Posted under Interventionism
Daniel Larison isn’t impressed, but Daniel tends to be a pessimist about such matters. I am not kidding myself that the conservative movement is on the verge of embracing Ron Paul style non-intervention in toto, but what I am encouraged by is the trend line. The trend is toward skepticism of reflexive interventionism, even if it is sometimes incoherently expressed. Here is my reply to Daniel.
This is Daniel at his “glass half
fullempty” best.I have actually been encouraged by the conservative response. The best way I can think of to describe the conservative reaction to Libya is all over the map. No it hasn’t been the universal condemnation that we would like, but that would be expecting too much. But neither has there been near universal approval as there was for Iraq.
There has been wide spread skepticism about the wisdom of intervening in this case. There has been criticism of allowing the UN to push us into this. There has been criticism of not going to Congress for authorization. Of course the usual suspects have been cheerleading for intervention and even complaining that Obama dithered too long and has ruled out ground troops, but these folks are increasing isolated and can now be challenged with impunity. Even National Review has published some critics.
Take a look at a mainstream conservative website/blog such as American Spectator. Both the posts and the comments have been all over the map on this. While some of the criticism appears to be inchoate criticism of Obama, and I highly doubt there would be as much opposition if McCain was in the White House, what is clear is that there is not a uniform “official” conservative position on this other than maybe “Obama is a screw up.”
This is progress. Compare this to 2003 and 2004, for example, when criticism of reflexive interventionism would get you labeled a traitor.
Kirt Higdon on 24 Mar 2011 at 12:23 am #
As Daniel indicated in his response to your post, he’s more of a glass half empty type of guy and he pointed out that he was referring to the tea party, not to conservatives as a whole. I’m way more pessimistic than he is (glass has maybe a couple of drops at the bottom). Most of the tea partiers are criticizing Obama for not doing more sooner. It’s some (not many) of the establishment Republicans who are urging a little caution against such militarist recklessness. BTW, in our local paper, I’ve already been labeled a supporter of Gaddafi. Doesn’t feel to me any different from 2004.
Sean Scallon on 24 Mar 2011 at 1:48 am #
Weigel had something on this too (http://www.slate.com/id/2288879)
It may be progress Red but it’s still disappointing because if there was a Tea Party revolt to join with Kucinich and others liberals in the House, our politics could finally start being interesting. But no, once again these “Jacksonians” let their nationalism get the best of them which Obama or Clinton or any other liberal cosmo chickenhawk is more than happy to use on the behalf of the Empire.
I love Sal Russo’s line in the Weigel piece “we’re focusing our concerns on getting our fiscal house in order.” Hello! Earth to Sal! Explain how another war gets our fiscal house in order? Hmmm? There was another Tea Party flunkie in there who said “there are things we need to spend money on” Really? I’m sure the liberals feel the same way too.
These people are killing their own movement and they don’t even know it (well, Russo knows it because he wants to make sure it stays in the orbit of the powers that be). Only Ron Paul can save the Tea Parties from their coming irrelevance if they continue their silence in the wake of the executive branch once again thumbing its nose at Congress when it comes to foreign policy. Do we need to star asking what we elected these people for anyway?
RedPhillips on 24 Mar 2011 at 2:15 am #
It wouldn’t be an official post of mine without Kirt chiming in with his naysaying.
Kirt you see what you want to see that confirms your preconceived biases. The front page of American Spectator contains an article by Ben Stein declaring the war illegal.
Some “Tea Partiers”* criticized Obama for his slow response and were calling for intervention, but many were not on various grounds and there has been quite a reaction now that Obama has actually done something, and it has been far from universal praise.
*I don’t think it is too helpful to look at where Tea Partiers stand on this, because the issue doesn’t really break down along those lines. It is difficult to define who a Tea Partier even is beyond their positions on a certain cluster of issues of which foreign policy hasn’t really been one. (It might be easier and more helpful to see where alleged Tea Party aligned members of Congress stand.) I think it is more useful to see where self-identified conservatives stand, as that has been the traditional bastion of support for intervention.
RedPhillips on 24 Mar 2011 at 3:43 am #
Kirt, read the comments under the Ben Stein article (231 at this time), and then come back and tell me there is unanimity of opinion in favor of intervention in Libya. The comments are all over the place, and conservatives are going after conservatives. This is how changes of opinion start. They don’t suddenly shift all at once.
Kirt Higdon on 24 Mar 2011 at 11:32 am #
Do you have a handy link to Stein’s article?
RedPhillips on 24 Mar 2011 at 12:12 pm #
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/23/we-have-an-illegal-war
Eunomia » All Over The Map on 25 Mar 2011 at 6:21 pm #
[...] their opposition to him into a foreign policy position on a new, significant issue. Red Phillips objected: I have actually been encouraged by the conservative response. The best way I can think of to [...]
Kirt Higdon on 25 Mar 2011 at 10:15 pm #
Thanks, Red. I wouldn’t disagree with what Stein writes, but he’s obviously only making points against Obama, not undertaking any critique of the warfare state as an institution. No reason to think he would not be all in favor of this war were it being waged under Republican auspices. As long as the debate is merely to determine which party of the duopoly will preside over our growing list of endless wars, I see little reason for optimism.
Thaddeus on 27 Mar 2011 at 11:04 pm #
Say, RedPhillips, since you seem to have American Conservative’s ear in this debate, maybe you could do a little proselytizing for . . . well, for whatever we are: paleoconservatives, or the “alternative right” (per Richard Spencer), or the “New Right” (per Europe), or the “Old Right” (which gets us back to paleoconservatism). My point is that everyone here and to the right of here (Alt Right, VDARE, TakiMag, etc.) has been 100% against the war on Libya. The further right you go, the less support there is for this war or any of the wars in the Middle East.
Maybe I’m just kidding myself, but I always have a feeling that more people would identify as paleos or members of the “alternative right” if they even knew that it existed, beyond Pat Buchanan and American Conservative.