Liberal Hawkus Pawkus, Pt. 1 (Rough Draft)

cjbeats wants a new post, cjbeats gets one.

I've been directed to this article by "liberal hawk" Peter Beinart in the New Republic by various folks in the blogosphere, Andrew Sullivan, "liberal hawk" himself and former editor of TNR, among them. First, I'd like to look at the seemingly oxymoronic phrase "liberal hawk" itself. So far as I can tell, the term is ascribed to folks who believe in a robust, aggressive, lassoing type of foreign policy. These are people that don't give a second's pause to the absurdity of the existentially deranged verbiage "War on Terror." These people thought that invading Iraq was a great idea, though many of them have since made amends by saying that they didn't actually advocate what they once advocated. Oh, and they were very surprised that there were no WMD in Iraq. "Everyone knew he had WMD" is a common refrain. Except, of course, there were some voices, including the courageous former weapons inspector, former marine, and former Bush voter, Scott Ritter, who always maintained that there were no WMD in Iraq. (Just because the Iraqi Minister of Information says something, it doesn't mean, in every circumstance, that the opposite is in fact correct. For real Bizarro World politics look no further than the current administration.)

Anyhow, these "liberal hawks" like to spill blood and spread Empire around the world, but they also want our environment protected at home, the social safety net to remain in place, and our civil liberties to be protected-- or, in Andrew Sullivan's case, the right to fuck his boyfriend; and, if the courtship proves adequately transcendent, the eventual right to marry him. This crew actually has much in common with the neocons, who also tend to be on the liberal side of things when it comes to social matters, that is, if they give these matters any thought at all.

Time presses. To the article itself. I may have to dedicate some more thought and time to this issue at a later date, because the more I read the article, the more it pisses me off.

Here is the crux of Beinart's argument:

Today, three years after September 11 brought the United States face-to-face with a new totalitarian threat, liberalism has still not "been fundamentally reshaped" by the experience. On the right, a "historical re-education" has indeed occurred--replacing the isolationism of the Gingrich Congress with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's near-theological faith in the transformative capacity of U.S. military might. But American liberalism, as defined by its activist organizations, remains largely what it was in the 1990s--a collection of domestic interests and concerns. On health care, gay rights, and the environment, there is a positive vision, articulated with passion. But there is little liberal passion to win the struggle against Al Qaeda--even though totalitarian Islam has killed thousands of Americans and aims to kill millions; and even though, if it gained power, its efforts to force every aspect of life into conformity with a barbaric interpretation of Islam would reign terror upon women, religious minorities, and anyone in the Muslim world with a thirst for modernity or freedom.

This last bit, "...if it gained power, its efforts to force every aspect of life into conformity with a barbaric interpretation of Islam would reign terror upon women, religious minorities, and anyone in the Muslim world with a thirst for modernity or freedom," is very informative about the inadequacies of the hypothetical. Furthermore, Beinart seems blind to the fact that many of Bush's top advisors, including Sidemouth himself, were both signees to the Project for the New American Century, and longtime supporters of just this sort of militaristic adventurism. Long before September 11, envisioning what it would take to accomplish the neocon goals of American full-spectrum dominance, Sidemouth famously said, “The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”

Well, as we all know, they got their Pearl Harbor. I bring this up only to refute Beinart's claim that "On the right, a "historical re-education" has indeed occurred--replacing the isolationism of the Gingrich Congress...." As he should know, toppling Saddam's regime has been the glorious trigger for multitudes of Cheney's, Wolfowitz's, Perle's, and others' nocturnal emmisions since the day's of the first gulf war-- and this is not to mention that the notion of toppling Saddam was too titilatingly Oedipal for Georgie to resist: "He trahed to kill mah daddy."

I'll post what I have now, and continue with more, much more, tomorrow. Good night.

To be continued...