Customer Reviews

Imperial Designs: Neoconservatism and the New Pax Americana

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Imperial Designs contains the best information on the history and rise to power of the present US government. As it is written by an impartial historian, it is thus much more valid than Mr. Mann's Rise of the Vulcans, as Mr. Mann is himself a member of the Project for the New American Century cabal.

Gary Dorrien has specialized in liberal theology. Now he addresses the issue of neoconservatism. He does not "argue that Bush is a puppet of the neocons and Cheney/Rumsfield." As the author says, the top Bush officials are not neocons. And Bush seems to have come up with ideas on terrorism and Iraq on his own. But Dorrien does criticize neocons for their dreams of Empire, their annoyance with the United Nations, and their hawkishness.

Is Dorrien right? Do neocons want the United States to be an Empire? What do neocons think of international law? More precisely, do neocons want the United States to be fair, or do they want us to throw our weight around to get our way?

I think the author makes some good and bad points on these issues. The problem is that we need to start with a couple of fundamentals. Political disputes, say between liberals and conservatives, involve agreement on some goals and disagreement on the means to achieve them or the nature of successfully meeting them. That is, most of us want American society to be just, fair, and prosperous. That could be a mutual goal. We could have totally different political ideas about what that goal might mean. Still, we would be speaking the same language, even though we disagreed. Those who wanted American society to be damaged or destroyed would not be able to truly agree or disagree with any of the rest of us.

Now where do I think this places those with some specific political views, such as the neocons? Well, I think some neocons might indeed want the United States to be unfairly biased in helping Americans rather than others. But they surely would not want to put it that way in a debate! Matter of fact, they would much rather put the shoe on the other foot, and be able to argue in favor of justice, fairness, and human rights for all against those who are explicitly against them. And that leads to what I call "litmus test" issues. It seems to me that the neocons have picked some issues of this sort. Dorrien recognizes this, as he points out that one neocon, Norman Podhoretz, has emphatically criticized Communism, anti-Zionism, and anti-Americanism. But Dorrien implies that these issues tend to separate the neocons from the liberals or paleocons. I think that misses the point. I think issues such as Iraq, Korea, and Taiwan might do a better job of drawing such lines. Communism, anti-Zionism, and anti-Americanism are, in my opinion, issues that neocons want to use to draw the line between being able to join the debate or not being able to do so. Those who strongly favor Communism, anti-Americanism, or anti-Zionist terror really are not in a position to constructively criticize liberals, paleocons, or neocons.

Dorrien does realize that neocons are sincere about these issues. If they are wrong, he encourages us to address their arguments rather than speculate about their motives. But he merely explains that these issues are important. He fails to address the question of where the line is between such issues becoming national in nature and merely being a facet of partisan politics.

I'm a liberal, and I am often in disagreement with neocons, on tactics, strategies, and goals. And I think we ought to oppose dubious or arbitrary American policies. I think we Americans can pursue a better foreign policy. But that certainly ought not mean supporting Communism, anti-Zionism, or anti-Americanism. I think Dorrien agrees with this. But he seems to confuse these "litmus test" positions with very partisan ideas about our foreign policy.