitic.

Joe should know that no one here responds favorably to an unsupported rant and equating it to the "gunboat diplomacy" advocated by Mckinley and TR merely makes Krauthammers support for his arguments appear even more persuasive by comparison.

Joe makes several proclamations that Krauthammer would need to do this or that but Joe falls victim to his own criticism in his first paragraph by not supporting his rant with anything substantive.

The only one participating in this thread who has even come close to "ranting" is you, Rayban. Take a bow.