Blog powered by Typepad

« "He was a verray, parfit gentil knyght" | Main | What do we want? Dunno, but we want it now! »

Monday, 13 March 2006

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

David

Ignoring British politics of which you certainly know more than I, Kamm’s observation that the Bush Iraq policy stems from the adoption of left wing interventionism is not without merit.

Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic president in WWI, introduced a more interventionist and idealist approach to foreign policy. For example the slogan which he used to enter WWI, (which the US entered of violation of maritime rights) was “to make the world safe for democracy.” A Republican administration would have said, “to protect our rights.”

Bush & company would claim, 9-11 made for a special case.

Or, of course we can blame the nefarious neocons, who get blamed for more much more than they are guilty, though in this case the charge might stick. As is often noted the “neocon” movement originally was people on the left who realized the intellectual bankruptcy of the left and moved right. Their ideas on the conduct of foreign policy includes some baggage that should have been lost in transit.

On the other hand it is fun to watch the left denounce Bush for following a left leaning policy without undercutting their ability to do the same thing with less cause and promise of positive results.


"As is often noted the “neocon” movement originally was people on the left who realized the intellectual bankruptcy of the left and moved right."

Thanks, Hank, a perfect description of Oliver's imperative which is why I sometimes refer to it as the 'neo-Kamm' movement!

The comments to this entry are closed.