Friday, June 16, 2006
I've received a few responses and emails re my earlier post on David Brooks' argument in favor of a new political-ideological realignemnt of "populist-nationlists" vs. "progressive globalists," including by my online pal Jim Henley. Let me just emphasize that I wasn't trying to dismiss the notion that such political-ideological sentiments exist and that a few public figures share these views. I suppose that Pat Buchanan IS a populist-nationalist and that one could make an argument that "Clintonism" represents a form of progressive globalism. My point was that Brooks is trying to suggest that all the politicians and pundits who have been opposed to the Democracy Project in Iraq and elsewhere are "populist nationalists," that they are basically anti-cosmopolitan/xenophpbic/racists AND "realists" on foreign policy. That's a lot of B-S. Just take the leading figure in the Republican party who is a strong opponent of the war in Iraq,Chuck Hagel or for that matter, Al Gore. It seems to me that they are "progressive globalists" who make the annual pilgramige to Davos. In fact, most of the anti-Iraq war realists that I know are mainstream Republicans and Democrats. I'm neither, although I would probably vote for Democrat Jim Webbor Republican Chuck Hagel as candidates for presidents.