Subscribe via RSS Feed

The GOP Foreign Policy 1%

[ 11 ] November 28, 2011 |

Duss:

As a recent CBS poll showed, the neoconservative agenda remains broadly unpopular among Americans, but as long as neocons continue to occupy prominent think tanks, editorial boards, and cable news channels, and without any comparably well-funded counterweight within the conservative movement, we’ll have to keep hearing from them, and have to keep reading articles about how they’re still around.

This has been a consistent theme of mine own work at Right Web; dominance of the archipelago of right wing think tanks (not to mention the Washington Post) means that neoconservatives get to set the GOP agenda for a very long time. Moreover, it’s not easy for would-be GOPster foreign policy wonks to find a way up the ladder without paying obeisance to the existing power structure. Not everyone can be an intern at CATO, or work in the office of one of the Pauls.

Comments (11)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. rea says:

    Hard to reconcile their program of expensive military adventurism with the GOP’s economic agenda. But being a Republican means believing six impossible things before breakfast, nowdays.

    • wengler says:

      They’ll pay for military adventurism with your pension, give bondholders your house, and your children will toil in their gold mines.

      These aren’t terribly sophisticated people, just terrible people.

  2. Ed Marshall says:

    Nearly everyone in America mistakes the difference between an ally and a friend in what Pakistan means.

  3. wengler says:

    With all the fear-mongering over Iran it’s hard to believe that it only polls at 15 percent favoring military action. That’s hardly half the brain dead faction.

    This poll is extremely unfavorable to Republicans. Not that American voters will cast their ballots based on foreign policy.

    • DocAmazing says:

      …or domestic policy, to judge from previous election results…

    • c u n d gulag says:

      15% ?

      Could it be that after 10 years of war and occupation, all but the last three years handled by people who couldn’t do anything right, except give money to their contractor and oil cronies, that Americans are losing their lust for blood?

      Nah, me neither!

      • Incontinentia Buttocks says:

        All but the last three years?

        Obama left in place most of the people Bush put in charge of those wars after the 2006 midterms.

        • c u n d gulag says:

          Yes, but at least things were run more competently, and we are drawing down – supposedly…

          You’ve got to admit, 2001-2007, even 2007-2009, after the midterms, were a lot different than 2009-today.

          Competence does matter. And so does leadership.

          And believe me, I’ve got a ton of issues with Obama – but him being a competent technocrat isn’t one of them.

          • Incontinentia Buttocks says:

            Competence does matter. But Bush went a long way to solving the competence problem by replacing Rumsfeld with Gates. However, competence, though necessary, is not sufficient.

            And while I agree that the levels of incompetence we saw in the Bush administration’s handling of, e.g., Katrina or Iraq have not–and will not be–seen in an Obama administration, I’d hardly hold up people like Bill Daley and Tim Geithner as monuments to competence, unless you define that term so narrowly as to make results irrelevant.

            There are big differences between 2007-2009 and today (especially on the domestic policy front). But most of these differences in our two major wars have as much to do with the passage of time as changes in policy. Obama’s policies in Afghanistan and especially Iraq grew organically out of the policies of the last two years of the Bush administration.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Switch to our mobile site