Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 (1 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   No comments

Life Arts

U.S. vs. THEM - Book Review

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to None 3/7/09

Become a Fan
  (7 fans)
U.S. vs THEM - How a Half Century of Conservatism Has Undermined America's Security. J. Peter Scoblic. Viking (Penguin,) New York, 2008.

In a work that is well focussed, Peter Scoblic has written an intriguing historical review of the second half of the Twentieth Century on into the recently passed Bush regime. In U.S. vs. THEM, the writing narrows on to a main theme of how the decisions and actions of the conservative/neoconservative mind have only increased the nuclear danger to the world. At times the consistency of that narrow perspective can be irritating as a bit more contextual perspective, a slightly broader sweep could have presented a broader historical picture, but that was distinctly not Scoblic's purpose and the book needs to be read on that understanding. There is much more to conservative and neoconservative policies and actions than the increasing nuclear proliferation threat, but this work retains an accurate and direct view of the nuclear issue.

There is apparently no real neoconservative policy as such. With the main supporting idea of the theme being the title, us versus them, any 'policy' statements were essentially the blind rhetoric of the conservatives seeking U.S. global dominance through the primal element of fear, of good versus evil. That evil had to be redefined midcourse because of the inward collapse of the Soviet Union, the evil being transferred from 'godless communism' to 'fanatical terrorism', from a state actor with a known base and boundaries to a non-state actor without boundaries or minimally much of base other than a diverse and changing population group. Without any real policy, Scoblic highlights the many contradictions between the decisions of the conservatives and the results of their decisions on global security in the nuclear realm.

Scoblic's introduction presents his ideas accurately. He describes the "foundational influences" of conservatism as " - an exceptionalism comprising both a moralism and a nationalism - [that] represent[s] enduring traditions in U.S. foreign policy." He relates how the conservatives, instead of engaging the "enemy" to decrease the terror of nuclear weapons "promoted the opposite tack, deriding containment as appeasement, rejecting mutual assured destruction, and preparing to fight and win a nuclear war." The second half of the book looks at Bush's "paradoxical behaviour through the lense of conservatism."


The rise of conservatism


In the first chapter "Worldview" the discussion examines the underlying concepts of conservatism and how it became a "conflation of moralism - the good versus evil" - anti-communism, and the traditional view of minimal government influence in the lives of the citizens. From there Scoblic runs through the history, with many familiar and a few unfamiliar names and incidents highlighting the story: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Bundy, Goldwater, Bernard Brodie (a new name for me), McNamara, Johnson, Nixon, Brezhnev, John Ashbrook, and Phyllis Schlafly (both new), and of primary philosophical importance William F. Buckley of the National Review. The discussion of the moralism and paranoia of the conservatives through the era up to Reagan, through the negotiations on the ABM, SALT and the NPT, leads to the conservative view that "good could not coexist with evil," that "regime change" was more important than coexistence and containment, and that the conservatives could not understand possible Soviet responses to their rhetoric.

Before reaching Reagan, the conservative coalition strengthened with the arrival of more familiar names: Cheney, Rumsfield, Wohlstetter, Jackson, Kristol, Podheretz - in short all the 'chicken hawks' who came back later to populate the Bush regime. Their arguments on nuclear proliferation and the winning of a nuclear war Scoblic argues are "fatuous...grounded in zero sum thinking." While constantly blaming the Soviets for nuclear developments, and warning of their superiority (which never actually existed), the conservatives "were criticizing the Soviets for a strategy we ourselves were pursuing." The latter is not too surprising as U.S. actions often contradict their stated intentions and purposes.

Ronald Reagan

Reagan represented a considerable range of these contradictions, being fully drawn into the conservative philosophy, yet during the second half of his leadership, made contrary moves (contrary to conservative beliefs) to attempt full nuclear disarmament of the U.S. and the Soviet Union, to be scuppered by the U.S. insistence on the proposed development of the 'Star Wars' defensive missile system. But for Reagan, "the evil of nuclear weapons clearly outweighed the evil of communist states." As a "paragon" of conservative values, Reagan contradicted them in his negotiations with Gorbachev.

Neither Reagan nor the conservatives come off favourably in Scoblic's view. As the arch-conservative "Reagan's ignorance of nuclear matters was matched only by his blindness to how his actions might be perceived by the Soviets." He describes the lack of "coherence to the Reagan Doctrine" primarily because "there never was [italics in original] an actual Reagan Doctrine." As for Reagan being the hero of the conservative movement, that was a reinvention of the man to suit the conservative's viewpoint after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The common conservative argument is that Reagan 'won' the Cold War, defeating the Soviets by causing economic distress through the arms race and the incursion into Afghanistan. Scoblic argues that "the Soviet Union suffered no economic distress as a result of the Reagan build-up," that the SDI (missile defence) did not break "the Soviet bear's back," but gives the attribution of the collapse to "Gorbachev's willingness to reform" and the "endemic weakness of the Soviet state." The paradox of Reagan, the contradictions of conservative beliefs versus his actions came about because although "Reagan thought in terms of good and evil...he did not translate his worldview into policies that made accommodation with the Soviets anathema and therefore impossible."

Neoconservatism

The us versus them view continued to develop through the Bush I and Clinton years in spite of not having direct access to power. Exemplified by John Bolton - "the quintessential example of the us-versus-them worldview - the neoconservative perspective extended the individual right to be free from government interference at home to "America's right to be free from the interference of treaties, institutions, or any other formal diplomatic arrangement abroad." It signalled the arrival of "Fortress America, which was able to strike anywhere around the world without entangling itself directly in foreign affairs." Unilateralism, pre-emptive nuclear war designs, and supreme military global dominance for the 'new American era' became part of the rhetoric for neoconservatism. The us versus them philosophy floundered for a while, until 9/11 offered the perfect chance for a global and timeless enemy to appear.

With the Bush regime as well there was a "blurring, if not erasing, [of] the line between conventional and nuclear weapons and lowering the threshold at which the nation would go nuclear." Now the weapons would "serve not only a deterrent function but also a counterforce function" to be used against even non-nuclear enemies. The Bush conservatives brought the us versus them worldview back in full force, moralistic, but not necessarily moral. Again, Scoblic leads the reader through the actions that have increased the threat of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terror in contradiction to the rhetorical statements and beliefs of the neocons for U.S. security.

U.S. actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, in failed efforts to control Iran, North Korea, Libya, India, and Pakistan are all discussed as actions that have increased the likelihood of a future nuclear incident, all contradictory to the neocons position to achieve security and safety from the "evil" other. Ideology trumped intelligent action in all their endeavours.

The future

Conservatives at the end of the Bush era and on into the future have clung to U.S. exceptionalism and the ideology of us versus them. By maintaining an atmosphere of fear - fear of communism, fear of terrorism, fear of crime, drugs et al - and by "depicting one's group as special and uniquely valuable," they become "especially effective for terror management," in the sense of using terror to control the political will of the people. With his analysis of events leading up to Iraq and the dealings with the other 'terror' countries, Scoblic establishes that conservative behaviour is "empirically irrational."

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist of opinion pieces and book reviews to Palestine Chronicles. His interest in this topic stems originally from an (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments

 

Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend


Copyright © 2002-2014, OpEdNews

Powered by Populum