After Jingoism
At The American Scene, Noah Millman is worried:
The gauntlet to run within the right is to prove that you’re a real, patriotic American – fine. But apparently you prove this by asserting that no amount of military spending is ever enough, by making torture a virtue, by mocking the very idea of diplomacy, by dividing allies into two camps, vassals who must be punished if they don’t obey our commands (Japan, the various countries of Europe) and holy causes for whom we must be willing to bear any burden, pay any price (Israel, Taiwan, Georgia) and, most alarmingly, by a kind of hero-worship of conquering generals. This is not the way it has to be, nor how it was within fairly recent living memory. America has a citizen army, and the right has a long tradition – one that encompasses leaders like Eisenhower who were hardly isolationist – of calling for caution in the commitment of our military precisely because it is an extension of the citizenry, not a mere tool of the government.
I don’t actually expect revival of full-throated anti-interventionism on the American right, something like the pre-World War II America Firsters. I don’t think even Daniel Larison expects that. But some kind of tendency to counter militarism is necessary, and right now, with Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney trying to outdo each other in their appeals to the militarist tendency on the right, I kind of despair of any counter-dynamic getting traction.
Despair not, Noah! The jingoism you fear is contingent, and it's dissolving quicker than you think. These positions are not necessarily a package deal. Increasingly, the weak logic behind that package deal -- which was driven more by domestic political considerations than by emplacement in any ideological quadrant or framework -- is coming apart. Defense bloat is under scrutiny. Most hate torture. Reagan negotiated in America's interest. Georgia is not Israel. Afghanistan is not a glorious adventure. Petraeus won't be President. Domestic issues are ascendant. An a la carte approach is beginning to take hold on the right. I expect this trend to continue. Palin and Romney are politicking. The dog still wags the tail.
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: After Jingoism
Do you think we could get Noah a few Xanax?
A few questions for Noah:
Noah, isn't it true that the last time we elected a great military leader president was 1956 (Eisehower's second term)? Isn't that 54 years ago?
Which conquering generals are you referring to? McChrystal, the Obama supporter who just got fired by Obama, or Petraeus, the one who just got sent back to work to rescue Obama? Or perhaps Wesley Clark--his campaign really had legs?)
Are you seriously saying that we should abandon Georgia? What about the Braves and the Masters? (Oh, sorry, you meant that other one). Well, didn't the Soviets just take over a couple of provinces and the US did nothing?
When, exactly, did Europe act like a vassal state last? (Other than taking advantage of our military power so they could wear love beads and create even bigger nanny states). Oh, and didn't we just screw the Czechs and the Poles?
Which president was it that called Afghanistan our war of necessity?
Do you and I inhabit the same planet? [Be specific as to which planet you are on]
Jul '10
Re: After Jingoism
Noah really is lame and overwrought on this. And he seems very confused about his gripe. Is it that we have a "right wing" that sees the need for military adventure everywhere? Or that we idolize the military in a dangerous way? or both?
A healthy respect for those who sacrifice all at the behest of their civilian leaders is a core value of pretty much all flavors of conservatism.
A healthy skepticism of using our forces too easily or often has been an enduring trait of many parts of the right. 9/11 kind of overwhelmed that for awheil, but it is returning.
An honest and heartfelt patriotism towards our country and our leaders (military and civilian) ought to be a core attribute of citizenship. To see it slandered as jingoism is sickening.
Re: After Jingoism
To be clear, Noah calls what troubles him militarism. But since his central concern is that patriotism and militarism are being conflated, I think it's accurate to say he's crying jingoism.
Patrick Shanahan: Is it that we have a "right wing" that sees the need for military adventure everywhere? Or that we idolize the military in a dangerous way? or both?
Both.
Patrick Shanahan: A healthy skepticism of using our forces too easily or often has been an enduring trait of many parts of the right. 9/11 kind of overwhelmed that for awheil, but it is returning.
As I hinted, I think that's true. Iraq and Afghanistan really were geopolitical outliers and one-offs.
May '10
Re: After Jingoism
James Poulos, Ed.
Iraq and Afghanistan really were geopolitical outliers and one-offs. · Jul 15 at 1:41pm
I'd feel better about this if Republican politicians were at least acknowledging that in hindsight, Iraq was a mistake. Or if our last GOP presidential nominee hadn't stood in front of cameras and sang, "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." It isn't that I think the United States is hurling inevitably toward militarism. Just that it's always possible that we'll be attacked by terrorists again. And then what? I submit that were our reaction similar to what we did after 9/11, in terms of investing that much in military response and lessening civil liberties by a commensurate amount, we'd be in serious trouble. And that is worth worrying about.
Perhaps we've learned our lesson. I want to think that James is right, and sometimes I do. It seems like he must be right. But then I look for evidence of that fact and I have trouble locating it. We'll know better when the GOP primaries begin.
Re: After Jingoism
I don't know if he's exaggerating for rhetorical effect, or believes that codswaddle. "by mocking the very idea of diplomacy." Apparently if you are periodically skeptical of the outcome of a thing, you are mocking its existence.
May '10
Re: After Jingoism
I think that this is the kind of thing that Noah Millman had in mind. And I agree that his formulation was hyperbolic, but I also think the right's frequent disdain for diplomacy goes farther than "periodic skepticism."
Re: After Jingoism
The DNC's flailing, disingenuous attacks on Michael Steele for going wobbly on Afghanistan support Noah's claim, but suggest that it's not just a right-wing problem.
But the discussion of American militarism, such as it is, seems unreasonably bounded by concern for its effects on Americans and our politics or civil liberties, and leaves out the people who end up with our wars in their backyards. The fact that it's considered disloyal to ask awkward questions about whom we're accidentally killing with our well-intended wars deserves our concern more than overblown "fall of the Republic" fantasies.
Re: After Jingoism
One doesn't even have to think Iraq was a mistake to think we shouldn't do anything even remotely like that again for the foreseeable future. Indeed, I think bombing Iran is a choice that points far, far away from invasion. My point is that many of the positions Noah lumps together as part of a unified jingo front may actually be more at odds with one another than he thinks. But you'll right that we'll learn more when politicians start having to say more and the more that they say gets covered a LOT more.
May '10
Re: After Jingoism
There is a pretty fundamental divide between the internationalist conservatives, such as Bill Kristol and Victor Davis Hanson (and James Lileks and me as well, for that matter) on the one hand and the MYOB conservatives such as George Will, PJ O'Rourke, Matt Labash, et al on the other hand, which group clearly includes Conor.
I specifically excluded Pat Buchanan because I just don't see him as "conservative" any longer, and Bill Buckley and Jonah Goldberg I left off the latter list because those two represented the group that initially favored military action against the jihadists and changed their minds when it became protracted and difficult. The latter case is not necessarily wrong (even though I tend to disagree); it is quite possible for an increase in cost to unbalance the cost-benefit analysis of a conservative of good will. I carefully avoid hyperbolic characterizations such as "isolationist" (note, however, that that is the core of WFB, dating back to his days as a strong Taft supporter).
(continued below)
May '10
Re: After Jingoism
I do not believe that bald characterizations among conservatives about either opposing view of being dumb, warlike, pacifist, bad faith, naive about diplomacy, jingoistic, etc., are at all helpful. If that is the direction we are going, we can welcome the century of Obama rather than just a 4 year holiday from history a la Jimmuh Carter.
Ron Radosh wrote about this at Pajamas and explained some of his thoughts- I posted it at Ricochet Facebook, that wonderful place where peons can initiate topics.
But regarding diplomacy, I am all for it- wherever it helps. Ryan Crocker was essential in Iraq. I think that the skepticism about diplomacy often expressed on the Right can be illustrated by Warren Christopher's request that the Iran hostage rescuers shoot the terrorists in the leg, or the feeble "anything for a paper deal" machinations of Chris Hill in North Korea or the current Iran "sanctions" farce.
If the SoS negotiates with guns in her pocket, and is ready to walk away when the deals don't serve US interests, great. Sadly, there aren't many George Shulzes out there. Nor many Boltons in strategic slots to temper diplomatic groupthink.