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

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

When will Israel attack Iran?

Image
I'm not an "Intelligence analyst" and I don't play one on television. But I urge you to study the following items: 1. Seymour Hersh new piece in The New Yorker, "The Next Act: Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?" 2. Tony Karon's "Israel's Domestic Political Games Raises the Danger of a U.S.-Iran War." 3. Aluf Benn's "Olmert's Drums of War" in Haaretz . 4. Bush:I would understand if Israel chose to attack Iran. 5. Michael Oren's op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal on November 16 which is only accessible to subscribers. So here are a few interesting quotes: Much like 1967, Israel faces a Middle Eastern leader who has repeatedly sworn to wipe it off the map, and to that end is assiduously trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Like Nasser, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can cripple Israel economically by keeping it in a state of alert, driving away foreign investment and tourism. In the absence of interna...
Read more