Often I diss Republicans (often to you just because I think it is extra special hilarious), so it would be easy to blame this on them again, but this is a reflection of something a little stranger, I think:
There is this group of constituents (for lack of a better way to put it) who really believe that our problem in Viet Nam was that we lost our 'will.' It's arises out of this focus on military might as a way of transforming the world that has found a home in both parties (JFK definitely fit the profile, as did Johnson). In fact, Viet Nam came out of the war hawks, and I think the neo-cons abandoned liberalism as a result.
In a way I think we're in the midst of another strange political realignment. The traditional Republican coalition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusionism_%28politics%29) is fracturing. Libertarians are deeply distrustful of the erosion of civil liberties and the power of the religious right. Fiscal conservatives are moving towards Democrats because they actually balance budgets. As a consequence, I think, the Republican party is trying to pull make 'hawks' part of a new coalition.
The Democratic Party, already reluctant to get embroiled in foreign wars after Viet Nam, is less and less open to hawks. The Joe Liebermans are being kicked out or phased away (and with reason).
As a consequence, I think Bush's argument is less a matter of incompetence and more a matter of a desperate response to almost unavoidable political pressures.
That's an interesting thought. Are there that many non-Republican hawks, though? Actually, I take that back. I remember that bit about 'nation-building' in the 1999 debates - there are probably a lot of liberal hawks. Are there that many non-Republicans who would switch parties based on this sort of delusion?
I think the interesting question is whether they remain hawks. The New Republic, which was a 'liberal' magazine deeply supportive of the Iraq war for mostly liberal hawkish reasons, has mostly backed off into something closer to traditional liberalism (they are still more open about using the military, but appear chastened about using it preemptively or to try to shape the world). Peter Beinart famously backtracked (probably to salvage some credibility).
I think there was a significant strain of liberal hawk prior to the war, but the consequence has not been the shift towards Republicans (other then Lieberman), but instead a shift away from hawkishness.
(I think the Republicans are aiming more at moderate or uninformed hawks - the type of person who doesn't vote much, maybe hasn't voted republican because they dislike the religious right, but whose view of America was formed by the cold war and instinctively and emotionally likes a 'strong' country).
This also had me re-reading this (http://www.slate.com/id/2093620/entry/2093641/), amazed at how dumb these people were (and these were the 'leftists').
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timeasmymeasure
no subject
There is this group of constituents (for lack of a better way to put it) who really believe that our problem in Viet Nam was that we lost our 'will.' It's arises out of this focus on military might as a way of transforming the world that has found a home in both parties (JFK definitely fit the profile, as did Johnson). In fact, Viet Nam came out of the war hawks, and I think the neo-cons abandoned liberalism as a result.
In a way I think we're in the midst of another strange political realignment. The traditional Republican coalition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusionism_%28politics%29) is fracturing. Libertarians are deeply distrustful of the erosion of civil liberties and the power of the religious right. Fiscal conservatives are moving towards Democrats because they actually balance budgets. As a consequence, I think, the Republican party is trying to pull make 'hawks' part of a new coalition.
The Democratic Party, already reluctant to get embroiled in foreign wars after Viet Nam, is less and less open to hawks. The Joe Liebermans are being kicked out or phased away (and with reason).
As a consequence, I think Bush's argument is less a matter of incompetence and more a matter of a desperate response to almost unavoidable political pressures.
no subject
no subject
I think there was a significant strain of liberal hawk prior to the war, but the consequence has not been the shift towards Republicans (other then Lieberman), but instead a shift away from hawkishness.
(I think the Republicans are aiming more at moderate or uninformed hawks - the type of person who doesn't vote much, maybe hasn't voted republican because they dislike the religious right, but whose view of America was formed by the cold war and instinctively and emotionally likes a 'strong' country).
no subject