Deconstructing Republican presidential candidates

My new article in the American Conseravtive (March 10, 2008), "Model Citizens: Beyond the Realist vs. Idealist Debate" is out but not available online yet. But if you click on the two item below and print them, you could read it (I hope):



Comments

Chris Moore said…
An interesting reformulation of the contemporary debate. As I read your article, I would shorthand it something like this (in contemporary terms):

Jeffersonians = paleocon-libertarians; Jacksonians = Reagan Democrats; Hamiltonians = Cheney/Rumsfeldians; and Wilsonians = Bush-Neocons/Clinton-Neolibs.

It would be nice, and even tolerable, if the Washington Establishment was split roughly and proportionately along those lines. Unfortunately, the Washington Establishment is so dominated by money-worshipping Hamiltonians and warped, Israel-first "idealistic" Wilsonians who, in typical authoritarian fashion, refuse to tolerate the inclusion of other perspectives, that to defeat them, a more simplistic, dualistic approach becomes necessary: real Americans vs. greedy Neolib/Neocon parasites.

But that was their choice, not ours. Their authoritarian delusions of grandeur and insecure drive to dominate refuses to tolerate dissent, opposition or competition, and hence make them insufferable to those who understand that dissent, opposition and competition are at the core of American greatness.
12:42 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Francis Fukuyama (again): Don't shoot! I'm not a neocon

Image
Francis Fukuyama: When we was necons Arthur Koestler: When we was commies Robert Kagan the Leninist Lazar Kaganovich the Stalinist By now you all know that Francis ("The End of History") Fukuyama has filed for divroce from the Kristol/Podhoretz clans. In quite a number of speeches, articles (for example) and newsbites he has made it clear to all the interested parties (including potential employers like Presidents Hillary Clinton and John McCain) that he ain't a neocon, well, not a neocon like Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, and that he now considers himself now to be what? A "reformed neocon?" A "neo-neocon?" A "neocon-Lite?" In his latest "I'm-not-a-neocon" manifesto in the New York Times, "After Neoconservatism" FF describes himself as a proponent of "realistic Wilsonianism." And in the essay (thankfully not as long as "The End of History) he does quite a lot of brilliant dialectial thinking in expla
Read more

Pundits who screw-up: No big deal...

Image
Matt Barganier desconstructs Andrew Sullivan's mea sorta culpa on Iraq in Time magazine (Sullivan seen above in a thoughtful pose on Bill Maher's "Real Time"). There have been many of those in recent weeks (including by WFB and Fukuyama ). In an commentary published last year, Oops! I helped start a War which was about one of the earlier apologizing-war-aplogists, I pointed out to the contrast between the way the losers who operate in the market (including financial analysts) are punished and the reality in which the losers in the political game (including foreign policy analysts) rarely get punished: Imagine: for a few years you were investing the money you had saved for your daughter's college education in one of those moderately conservative plans that provided some increase in the value of the investment without exposing it to major risks. But then your financial planner – let's call him Ken P. – got in touch with you and came up with a really great ide
Read more