RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Weissman writes: "Hillary Clinton can do what neo-conservatives and paleo-conservatives and theological conservatives never could. She can sell imperialism as a liberal, humanitarian imperative."

Hillary Clinton at the Democratic Debate. (photo: Travis Dove/NYT)
Hillary Clinton at the Democratic Debate. (photo: Travis Dove/NYT)


Hillary�s No Neo-Con. She�s Far More Dangerous

By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News

18 January 16

 

ack in September 2013, well before Bernie Sanders decided to run for president, the liberal journalist Peter Beinart called attention to the leftward swing among Democratic Party voters, marked by Elizabeth Warren�s popularity and Bill de Blasio�s victory in the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City. More to the point, Beinart explicitly challenged Hillary Clinton to move left and ride the new wave to power � or risk getting overwhelmed by what he called �The Rise of the New, New Left.� The following month, I responded with �Don�t Let Hillary Housebreak the New New Left.�

Beinart�s choice of labels was wildly misleading. For those who missed his reference, the original New Left of the 1960s � best embodied by Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) � initially looked toward the kind of Democratic Socialism that Bernie Sanders now proclaims. We gave radical, mostly white support to the civil rights movement, usually leaning toward the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). We opposed both sides in the Cold War, seeing both as promoting nuclear disaster. We broke with the mainstream refusal to cooperate with Communists, an ideological prohibition that encouraged witch hunts, red-baiting, and the stifling of thoroughgoing social and economic reform.

And perhaps best known, we played a leading role in organizing the campus-based opposition to the War in Vietnam, which Beinart�s liberal heroes � former vice president Hubert Humphrey, labor leaders Walter Reuther and David Dubinsky, civil rights activist Bayard Rustin, and theologian Reinhold Niebuhr � condemned us for doing.

Though Hillary and Bill opposed the war at the time, Beinart correctly places her in the same political tradition as his liberal heroes, who forged �the dominant ideology in American public life� long before the neo-cons emerged. These liberals believed with FDR �that government should intervene in society to solve problems that individuals cannot solve alone.� And they zealously insisted that the US should have, as I put it, �a muscular, hyper-activist foreign policy, one with all the multilateral trappings of UN resolutions and NATO-led coalitions, but still decidedly neo-colonial and inescapably in the service of Big Oil and the merchants of death.�

Hillary embodies this liberal imperialism and will do her best to groom the new political generation that sees itself as liberal to follow her into endless war, especially in the Middle East. That is why she is so dangerous. She can do what neo-conservatives and paleo-conservatives and theological conservatives never could. She can sell imperialism as a liberal, humanitarian imperative.

Domestically, before Obamacare, Hillary fought for something approaching universal health care, no matter how corporate and inadequate it was. By contrast, America�s number one neo-con, William Kristol, made his bones as a hard-ass Republican right-winger by leading the fight to destroy what she was trying to create. Which of them do you think will do better selling self-identified liberals on war?

No doubt, many neo-cons will support Hillary. Some will serve as her advisers, and one of their top leaders, Robert Kagan, has already started calling himself a liberal interventionist. He sees the future if Hillary becomes president, and he realizes she will build that future by drawing on what the Democrats did in the past, not on what the neo-cons said and did under George W. Bush.

Support for Israel? Woodrow Wilson, who preached �the self-determination of nations,� went along with Britain�s Balfour Declaration, offering Palestine as a homeland for the Jewish people. Harry Truman quickly recognized the new Jewish State, and whenever it counted, the Democratic Party has sided with Israel against the Palestinians.

Support for the Saudis? FDR forged Washington�s initial alliance with the Saudi monarchy to secure a supply of oil for the coming world war. Jimmy Carter funded the mujahideen, the holy warriors, months before Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan, and pledged to defend the Saudis in case the Soviets extended their activism. His �Carter Doctrine� also committed the US to use military force if needed to ensure the flow of oil and natural gas from the entire region.

The Cold War? Harry Truman certainly pumped it up in Greece in 1947, though historians have traced the conflict�s origins back through decisions made during FDR�s alliance with the Soviets in World War II and Woodrow Wilson�s decision to join allied troops to fight against the Bolshevik Revolution in 1918.

And Vietnam? The American Friends of Vietnam, the loudest cheerleader for interfering in the former French colony, was headed by a New Deal Democrat, Leo Cherne, who also ran the International Rescue Committee and served as Chairman of the Executive Committee of Freedom House. Two of his strongest backers were Democratic senators John F. Kennedy and Mike Mansfield, who joined with New York�s right-wing Cardinal Spellman to help impose the Catholic Ngo Dinh Diem to rule over the largely Buddhist South Vietnam.

These are just snapshots of the Democratic Party�s past, which we all need to understand in much greater breadth and depth. But trying to make the neo-cons our number-one bogeyman is to make them far more important than they were. It absolves the mainstream Democratic Party from the blame it so richly deserves. And it makes it so much easier for Hillary Clinton to shape a new generation of Democratic voters in her own imperialist image.



A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, "Big Money and the Corporate State: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently Break Their Hold."

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page

 

Comments  

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+51 # BradFromSalem 2012-04-04 13:33
And so it goes...
The more things change...

While President Obama has a Budget framework; it is time he gets behind a real budget with real fact based solutions to our economic issues. Solutions for both long term problems as well as our current morass. That Budget proposal of course is the "Budget for All" proposed by the Progressive Caucus.
 
 
+125 # xflowers 2012-04-04 15:44
Charles Darwin would turn over in his grave to see how his ideas have been misused. The irony is many supporters of social Darwinism oppose the teaching of real Darwinism in public school science classes independent of the some version of biblical creationism. Apparently, a corrupted Darwinism is okay when it suits their purposes. A crueler irony is that the party that proposes this inhumane budget is likewise the party that touts itself as being so very, very Christian when social Darwinism is about as anti-Christian as you can get.
 
 
+57 # noitall 2012-04-04 16:47
...and the reason they oppose the teaching of real Darwinism becomes obvious; same reason that they cut funds for teaching Civics, REAL History, and on and on... They fear Truth and prefer to live in their world that allows them to make it up as they go. (and make the same mistakes over and over) They persist although the end is never good. Unfortunately, we're riding in the same speeding car.
 
 
+1 # doneasley 2012-04-07 23:46
Unfortunately!
 
 
+39 # ericlipps 2012-04-04 16:48
Hear, hear. The hypocrisy of Republicans in pushing "intelligent design" on the one hand and social Darwinism (packaged as "free market economics") on the other is breathtaking.
 
 
+1 # doneasley 2012-04-07 23:58
Well, we'd better find our breath and respond to these Neanderthals. In addition to Dr. Reich's comments, these people, with their vicious attacks on women, are attempting to take us back to the 19th century.
 
 
+21 # Kiwikid 2012-04-04 17:14
Which is why the use of the phrase is very clever and needs to be exploited as much as possible. Repeat it on all occasions as a catch-phrase to describe the Republican agenda. That along with another one of Dr Reich's favourites - 'corporate welfare'. It just may be that some on the evangelical right will at least be given pause to reflect.
 
 
+7 # Rita Walpole Ague 2012-04-05 02:53
Very well said, xflowers. And thank you, Robert Reich, for once again educating us. We need such educating so desperately in this, today's 'Every Child Left Behind' nation.
 
 
+6 # doneasley 2012-04-06 01:04
Quoting ritaague:
We need such educating so desperately in this, today's 'Every Child Left Behind' nation.


Their real credo, ritaague, is "Every Child's Behind Left". These are disparate forces who have come together to impose their will on America, and in the process destroy Barack Obama. They hide behind the Religious Right while ridiculing them behind closed doors. We need to look behind the curtain to find out who these people really are.

Paul Ryan. Just who is this guy who now controls the multi-trillion dollar U.S. budget that right-wingers are slobbering over? He's a devotee of a psychopath, Ayn Rand, and demands that his staff read her works. This vile woman was an atheist who railed against government programs while living a life of depravity. But, in the end, she found it necessary to take advantage of Medicare and Social Security.

And these guys - from Ronald Reagan to Alan Greenspan, Ron and Rand Paul, and now Ryan - have absorbed and spread this evil philosophy. In addition to the federal level, just look at what's happening in the GOP-controlled states. Wisconsin stays in the news, but the most insidious legislation is happening in Michigan, where the governor is taking control of selected cities, and the local elected officials HAVE NO SAY!

Look at where we were and where we are now. Evil is winning folks. Cheney gets a new heart. Need I say more?
 
 
+6 # 2lilluc 2012-04-05 08:00
Good comment! That party conveniently hides behind their armor of christianity, denouncing anyone who disagrees with them as bad christians and bad Americans...the y convince a section of the public that they are standing on high moral ground, that any opposition is out to destroy America's christian values.
I agree that a crueler irony there could hardly be! All I see is an intolerant, hateful, uncompromising party that certainly does not have anything close to what most of us would consider "christian values." or even just good human values. They are corrupt and could care less about the average American and even less than that for the poor or education or social services or, or, or......
 
 
+18 # Wind in His Hair 2012-04-04 16:10
What is missing is the fair shake, the fact that if you work hard, society will reward you by taking care of you when you are old by not stealing your pension, cutting your healthcare, starving you out of your house, and treating you like an inferior. If hard work gets you nowhere, what is the sense? You have only a few years left and they torment you. It should read, Let it be understood that we cannot go outside of this alternative: Liberty, equality, survival of the tradesman; not-liberty, inequality, survival of the non producing rich. The former carries society forward and favors all its best members; the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members.
 
 
+17 # Liberalthinker 2012-04-04 16:51
Sometimes true"Darwinism" is more obvious than at other times. The teachings of Jesus make no room for the inhumane so called Conservatism that smashes the middle class American populace and damns the poor while millionaires and billionaires prosper . Currently , wild and domesticated animals appear to be superior to the Republican candidates. Our President needs support from liberals , not constant debilitating criticism .
 
 
+22 # dick 2012-04-04 17:04
One can argue 'til the cows come home: are species "fit" as rugged individuals, say, long surviving crocodiles, or are they fit as mutually supportive communities, say, "colony" insects. But we get to CHOOSE our values, & how we behave in order to survive & prosper. We can choose to let the crocodiles intimidate us, or we can choose to band together for strength, & love. And we certainly don't have to believe the croc about philosophical reasons why cold blooded reptiles should rule. Just propaganda.
 
 
+26 # raporeal 2012-04-04 17:32
Just the mere existence of today's Republican party flies in the face of the theory of "intelligent design."
 
 
+19 # lcarrier 2012-04-04 18:09
Sumner and his mentor, Herbert Spencer, misunderstood Darwin, who said only that whoever survives is the "fittest." That would include raving left-wing anarchists (who, by the way, would be doing a better job than the brainless corporatists who run our country now).

These corporatists are in line with Giovanni Gentile, Mussolini's mouthpiece, who said that government working with big business was the heart of fascism. Yes, fascism, of the sort that our SCOTUS is now set on supprting.
 
 
+5 # cordleycoit 2012-04-04 20:06
What one sees are the Repugs casting about for a theory of economics that can pretend is working Social Darwinism, B.F. Skinner for sociology-physi ology. They do not have enough soldiers to enforce the Friedman model so they will find somewhere in history a convenient and simplistic theory they can put lipstick on. All the time they are heading us toward fascism. Don't believe it look at the wave of prison building. Listen to Amy Goodman.
 
 
+11 # wfalco 2012-04-04 20:23
The Republicans today are sociopathic bag men for the corporations.
Nothing has any meaning to them with the exception of the almighty dollar.
A "decent society" is not part of their vocabulary unless it excludes everyone but the top dogs. It is a sad state of affairs and difficult for me to comprehend. This barbaric element of "social Darwinists" care about no one but themselves and the upper 1%.
Their philosophy is all about "winning."
Unfortunately the competition they allege we are all in is rigged in their favor. The system is rigged and shall remain as such for the foreseeable future.
 
 
+11 # medusa 2012-04-04 22:01
It is hard to see why rich, well-educated people accept a proposal that leads to a society with a hereditary nobility and a downtrodden public, with bad social services, an unfunded public sector (the funded public sector is for the few)--Americans used to be grateful that our country wasn't like that, and hoped to help other countries dig out of that hole. Life, liberty, etc., the rule of law--government of, by, for, the people--No mercenaries (Hessians, weren't they?)--it's like we're being taken over by foreigners.
 
 
+3 # Cassandra2012 2012-04-05 15:30
Oh, was "W" 'well-educated' ? He only got into Yale because his daddy's family paid them big bucks -- a 'legacy' student.
Money does NOT equal smarts--- just craftiness.
 
 
+7 # ABen 2012-04-04 23:27
Darwin understood that the central dynamic of evolution does not apply directly to human society. That is why he coined the term "social selection." As a society of humans, we make decisions that circumvent or override 'natural selection' (Darwin's term) because we deem someone or some action to have benefit for the society as a whole. This last concept is analogous with what the Greeks referred to as the public weal--the common good. Social Darwinist policies, such as those advocated in Paul Ryan's budget proposal, fly in the face of this concept of the common good by substituting a kind of corporate deity whose manifestation is the "free market." The original purpose for which human society was created was to promote the common good.
 
 
+5 # Salus Populi 2012-04-05 06:02
Social Darwinism and other regressive doctrines of the era of big time theft are bound to have a resurgence, just as the "theories" of Ayn Rand have. The limits to growth in the U.S. have been reached if not breached, and for the further fattening of the fat cats, everyone else must be immiserated. Can't very well justify that with an appeal to sacrifice on the part of those whose lives and communities are already being diced and sliced, so a "robust" philosophy -- American Exceptionalism abroad, survival and prosperity of the most ruthless and criminal at home -- must be pressed into service. The martyred radical Rosa Luxembourg had it right when she said the future choice facing humanity was "Socialism or Barbarism." Not surprising that the Masters of Mankind, with their "vile maxim" of "All for ourselves,, nothing for anybody else" [Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations], would choose fascist barbarism with themselves in charge. The question is, will its millions of victims awaken and realize they have nothing left to lose by revolt, as the Greeks seem to be on the verge of doing, in time?
 
 
+3 # worldviewer 2012-04-06 13:53
SOCIAL DARWINISM IS A LIE.
Humans are social beings and reciprocal relations are written in our genes.
90% of human existence was spent in small hunter-gatherer groups in which the survival of the whole group was essential and equality was the norm.
Not until agriculture and pastoralism developed and with them the accumulation of food (the first wealth) and then the rise of civilizations did serious inequalities develop.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN