The faction most responsible for the GOP’s political failure is national security conservatives. Yet within the party, they remain unscathed, their assumptions about the use of American power largely unquestioned, and their gross errors in judgment forgotten or readily forgiven. Among the mainstream right, the foreign policy of the Bush administration is barely a subject of debate. Rather than reorienting Republican foreign policy towards a political center defined by realism, humility and restraint, the GOP’s leadership and activists have redoubled their commitment to Bush and Cheney’s hawkish stances and to a lock-step defense of the Bush administration’s policies.As much as I would like to see some real fiscal austerity and defense of personal liberty, I'm not so deluded as to think Republican deficiencies in these areas are why they've fallen so low.
This situation creates a strange incongruity. In one breath, conservatives will invoke a baseless claim that Bush’s excessive spending lost them the country, and in the next they will defend to the last Bush’s decisions as Commander-in-Chief. Yet these were the decisions that, more than anything else, led to Democratic victories and the GOP’s now toxic reputation. What is more, everyone outside the conservative bubble knows the narrative that mainstream conservatives tell themselves is false, which makes conservative professions of fiscal austerity and continued hawkishness even less likely to win public support.
National security conservatism is a largely unmitigated disaster, clearly (See: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) but general incompetence and lowbrow anti-intellectualism bear their share of blame (See: Bush, Palin, Huckabee)
Larison's in his own little world as usual. He's not capable of anything more than the shallowest of thinking based on his own prejudices.
ReplyDeleteThe economy was the proximate cause of GOP defeat in 2008. As for longer term causes, GOP national security policy was popular at first, and still is, depending on who is directing it. The problem was competence. Bush's incompetence in managing the war, combined with incompetence in other areas, created a picture of a GOP that had no idea what it was doing. None of that has anything to do with the ideas behind GOP policy.
Obama has essentially continued Bush's national security policy -- making only symbolic, rhetorical changes. But he projects the appearance of leadership, confidence & competence -- unlike Bush.
"National security conservatism is a largely unmitigated disaster"
And this is just nonsense. The Bush years don't define "national security conservatism." And even the Bush record wasn't a disaster -- except for the GOP. The country did not suffer another terrorist strike. Iraq & Afghanistan are still works in progress. "Disaster" is another one of those words that is starting to lose meaning, because it's been thrown around without any regard for whether or not it is an accurate description.
For someone who claims to understand how incompetent the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war was, it should not be difficult to understand why the Republican party's national security conservatism has been a political, military, economic, and foreign relations disaster. The evidence should be plain to anyone who values reality over party.
ReplyDeleteYou are enamored with the theory of national security conservatism, and I'm not, but what matters in evaluating whether something has 'been a disaster' is the implementation, not the theory.
It's true that the economy added to Obama's margin of victory, and that he could have won had foreign policy not been an issue. The GOP bears some responsibility for the state of the economy, but not most, so this issue isn't important for understanding why it has a toxic reputation.
For that, you have to look at the disaster of national security and understand that Obama's 9 point improvement over Bush-Kerry and further electoral college advantage of approximately 1 point would have won handily even if the economy were "normal" (e.g. at 2007 levels).
You also have to look at the dramatic congressional majorities won in 2006, when the economy wasn't an issue.
Thus it's abundantly clear to any intelligent observer, like Larison, that what changed between the election of 2000 and the election of 2006 was principally the failure of national security conservatism. Nothing else better explains the shift. So quit your denial and fix the damn problem.
"why the Republican party's national security conservatism"
ReplyDeletenational security conservatism means different things to different people.
"You are enamored with the theory of national security conservatism"
I'm enamored with my own theories on national security. I disagreed with some of the core ideas behind the Bush version -- not just with the implementation.
"For that, you have to look at the disaster of national security and understand that Obama's 9 point improvement over Bush-Kerry and further electoral college advantage of approximately 1 point would have won handily even if the economy were "normal" (e.g. at 2007 levels)."
That's not at all clear, and is highly debatable. You also can't separate out the impact of the indivdual candidates involved. McCain was bumbling and incoherent on issues for much of his campaign, in direct contrast to Obama. Plus there was the whole Palin situation, the impact of Obama's race, and a number of other signficant factors. No one thing led to Democratic victory.
"You also have to look at the dramatic congressional majorities won in 2006, when the economy wasn't an issue."
Yes, but competence was.
"Thus it's abundantly clear to any intelligent observer, like Larison, that what changed between the election of 2000 and the election of 2006 was principally the failure of national security conservatism."
That's not clear at all. What changed was that we had incompetent leadership at the top, and a GOP Congress that became identified with the same leadership.
"Nothing else better explains the shift."
Sure it does. People didn't turn against GOP foreign policy because they didn't like those ideas. They turned against it because it was horribly managed. If the two wars had been smashing successes there would have been no issue.
You ignore my point that "what matters in evaluating whether something has 'been a disaster' is the implementation, not the theory".
ReplyDeleteObviously competence bears on implementation.
You're evaluating something different, so your comment is useless to me.
"You ignore my point that "what matters in evaluating whether something has 'been a disaster' is the implementation, not the theory"."
ReplyDeleteI didn't ignore that. I agree. Where I disagree is about what constitutes an actual disaster in foreign policy terms. For example: A disaster in Iraq would have been withdrawing in defeat after say 2006. There could still be a disaster. When we withdraw, if the entire place collapses into utter chaos, or it turns into an enemy of the U.S., that will be a disaster.
Making mistakes, even really bad ones, and mismanaging a war isn't the same thing as an actual disaster. The whole thing is still an ongoing project.
"Making mistakes, even really bad ones, and mismanaging a war isn't the same thing as an actual disaster."
ReplyDeleteI don't accept this at all. The mistakes, mismanagement, cost, misleading, and possible lies and crimes are a disaster. Politically, militarily, economically, and for foreign relations. Whether or not Iraq is stable once we finally withdraw is entirely beside my point.
You may choose to concern yourself with it, but the disasters I'm concerned about are not.
Well, then we just differ on what constitutes a disaster. Mistakes, mismanagemt & costs are bad, but also typical of wars. Unless they cost you the war or completely cripple your economy they don't rise to the level of disasters.
ReplyDeletePolitically the end result was disaster for the GOP -- I'll agree on that point. Militarily there was nothing approaching a disaster, the same for economics and foreign relations. Damage isnt the same as disaster. "Misleading" and "lies" are just normal parts of politics. Any crimes were at worst technical violations of the law, and pretty trivial.