unz | Neoconservatives have their own characteristic American nationalism,
which is based on both energetic involvement in the affairs of other
states and calls for further immigration, which now comes mostly from
the Third World. Both of these foundational positions are justified on
the grounds that American identity rests on a creed, which stresses
universal equality. Most anyone from anywhere can join the American
nation by adopting the neocons’ preferred creed; and once here these
“new Americans, “ it is argued, will become hardy defenders of our
propositional nationhood while providing the cheap labor needed for
economic growth. Perhaps most importantly, neocons have no trouble
attracting corporate donors, who hold their views on immigration and
their fervent Zionism. Australian newspaper baron Rupert Murdoch, who
finances their media outlets, has been particularly generous to his
neoconservative clients but is far from their only benefactor.
The hundreds of millions of dollars that are poured into
neoconservative or neoconservative-friendly policy institutes annually
are not likely to dry up in the foreseeable future. A meeting just held
on Sea Island off the coast of Georgia for the purpose of devising and
executing a plan to bring down Trump, included, according to Pat Buchanan,
all the usual suspects. Neocon journalist Bill Kristol,, executives of
neocon policy institute AEI, and Republican bigwigs and politicians were
all conspicuously represented at this gathering of the “conservative “
in-crowd , and gargantuan sums of money were pledged to destroy the
reputation of someone whom the attendees hoped to destroy.
If the neocons were falling, certainly they are hiding their descent
well. Finally, there seems to be a continuing congruence between the
liberal internationalism preached by neoconservatives and such
architects of America’s foreign policy as the Council on Foreign
Relations. Although the Old Right and libertarians may lament these
troublemakers, the neoconservatives do not labor alone in imposing their
will. They are the most out-front among those calling for an aggressive
American internationalism; and this has been a dominant stance among
American foreign policy elites for at least a century.
It is hard to imagine that the neocons will lose these assets because
they’ve been branding Trump a fascist or because they’re unwilling to
back the GOP presidential candidate, no matter who he or she is.
Powerbrokers in their own right, they don’t have to worry about passing
litmus tests. They enjoy unbroken control of the “conservative
movement,” and benefit from the demonstrable inability of a more genuine
Right to displace them. Matthew Richer asks whether Donald Trump’s
election would spell “the end of NR’s influence over the conservative
movement in America.” The answer is an emphatic no, unless those who
distribute the funding for the neoconservative media empire decide to
close down this particular fixture. Otherwise Rich Lowry and his buds
will go on being funded as agents for disseminating neocon party lines.
Moreover, those featured in NR‘s printed issues and/or on its widely
visited website are routinely invited on to Fox-news and contribute to
other interlocking neoconservative enterprises. Rich Lowry and Jonah
Goldberg will not be thrown out of work, because they dumped toxic waste
on Trump. And Max Boot will not lose his position at the WSJ because of
his over-the-top tirades against Trump, after having railed non-stop
for several weeks against Confederate monuments and Confederate Battle
Flags. There is nothing the neocons say when they’re reaching leftward
or revealing their leftist colors that the leftist media aren’t also
saying, even more stridently. Pointing out the silliness of
neoconservative assertions about history or the current age may help us
deal with our irritation. It does not mean that we can dissuade those
who fund the neoconservatives from giving them more money. They are
being kept around not for their wisdom or the elegance of their prose
but because they are useful to the powerful and rich.
Finally I should observe that the neocons have done so well in
marginalizing their opposition on the right that it seems unlikely, as
George Hawley points out in Right-Wing Critics of the Conservative
Movement (University of Kansas, 2016), that the balance of power between
the two sides is about to change. How exactly will a genuine Right that
has not been contaminated by the neocons gain enough influence to
replace them? How can such a Right, given its modest circumstances, even
compete with the neocons for access to the public and for friends in
high places?
0 comments:
Post a Comment