The paramountcy of neoconservatism and Joe Lieberman

Glenn Greenwald:

The paramountcy of neoconservatism and Joe Lieberman

American political conflicts are usually described in terms of “liberal
versus conservative,” but that is really no longer the division which
drives our most important political debates. The predominant political
conflicts over the last five years have been driven by a different
dichotomy — those who believe in neoconservatism versus those who do
not. Neoconservatism is responsible for virtually every significant
political controversy during the Bush administration — from our
invasion of Iraq to the array constitutional abuses perpetrated in the
name of fighting terrorism — and that ideological dispute is even what is driving the war
over Joe Lieberman’s Senate seat. It is not traditional conservatism or
liberalism, but rather one’s views on neoconservativsm, which have
become the single most important factor in where one falls on the
political spectrum.

Like a bad satire of The First Two Rules of The Fight Club, neoconservatives used to vehemently deny that there even was such thing as “neoconservatism,” even going so far as to smear
anyone who used the term as being anti-semitic. But with every aspect
of their foreign policy in shambles, and due to (an understandable)
fear that they will be blamed for these disasters, neoconservatives are
assertively coming out of the closet — for self-defense reasons if no
other. They are insisting that neoconservatism hasn’t failed, but
rather, it has been failed, by those who lack the necessary
resolve, courage and brutality to do the dirty work that has to be
done. In short, they are demanding more war, more militarism, and more
barbarism, and are claiming that the reason for our foreign policy
failures is because — thanks to the Chamberlian-like cowardice of
virtually everyone other than them — we don’t have nearly enough of
all of that.

Bill Kristol yesterday complained in The Weekly Standard that the
Bush administration is getting pushed around by Iran, Syria, North
Korea and even that dove-ish General Casey, who wants slowly to
withdraw from Iraq. Because of this collective weakness, our enemies
“must be feeling even less intimidated,” and as a result, the lines
drawn by American foreign policy are no longer drawn in warrior red,
but instead are weak, effeminate “pink lines and mauve lines.” Kristol
has a long roster of other countries on whom we have to wage war, or at
least credibly threaten to wage war, and our cowardice and lack of
resolve is responsible for every failure, from Bush’s political
collapse at home to anti-American animosity around the world:

But
hey, we’re in sync with the EU-3 and the U.N.-192. And our secretary of
state–really, the whole State Department–is more popular abroad than
ever. Too bad the cost has been so high: a decline in the president’s
credibility around the world and sinking support for his foreign policy
at home.

A few weeks ago, Michael Rubin lamented in this
magazine that Bush’s second term foreign policy had taken a Clintonian
turn. But to be Clintonian in a post-9/11 world is to invite even more
danger than Clinton’s policies did in the 1990s.

To
neoconservatives like Kristol, Americans have abandoned the President
and the U.S. has lost credibility around the world because we have been
insufficiently militaristic and belligerent. We haven’t
threatened and invaded enough countries, and we are too eager to leave
Iraq. To underscore the claim that the Bush administration’s failure is
a lack of commitment to neoconservative principles, Kristol
even hurls the ultimate insult: Bush has become “Clintonian” in his
foreign policy because he is too weak and eager to negotiate with the
long list of countries on whom we need to wage more war.