The piece by Martin Jacques in the Guardian that Trunk linked to below –”The Neocon Revolution” — is less objectionable than I expected. For example, Jacques recognizes that President Bush’s foreign policy is not driven by a single-minded ideological commitment either to unilateralism or to regime change. Rather, administration policy, though informed by certain basic principles, is formulated rationally on a case-by-case basis.
I do wonder, though, what Jacques and others mean when they characterize the administration as “neo-conservative.” The people in charge — President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretaries Rice and Rumsfeld — were not, to my knowledge, considered neo-conservatives in the past. And the administration’s emphasis on the pursuit of democracy stands in contrast to the views of original neo-conservatives like Jeanne Kirkpatrick, who vigorously opposed
Most Read on Power Line
- Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy
- Today's IRS Documents: What Do They Show?
- Standoff at Bundy Ranch Ends, With Photo of the Year So Far
- The War On Standards Comes to College Debate [with comment by Paul]
- Is Scott Walker on his way to 2016 front-runner status?
- At Dartmouth, Phil Hanlon wants no enemies to the left
Subscribe to Power Line by Email
Find us on Facebook
“Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” Winston Churchill
“Proclaim Liberty throughout All the land unto All the Inhabitants Thereof.” Inscription on the Liberty Bell