 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
December 9, 1999 THE
NEED FOR ENEMIES,
|
WHO IS REALLY NAIVE?Dana, however, was having none of this. He dismissed hopes that China might evolve in a market-oriented and democratic direction as hopelessly naive, not in touch with the not-so-secret ambitions of China's rulers. Those who expect everything to turn out just fine (or at least short of utterly disastrous) if the United States ignores problems and threats in other parts of the world are not realists. At the same time, however, Dana, like many conservative Republicans, is not wedded to the Clintonite policy of "humanitarian'' military intervention in the interest of world order, multilateralism, international organizations or the good of humanity. He expressed doubts about the Kosovo bombing and criticized the Somalia and Haiti interventions. He argued that it was precisely an American intervention two years ago into what was essentially a civil war in Afghanistan that helped the Taliban regime cement its power. So he's not an unqualified friend of US intervention everywhere. But the magic words "national security'' combined with reasonably plausible evidence of a totalitarian regime with the potential to be a threat beyond its borders carry a mystical power with many conservatives who came of age during the Cold War. America's national security, as many see it, is constantly subject to threat from a host of international bad guys and if we want to survive as a nation we need a stronger military and the will to use it from time to time. During the conversation I revised my opinion of Dana. I used to think he was a libertarian who has simply taken the easy political path of drifting in a conservative direction, which makes him much more palatable and electable in a Republican district. I have recently remembered, however, that before he went into his most activist libertarian phase (he was kicked out of YAF in 1969 for his radical libertarian tendencies) he was essentially a conservative anti-communist who had few qualms about the necessity of the Cold War or something more active. He had a period in his life when he moved in a more libertarian direction (although even then he didn't buy into non-interventionism), then he reverted to being the conservative (with a few quirks and the occasional intrusion of charmingly anarchic attitudes) he has been almost all his life. That makes him – oh, how I shudder to admit practicing politicians, even those who are personal friends, might be human – more true to himself than the first scenario. But I think it's fairly accurate. DEALING WITH GLOBALISTSThe Dana phenomenon – an essentially decent person for a politician who fairly sincerely buys most of the premises of globalism – presents those of us who believe the more authentic and beneficial American policy is non-interventionism a with a serious problem. Most Americans who came of age during the cold war and disliked communism (surely a healthy impulse) implicitly bought into some form of globalism as the preferred American policy. Communism, in this view, presented a worldwide threat that the forces of freedom had to be prepared to encounter on a worldwide basis. I think this view is mistaken. But many of the people who still hold it – and have gotten into the habit of thinking about potential future enemies (especially those who are still nominally communist) the same way they used to think about the Soviets – are not bad people or insincere pleaders who hold such views only to enhance the power of the American establishment and the American empire. Many even worry about the power of the establishment, though they have trouble understanding that supporting foreign adventures is the best way to keep the establishment established. It might be helpful to understand and acknowledge that there are different varieties of American globalists or imperialists. Tom Fleming, the properly curmudgeonly editor of the paleo-conservative magazine Chronicles, provided a useful morphology of American imperialists in the August issue of the magazine (perhaps too hopefully themed as "the end of the American Century''). COMMERCIAL AND MILITARY IMPERIALISTS"The oldest and best form of American imperialism,'' Fleming wrote, "is the commercial expansion advocated by Republicans – McKinley, Taft, Hoover, and Eisenhower – who warned against the military-industrial complex. Although all of these free-traders were occasionally willing to back up the politics of self-interest with gunboats, they preferred to rely, whenever possible, on dollar diplomacy. McKinley had no hesitation about establishing American economic hegemony in Cuba and the Philippines, but he had to be dragged into war.'' Bill Clinton's contention that attacking Yugoslavia was necessary to provide a stable market for American goods had its roots in this tradition, though his imperialism is more eclectic and expansive. "The second strain,'' Fleming avers, "is represented by the military imperialists: the two Roosevelts, neoconservative hawks like Jeanne Kirkpatrick, and our hormonally challenged secretary of state. One hundred years ago they put their trust in the Navy and gradually switched to advocating reliance on airpower. The common thread is a concern with long-range power and a desire to minimize risk to our troops. They want the United States to be the international cop or, increasingly, mercenary rent-a-cop hiring out to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Turkey.'' Fleming thinks we'll see convenient switches soon and a rationale for using US forces to help our heroic ally Turkey put down its rebellious Kurds. SENTIMENTAL IMPERIALISTS"The third strain,'' Fleming believes, "is represented by sentimental imperialists, exemplified by Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter, who sugarcoated America's global mission with the language of democracy, progress, human rights – an approach that justifies even more dangerous adventurism than the rent-a-cop militarism of George Bush.'' Americans are and have long been suckers for a messianic appeal. Most of us think it really would be nice if we could export "our values'' of freedom, democracy and free markets, thus expanding liberty and human rights and reducing human misery. Too few wonder actively whether missiles and threats are the most efficacious means available to get that job done. Identifying three strains of imperialistic thought, each with serious roots in American history, doesn't mean they remain separate in practice. "There is, of course, a convergence of interests in these three strains,'' says Tom Fleming. "Bringing human rights to China means exporting pop commercial culture, which degrades the peasantry to the level of ours and forces them into the global marketplace of jeans and Cokes and McDonald's, while the militarists get to sell the most sensitive technology – or give it away in return for bribes – which thus alarms the right-wing paranoids in Middle America and gets them ready for all-out war, if necessary, with China.'' TURNING THE TIDEIt is far from inevitable that the imperialistic tendencies in the United States will continue to predominate. There are and have been strong anti-imperialist forces in American politics – populists, peaceniks, progressives, America Firsters, libertarians, adherents to Joe Stromberg's Old Cause – and they have won some victories. It might even be the case that the demonstrations against the WTO in Seattle, which were about a lot more than trade and corporatism, mark an important phase in the development of the anti-imperialist movement. But the imperialist impulse in America is still dominant, still controls who writes most of the history books that are taught in reliably PC college classes, and still controls most of the levers of government power. And it has deep roots in American history as well. If we don't recognize that we are likely to fail.
Please Support Antiwar.comA contribution of $20 or more gets you a copy of Justin Raimondo's Into the Bosnian Quagmire: The Case Against US Intervention in the Balkans, a 60-page booklet packed with the kind of intellectual ammunition you need to fight the lies being put out by this administration and its allies in Congress. Send contributions to Antiwar.com or
Contribute Via our Secure Server |
