U.S. Versus Them: How a Half-Century of Conservatism Has Undermined America's Security (Hardcover)

~ (Author) "THIS IS A BOOK about a mystery..." (more)
Key Phrases: loose nuclear material, uranium program, nuclear war fighting, United States, Soviet Union, Cold War (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Starred Review. This cogent first book from the executive editor of the New Republic forcefully argues that 50 years of American conservatism have undermined U.S. security and pushed the world to the brink of nuclear disaster. Scoblic charts the course of American conservatism, from its development by William F. Buckley Jr. through the disastrous Cold War to Bush's failure to safeguard the United States after 9/11: in stark, often frightening detail, Scoblic examines how Bush embraced regime change as a means of fighting evil and neglected to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union, failed to prevent North Korea from reprocessing plutonium, rebuffed requests for negotiations from an Iranian regime that was, in 2003, willing to comply with the International Atomic Energy Agency, repeatedly ignored U.S. intelligence and pursued the war in Iraq. Scoblic illustrates how and why conservatism shaped the current administration and explains how it guided Bush's good vs. evil morality. This is an important book, well researched and well reasoned in its assessment of conservatism and mandatory reading for anyone concerned with America's security and future. (May)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From The Washington Post

Reviewed by Fred Kaplan

The shelves are already bulging with books about George W. Bush's disastrous foreign policy -- where it went wrong, how to steer things right. Yet space should be made for J. Peter Scoblic's U.S. vs. Them, if only because it points out that there's nothing "neo" about the neoconservatives.

The neocons' military unilateralism, shunning of diplomacy as "appeasement," scorn of international institutions as "unwelcome checks on American power" -- all these notions, Scoblic argues, are rooted in un-prefixed American conservatism, a movement founded by William F. Buckley in the 1950s, which fused the once separate strands of libertarianism and religious traditionalism into a crusade against Roosevelt's New Deal at home and Truman's containment abroad.

Bush, Scoblic writes, "is the direct descendant -- indeed, the ultimate product -- of this movement" because, unlike other postwar Republican presidents, he has taken conservatives' foreign policy ideas seriously and brought their dreams to deadly life.

Eisenhower's secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, talked of "rolling back" the Soviet empire, but Ike and Dulles abided by the realism of their Democratic predecessors, Harry Truman and Dean Acheson, who, as Scoblic puts it, valued nuclear deterrence over "moral clarity." Nixon, whom Scoblic treats as an arms-control hero, did much the same, at least in superpower politics.

Conservatives credit Reagan's ideological purity with winning the Cold War. But Scoblic notes that the Soviets folded only because, in his second term, Reagan turned liberal. It's often forgotten that many on the right lambasted their idol for sitting down with Mikhail Gorbachev and still more for the accords he negotiated, especially the one eliminating medium-range missiles in Europe.

Reagan's crucial role, Scoblic says, was that "he recognized Gorbachev as a reformer and adapted quickly . . . ratcheting down the nuclear tension that he himself had helped create." Had Reagan persisted in his earlier rhetoric, as several aides and columnists urged, "Gorbachev would have lost his room to maneuver" within the Politburo; his attempts at reform, which required outreach to the West, would have wilted; and the Cold War might have rumbled on, ending at some point but perhaps not so cordially.

Scoblic, executive editor of the New Republic, isn't out to puncture GOP myths but to frame them in a historical context. He traces the conservative worldview ("us versus them," "good versus evil") to the nation's beginnings, when the colonists were "in fact surrounded by enemies" -- Native Americans on one side, European imperialists on the other -- a condition that bred a sense of moral and nationalistic exceptionalism.

By the mid-20th century, the rise of the Axis powers, the vital role that we played in winning World War II and the nuclear arms race that followed all rendered this lofty apartness untenable. "International security required reaching some sort of modus vivendi with the enemy so that the world did not suddenly end in nuclear holocaust," Scoblic writes. "Conservatives were not only ill-suited to meeting this task; they rejected its very premise."

Conservatives staged a revival under George W. Bush, in part because it seemed they could. With the Soviet Union gone, they thought the United States could flex its muscles without limit or risk. And so the "us-versus-them worldview" revived, with democratization serving as the "ideological successor to anticommunism." The goal was the same -- "to make victory permanent so that there would never again be a question of engaging with evil." Yet as Acheson noted in 1949, "good and evil have existed in this world since Adam and Eve went out of the garden of Eden."

Scoblic is among a growing number of liberals who, repulsed by Bush's kind of "moral clarity," have embraced a return to realism in foreign policy -- not quite Nixon-Kissinger realpolitik but at least a modest view of the world as it really works. He writes, for instance, that presidents should be elected for their "empiricism, pragmatism, and leadership." (He stays mum on which of the present candidates best fits the bill.)

Yet Scoblic sometimes falls prey to his own us-versus-them thinking. In drawing contrasts with Bush, he gives the impression that Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon and Brent Scowcroft are of the same ilk -- which brushes over significant differences. He waves away Truman's conservative tendencies as politically expedient rhetoric, when Truman probably believed in them. He sees John F. Kennedy as confused, but the confusion is partly Scoblic's; JFK doesn't neatly fit into his liberal/conservative matrix.

Scoblic doesn't address the age-old, now-vital question of whether and how moral factors should enter into foreign policy. He draws a distinction between policies that are "moral" (good) and "moralist" (bad), but he never clearly defines the terms. Instead, he devotes his final chapter to the danger of nuclear proliferation -- an issue both narrower and broader than the rest of the book's scope -- and then fails to offer a solution, except to say that negotiating to prevent nuclear war should take precedence over violent regime change. I closed this otherwise satisfying book, thinking, "OK, but then what?"

Copyright 2008, The Washington Post. All Rights Reserved.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 368 pages
• Publisher: Viking Adult (April 17, 2008)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0670018821
• ISBN-13: 978-0670018826
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6.1 x 1.4 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (13 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #605,328 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

29 of 33 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A National Treasure, May 1, 2008

By	Citizen John (Washington, DC) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)

Peter Scoblic, foreign policy expert, historian, journalist and editor, reveals the mystery of the thinking that has driven U.S. foreign policy. This book is at once highly intellectual and thoroughly entertaining, regardless of where, if anywhere, one falls along the spectrum of liberal to conservative leanings.

Scoblic shows us how human nature causes even the political elite to gravitate to a state of moral clarity. Everything is easier once you achieve moral clarity and it provides a very saleable message, getting results in elections. It divides the world into "us" and "them", which would be fine if we didn't have to deal with "them".

The problem is that more than ever, the U.S. has to deal with other countries all over the world, especially because of economic interdependence and the fact that some of them have weapons of mass destruction. In this sense, the human nature to define what is not well understood into clear issues of good and evil is a liability. Thus, there is a need for professional diplomacy and politicians that work well with this function.

Scoblic traces American diplomacy's tug of war between the intellect and the hardwired brain from the beginning of what he calls the conservative movement to what he calls it's culmination in the Bush administration. What is so amazing about Scoblic is his ability to understand America as both an insider and also as an observer. And this is the gift that he gives us in U.S. vs THEM.

After reading Scoblic, you will be able to understand why apolitical intelligence has been distrusted at the highest levels of U.S. government. This is one of the biggest mysteries of our time.

More than that, I think readers will be able to apply some of these principles to our own lives. That is what great scholars can do for us, and I count Scoblic as one of the best. Hopefully, he will one day come out with a documentary.

13 of 15 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Brilliant, June 3, 2008

By	Smith H. Glover (CA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Scoblic's book is exactly the sort of well researched, intelligent exploration of the Bush administration's foreign policy that I have been looking for. I have always known that there is something seriously flawed about Bush's foreign policy, and the conservative approach in general (it was Reagan's talking with the Soviets as much as his spending the ended the Cold War)- but didn't have the facts to back it up. Now I do.

Not only does the overall concept of this book original and insightful, but Scoblic manages to avoid the trap of too many politically oriented books- he does not veer randomly into tabloid style right wing bashing while simply sprinkling his book with facts. The book sticks coherently to it's main message and backs up its ideas strongly.

Finally- the book is written with a slight fictional flare- the opening line in: "This book is about a mystery." This style, applied delicately as it is, helps to move the reader through the detailed and at times complex themes and arguments, making US VS THEM, a seriously important book, not only informative, but entertaining and engaging.

I read in one review something along the lines of "if you have to read on book before the upcoming elections, make it this one." I couldn't agree more. No matter what happens in November, the Republicans have tapped into something in the American Psyche so that, no matter how badly they screw things up and are caught in scandals, they are still never far from power. Their overall policies and strategies aren't going to change dramatically. US VS THEM gives invaluable insight into why, whether you are on the left or right, the Republicans have to change their foreign policy or American will be in even more trouble than it is now.

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Positive understanding of the Conservative mindset, August 6, 2009

By	J. K. Roberts (Phoenix) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

First off, start by reading the 1 star reviews. No, seriously... I will wait for you.


Now, after reading them, you'll have a clue what this book is about. The conservative movement, as described by this book, is one where the only choices are black or white, hot or cold, up or down, us vs them. This is the underlying problem with the ideology. There is no in between. And since there is no in between, facts must either fit into the world view, or facts must be discarded when they do not fit. In addition, since the desired outcome is already known, facts may not even be needed. Sure, that may be fine if you are the guy who shopped at Costo, picked up the book, flipped to the middle, read one page, and then decided to post a one star review of the book here. Unfortunately it is not fine if you are in a position on world leadership. Ignorance never is.

The negative reviews from this book are actually a bit startling. They are basically attacks at on opposing view. The book, however, is fairly straight forward, and does little to attack the conservative mindset itself. Quite often, it rationalized the behavior and applied praise for a necessary political voice. I found myself a bit more open and understanding as to the how's and why's of the mindset. I actually read portions to my conservative co-workers, and they agreed with much of the author's points. This is a book that conservatives should read, to be honest. It gives understanding and insight, without the typical drama seen in right wing vs left wing literature.

Unfortunately, one of the points made in the book is that education and understanding are needed to return to rational discourse. After seeing the reviews of others here... I'm again forced to come to the conclusion that conservative people will never find value in education, nor will they ever appreciate those who have taken on the difficult task of understanding.