Neocontrol

by Eric Martin

Robert Farley has a very interesting piece on the reaction of the Republican Party establishment to Obama's resumption of Reagan-era arms control treaties with Russia, and what that reaction says about the evolution of foreign policy ideas in the GOP:

Ironically, the attacks launched by the conservative foreign policy establishment against the Obama administration could also have been used against Ronald Reagan’s administration. The defense and nuclear policy of the Reagan administration is often understood as the zenith of hawkish, anti-Soviet sentiment. While this largely applies to Reagan’s first term in office, in the second term Reagan pursued far more conciliatory policies toward the Soviet Union and arms control. Reagan himself, as demonstrated by several historians, held almost radical views about the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons.[8] In one famous case, Reagan’s advisers had to restrain him from coming to an overarching deal with Soviet premier, Mikhail Gorbachev, that would have substantially reduced global nuclear weapon stockpiles.[9]

As Max Bergman, Deputy Policy Director at the National Security Network, has argued, a divide has emerged between the “realist” wing of the Republican foreign policy establishment and its more radical right-wing counterpart.[10] The debate over nuclear policy has demonstrated that the latter now essentially dominates the institutional apparatus of right-wing foreign policy thinking. Ideas and arguments that were welcome in the Reagan administration can now find no purchase at Heritage, or the Weekly Standard, or anywhere else on the right.

Many of the moderate Republicans who favored arms control and engagement with the Soviet Union are still around, but they have minimal influence on the institutional right. Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Colin Powell, and George Schultz have all played key roles in developing foreign policy for multiple Republican administrations. However, none have developed an extensive base within the institutional right wing, the constellation of independent organizations and foundations (including the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute) that have emerged as key players in internal Republican Party debates. This faction has, by and large, concluded that the greatest threat posed by Russian nuclear weapons is loss, theft, or accidental launch, rather than pre-emptive attack. [...]

In addition, prominent political figures have been able to promote the studies and reports produced by these groups, including for instance Sarah Palin, who despite her clear lack of knowledge on the subject tried to use that hardline rhetoric in attacking Obama’s arms control initiatives.

Sarah Palin, though almost obsessive in her repeated praise and evocation of Reagan, seems entirely ignorant of her implied criticism of Reagan's actual arms control policies.  Farley continues:

Over the past month, the question of “cognitive closure” on the right has been discussed extensively in the blogosphere. Cognitive closure refers to the concept that the Republican political establishment and major conservative pundits review information from within a very limited circle of sources. The nuclear critique mounted by the right wing represents an example of conservative “cognitive closure,” with the ironic outcome that those most eager to wave the banner of the Reagan administration’s foreign policy are offering arguments that Reagan himself would have rejected. [...]

The nature of these attacks against the Obama administration’s nuclear policy are not so much evidence of a battle within conservative foreign policy circles as they are a sign of the ascendancy of one particular faction. One key to achieving this dominant position in the discourse on the right has been the establishment and nurturing of institutions for developing and promoting their views. The wing of the GOP foreign policy establishment once regarded as “realist” failed to construct an institutional structure to develop and promulgate its ideas. Consequently, the major organs of conservative foreign policy-making now follow one line, serious debate is marginalized, and there are fewer new voices on the right arguing for responsible nuclear weapons policy.

I would only add that while Farley is right that the neocon wing is prone to heap effusive praise on Reagan's foreign policy despite deriding the particulars, the incoherence has roots.  During Reagan's tenure, the same neocon thinkers, pundits, periodicals and institutions were highly critical of Reagan's arms control measures and his outreach to Gorbachev (both of which were highly successful measures). 

In short, the neoconservative trend has been more hawkish than Reagan from the outset.  Also, consistenly wrong.  Nevertheless, they have clearly come to dominate the Republican Party almost entirely.

(via J-Sig)

Comments

[Mike Schilling]

Ironically, the attacks launched by the conservative foreign policy establishment against the Obama administration could also have been used against Ronald Reagan’s administration.

And they were, as it was said in so many words that the KGB-trained Gorbachev was bamboozling Reagan into gutting American security. This is only one of a long list of issues that the neocons were dead wrong about.

[Eric Martin]

Right Mike.

[Mike Schilling]

You know, like Eric says in the part of his post I hadn't read yet.

[Eric Martin]

Yup, was going to point that out, but I figured you'd get around to that later ;)

[alphie]

What ever gave you the idea that Sarah Palin gives a rat's ass whether her propaganda makes any sense or not?

[Slartibartfast]

Wasn't INF accomplished under Reagan? I can't imagine why anyone would think that Reagan had nothing to do with reduction in nuclear arms, unless they just weren't paying attention.

Of course, I was a little closer to what was going on than 99% of the general public, so maybe I have some advantage there.

[jonnybutter]

the neoconservative trend has been more hawkish than Reagan from the outset. Also, consistently wrong.

What's really scary about the neocons is not their being consistently wrong about everything, but that having been wrong over and over doesn't cause most of them to reconsider *anything*. It's the old 'Well, that's just my ideology' excuse - which is no excuse at all.

I prefer 'epistemological closure' to 'cognitive closure', even though the former is a term of art. A little more precise, I think.

Very scary. How do you argue or reason with a crazy person?

[Ugh]

What's really scary about the neocons is not their being consistently wrong about everything, but that having been wrong over and over doesn't cause most of them to reconsider *anything*.

Well, when has being wrong ever cost them anything meaningful? Are they not still all over the airwaves/papers/internets and poised to come back into power in the next Republican administration, no matter who that Republican might be?

Further, there is a large constituency for the proposition that America™ must be the most powerfulness, bestest, super-uber-duperlicious nation on earth, no matter what! Hell, that's what was behind the neocons horror at Reagan negotiating with the USSR/Gorbachev, "HE'S SELLING US OUT!" It's also why they hate the U.N., and arms control treaties (and treaties in general, unless they are one way streets for the U.S.), and NGOs, they all tug at the cape of U.S. supremacy.

And there are a great many people in the U.S. who are happy to support all that, even if it is completely and utterly wrong.

To sum up: U! S! A!

[John Thullen]

"Very scary. How do you argue or reason with a crazy person."

Well, you could stop arguing and reasoning with crazy people, who now constitute the entire Republican Party, at every level of government and media, on every issue, domestic and international.

Taxes will NEVER be low enough. There will NEVER be enough nuclear weapons.

The Republican Party is North Korean in its ruthlessness, it is Iranian militant in its whackjob worldview, it is Hamasian/Israeli in its utter refusal to negotiate, let alone compromise, it is al Qaeda-like in it's hatred of a good half of the American people and our government.

It is the Confederacy reborn.

It is the internal enemy of the United States.

There are vile filth goat-fu#king jackasses over at Redhate who believe violence will be used against their poor whipped butts -- win or lose next Fall.

Like the Confederacy, they'll deserve it when it comes. As it must.

[Model 62]

Mr Willis, my 8th grade American History teacher*, taught us that in the months before the War of 1812, American political elites were divided into the Hawks and the Doves, with the Hawks, naturally, pushing for war with the British and the Doves pushing for not-war with the British.

So this fundamental division has been with us for a long time and it's not limited to Republicans.

Mr Willis went on to tell us about the war and who lost -- and who could have lost a lot more had the British been so inclined -- and the lesson we students took away was that the Hawks were wrong about fighting the British over impressment.

This gets me wondering. In the long years of debate between the Hawks and the Doves over what to do about this crisis and that crisis, who has been more right and who has been more wrong?

-----------------
*Also a leader of the county Republican Party and a grognard.

[vanmojo]

Cognitive dissonance has been elevated to classic art form by the Neocons... remember, we are at war with *East* Asia. *East* Asia has always been our enemy. *West* Asia has always been our friend. Always!

In spinning up rhetoric, Neocons depend very heavily on historical iconoclasty (it's ok, I'm a professional, I can make up words like that) to teach the masses. True or not, is irrelevant to the Neocons. This kind of myth-making is central to the Neocon paradigm in that they believe they are illustrating "higher truths."

(o/t: Eric: have you been by Opinio Juris and seen the discussion starting on the UN report on Targeted Extraterritorial Killings and the Rule of Law? I think this goes to a lot of what we were talking about the other day...)

mojo sends

[El Cid]

The ultra-hawks (CPD nuts) and more 'moderate' conservatives were pretty enraged by Reagan's work with Gorbachev on nuclear arms control.

In the United States, the outrage among disarmament opponents was more intense.

In a full-page ad placed in various publications, the Conservative Caucus denounced the treaty as "appeasement."

Robert Dole, the Senate Republican leader, declared, "I don’t trust Gorbachev," and accused the President of "stuffing this treaty down the throats of our allies." [There's all those rammy / throaty fears again from conservatives.]

During treaty hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Jesse Helms assailed the administration for "misstatements and ... misrepresentation."

Shultz reported to the President that "the real opposition was all from the GOP side."

Reagan, however, was unmoved by conservative charges that he had betrayed his principles. His only regret was that his other disarmament venture, the START I Treaty, was not ready for his signature before he left office.

[efgoldman]

@ El Cid

Gawd! Saint Ronny as the sane, grownup Republican in the GOP playpen.

Talk about a concept that makes your head explode!

[wj]

Why should foreign policy be any different from, for example, economic policy? In both cases, imagine a current politician with Reagan's record . . . but with a different name. What would be the reaction from the current Republican establishment? Well, if he was really, really lucky, he would be denounced as a RINO. More likely, he would be denounced as a socialist, and enemy of all that is good in America.

Actually, you could do the same with the policies of any Republican President in living memory. Including, on economic policy, George W. Bush. Which, IMHO, says it all about where the current Republican Party has moved to.

[Eric Martin]

Yeah, if I recall, Reagan raised taxes something like 7 times.

Blasphemer!

[SFAFan]

You had me at ignorant.

And that goes for all the reflexive party-out-of-power criticism of any current administration.