Question: Whom did neocon extraordinaire William Kristol endorse for president in 2000?
Hint: It wasn't George Bush.
John McCain wasn't always a neocon. (But then neither was his soulmate, George Bush.) Historically, McCain was more of a mainstream hawk, advocating a strong military simply because it was, he claimed, in the national interest. Shaped by Vietnam, he espoused a relatively humble foreign policy when he first entered Congress. But in the nineties, he began to say that the Vietnam War could have been won if not for the overmanagement and political cowardice of politicians. And he saw internationalism adventurism--war, that is--as a means of exorcising the ghosts of Vietman. With an intensified thirst for Empire, he began to promote it in the name of not just nation security but freedom for the world.
The neocons became close to McCain in the 1990s, when they supported American intervention in the Balkans. According to the New Republic's John Judis, the first sign of neocon influence on McCain came in 1999. McCain delivered a speech at Kansas State University in which he touted "national greatness conservatism," arguing: "The United States is the indispensable nation because we have proven to be the greatest force for good in human history." He went on to state that the U.S. should have "every intention of continuing to use our primacy in world affairs for humanity's benefit."
Although some of the wackiest neocons--Daniel Pipes and Norman Podhoretz--backed Rudy Guliani, presumably because he, unlike McCain, loves torture, the neocon imprint on McCain is unmistakable.
McCain began reading The Weekly Standard and conferring with its editors, particularly Bill Kristol. Kristol is predictably modest about his influence on the Arizona senator, although he acknowledges, "I talked to McCain on the phone and compared notes." But when McCain wanted to hire a new legislative aide, his chief of staff, Mark Salter--himself a former aide to neoconservative Jeane Kirkpatrick--consulted with Kristol, who recommended a young protégé named Daniel McKivergan. Marshall Wittmann, one of Kristol's closest friends, became a key adviser during McCain's presidential campaign. Randy Scheunemann, who had drafted the Iraq Liberation Act and was on the board of Kristol's Project for a New American Century, became McCain's foreign policy adviser. One person who has worked closely with Kristol says of Kristol and McCain, "They are exceptionally, exceptionally close."
In the end, maybe it doesn't matter whether McCain is a neocon or a mere proponent of Empire, just as maybe it doesn't matter that Dick Cheney doesn't care about freedom while Paul Wolfiwitz does (or pretends to.) Each advocates an expansionist, interventionist foreign policy that would produce more war and more misery. The person on the other side of your bomb doesn't care about your intentions.
But to my mind there's something especially frightening about a professed interest in freedom coming from a superhawk. Frightening because it gives his foreign policy both a messianic fervor and a sheen of idealism, which poses a political and rhetorical challenge to those of us lefties who also think the United States should try to advance freedom. With Bush's neocon vision so thoroughly discredited, it's hard to believe that the man who seeks to succeed him has embraced an identical foreign policy. But embrace it he has.
The protection and promotion of the democratic ideal, at home and abroad, will be the surest source of security and peace for the century that lies before us. The next U.S. president must be ready to lead, ready to show America and the world that this country's best days are yet to come, and ready to establish an enduring peace based on freedom that can safeguard American security for the rest of the twenty-first century
Taken out of context, the above statement might not be threatening. Indeed, it would a welcome statement if its author believed that the United States could best protect and promote the "democratic ideal" by reducing its empire, or by supporting human rights defenders, NGOs, indigenous democracy movements, or at least by respecting democracy at home. But the author of that statement blithely predicts that there will be other wars. And thinks it's funny to joke about bombing Iran. And has no problem with leaving Americans troops in Iraq for 100 years. And lies to the public to try to maintain support for war. And thinks the Iran's "pursuit" of nuclear weapons is the greatest foreign policy crisis since the Cold War. And calls "radical Islamic extremists" the "transcendant challenge of the 21st century."
I'm disturbed by the comments of Kossacks who say they might vote for McCain if their candidate loses. While this might just be primary-time blather, there's no question that McCain's apparent reasonableness lulls liberals. Perhaps some of us are comforted by the hard right's distaste for McCain. Don't be. Coulter and friends hate him not because of his foreign policy but despite it.
McCain is no liberal. Nor is he a conservative, not in the classic, Russell Kirk sense. He's a radical, George Bush with brains, high poll numbers, and the press in his back pocket. He won the primary on his support for the surge and if he wins in November it will be on his support for more war in Iraq. He will be emboldened, and if he follows through on his pledge to serve only one term, he won't need to worry about re-election.
For neocons Iraq is just beginning. Recall Richard Perle's claim that regime change in Iraq would "deliver a short message, a two-word message: 'You’re next.'" Just a few months ago, the disaster of Iraq made a continued long term presence there, much less another war, unlikely. But now war with Iran and 100 years in Iraq are no less conceivable than a victory by McCain.
He must be stopped.