Dan

Calabrese

Read Dan's bio and previous columns here

June 25, 2009

2009: The Year of Triumph for Bush’s Neoconservatism

Regardless of whether the current Iranian regime survives the uprising it provoked with its sham election, the events in Tehran are the latest affirmation of a pretty darn happy fact:

The first year of the post-Bush era is turning out to be a triumphant one for neoconservatism.

It is deliciously ironic that a doctrine America supposedly rejected, even though few really knew what it was, has emerged as a set of principles no one seriously questions as the world evolves to prove its wisdom. Indeed, in order to escape the political firestorm that nearly engulfed him this week, President Obama had to finally give in and talk like a neocon.

To understand this phenomenon, you need to first understand what neoconservatism really is, as well as understanding what so many people thought it was.

We’ll start with the latter: It was widely believed that neoconservatism was a wildly idealistic notion that urged the United States to invade any country it chose, imposing democracy at the barrel of a gun. This definition also held that the neocons were only too happy to trash civil liberties in the name of national security, even as they assailed the sovereignty of other nations in the pursuit of empire.

Pundits of the liberal, libertarian and paleoconservative persuasions constantly denounced this caricature. Then, when they were convinced they had done so sufficiently, they began to inform us of how thoroughly the American people had rejected this failed and disastrous notion.

You probably heard about that version of neoconservatism. Now let’s deal with the one actually pursued by the administration of George W. Bush with the support of publications like The Weekly Standard and Commentary. The real neoconservatism simply held that the United States should support the advance of freedom and liberty throughout the world, wherever it can. It further posited that freedom and liberty are the God-given birthright of all people, and that – given the opportunity – people will always choose to be free. It further posited that when people become free, others see it, envy it and want it too.

The primary action for the United States in all this is to support democratic movements. Somewhere along the line, critics came to conflate this with the U.S. invading other countries and forcing them to accept our form of government. In fact, the two invasions that occurred during the Bush Administration were exceptions to the rule of how neoconservative goals are best achieved. We invaded Afghanistan in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks because the people who ruled that nation were harboring our attackers. We invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein was in violation of the terms of the Gulf War cease fire agreement of 1991, and the United Nations sure as hell wasn’t going to do anything about it.

The preferred model for achieving neocon goals was exemplified in Eastern Europe during the 1980s, and is on display in Iran today.

While Eastern Europe suffered under the grip of communist domination, the U.S. and its allies worked to apply economic and strategic pressure, even as we did what we could inside those nations to support democratic movements like Poland’s Solidarity. We didn’t invade Eastern Europe, nor could we have done so. But we did everything we could to weaken the communist overlords – and it turned out we could do a lot – while we equipped and empowered the people of those countries to rise up and take back their freedom when the situation was ready for it.

The events in Iran also represent neoconservatism on glorious display. The Iranian people know full well that their neighbors in Iraq now have the freedom to choose their own government. They want the same thing in Iran, and they will no longer accept a fraudulent, rigged election as a substitute. The Iranian people may not topple the mullahs this week or this month, but they are now in a stronger position than ever to apply pressure to their rulers, and the best way to help them succeed is to apply economic and strategic pressure while supporting pro-democracy forces on the ground.

From the recent success of pro-Western candidates in Lebanon to the voices of European leaders in support of Iran’s pro-democracy demonstrators, the real-life principles of neoconservatism are not only winning the day in fact, they are also being embraced rhetorically in many of the same European nations we supposedly alienated with this line of thinking.

That’s because it is impossible to honestly oppose. It is too just, too moral and too right. Neoconservatism was highly popular just after 9/11 because America had been given a stark reminder of what reality actually looks like. For a short time, it was impossible for people to delude themselves about the true nature of the world, no matter how much they may have wanted to do so. Over time, those who were threatened politically by this fact came to misrepresent the neocons in accordance with the mischaracterization described above, and they prevailed rhetorically.

Thankfully, neoconservatism is now prevailing substantively – and truth is vindicated, as it usually is.

© 2009 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

Become Dan's friend on Facebook.

This is Column # DC293. Request permission to publish here.