Neo-Con Foreign Policy GroupThink

From a recent Pat Buchanan article:

Mitt says that if elected he will move carriers into the Persian Gulf and "prepare for war." Newt is even more hawkish. America should continue "taking out" Iran's nuclear scientists -- i.e., assassinating them -- but military action will probably be needed.

For the retired head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, calls attacking Iran "the stupidest thing I have ever heard of."

I have a difficult time believing that we are actually talking about action against Iran. It is like a bad dream. I can only hope it is pre-election saber-rattling. But even worse than a bad dream, it comes with a strong sense of déjà vu: Early in 2007 I was listening to Michael Savage. That's right, I was listening to Michael Savage. As a trade analyst and (now) political science teacher, I have always felt it imperative to stay aware of public discourse and the opinion leaders that influence perception. To continue, I was disturbed at the foreign policy position he was advocating toward Iran and the next day I wrote the following on a blog:

...it wasn't so much that I disagreed with it (because I don't have a problem listening to things I disagree with), the problem is that the information was so bad, almost insane. He was talking to John Hagee, a famous TV prophecy guy. He said 70% of Iran was dissatisfied with their government (or some statistic like that) and that the US should invade Iran and liberate that 70%. That's one of the most insane things I've ever heard in my life.

Iraq has 18 million people, its demographics a hodgepodge created by post colonial nation-building, and it is largely flat. And how is our liberation of that country proceeding? Iran on the other hand has 70 million, is a 3000 year old civilization, and is one of the most mountainous countries of the world. Do we really have to wonder how that would turn out? Are we ready for the increase in oil prices that will occur after Iran retaliates by cutting off its oil supply? What kind of cost-benefit analysis are the neo-cons using?

Whither the Birth-ers?

Someone recently posed the question as to whether the release of the President's birth certificate had any effect on peoples' perception of the legitimacy of his citizenship. This generated a few thoughts. (This may not seem like a timely subject now, but doesn't our interest too often follow the news cycle? Perhaps we should more frequently revisit important topics after the "buzz" has died down. )

I believe it took a lot of air out of the birthers' argument. Maybe for most conservative types, pursuing the birth certificate issue seems pointless after a while and maybe even embarrassing. I feel the birther phenomenon is simply a recent manifestation of the religious right's infatuation with conspiracy. In other words there is a larger story here, and it is not about president Obama. Rather it says more about American Christianity and its intersection with politics.

The tenacity with which people hold onto such conspiracies is related- I feel- to the apocalypticism that is so much a part of religion in America. Rarely is it suggested among conservatives that American national weaknesses or religious failures are the result of our own misunderstanding of the faith or the Bible, or policy. The default assumption is that if we (faith community and/or country) are "undone", it is the result of diabolical schemes and powerful interests conspiring against us. And why not? We are the faithful. We are the remnant that keeps the forces of darkness from destroying completely the unique Christian culture that God intended for the United States. We are the target for grand deceptions.

The critical issue for religious conservatives, I believe, is not so much the *positive proof* of Obama's citizenship as it is the possible *negation of a conspiracy*. An altered birth certificate implies a larger plan to deceive. Such a plan on the part of the liberal Left (and probably global interests too!) fits neatly into modern Dispensationalism theology. Obama would be a real life Manchurian candidate. The drama is too perfect *not* to be true. Why would conservatives hang on to such a conspiracy so tenaciously? In short, we want our conspiracies confirmed, and by extension, our world view.

But why would so many conservatives let go of such a conspiracy at one fell swoop? So much religious and emotional energy is invested in these kinds of conspiracies that no amount of rational consensus concerning the birth certificate would change anyone's mind. ("Consensus" is suspicious anyhow, isn't it?) We will not change our minds until an authoritative conservative figure (note: not necessarily Christian, but necessarily Republican) gives their affirmation. Enter Donald Trump.

The birther phenomenon reminded me of the "North American Union" rumors that were circulating in the mid 2000s. Any person (even conservative economists, journalists, and analysts) who attempted to debunk the conspiracy were labeled as "stupid" or "sheep" or "they have the will pull over their eyes". It was not until Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) finally released his own statement on the topic that it died out. But only months prior conservative radio had people whipped into a frenzy regarding this nonexistent international conspiracy.

So Donald Trump, the consummate capitalist, may not have been exactly "one of us" from the perspective of the Republican establishment or the religious right, but he brought the birther issue back to the fore and at least offered conservatives the satisfaction of making the President jump; by forcing the president to once and for all show his cards, as it were. Politically that's worth something to them.

As the baby boomer generation decreases I feel that (among other drastic changes in our culture) we will see an abandonment of apocalyptic and conspiratorial belief. We can always hope. We now have a generation who's world view was shaped by 9/11. The paradigm of the boomers- fighting the global communist conspiracy and equating modern Israel with Old Testament prophetic authority- will make less and less sense to generations Y and Z.

Growing Up Conservative?

I read with great interest the Circe Institute article entitled "Growing Up Conservative?" (posted Tuesday, September 20, 2011). It mirrored some of my concerns regarding the foundation of modern education.

There is much in this article to ruminate upon.  Andrew Kern explores the "elephant in the room" that many conservatives refused to speak of publicly, that is, the innocent ignorance or willful disregard of conservatism's most esteemed contributors throughout history  (i.e. Kirk, Burke, de Toqueville) in favor of the louder and more embarrassing voices of Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, etc.

No wonder Rush Limbaugh represents conservative thought to our age. When you go to school, you learn something between the Whig and the French Revolution version of history and humanity... [The student will] be compelled to study analytical approaches to normative subjectives for years. If his soul survives at all, it will have a respect for tradition and simply tune out the hyper-analysis of the modern university. But it won’t have been given the good food it so craved.

But in a way, it’s the liberals’ fault that conservatives are so reactionary. We’d like better thinkers to follow, but they’ve convinced us there aren’t any, if only by removing them from the curriculum.

Kern begins to address a serious problem within the conservative side of modern politics but rather than giving a deeper analysis, he instead panders to the ego of a conservative readership. Why are conservative-minded people unaware of these great men; men who agreed on the self reliance of the individual and the promotion of a social liberty in which the individual is free to find a success or failure?  According to Kern, it's all someone else's fault, not ours. Kern extols the virtues of those who wrote in the conservative tradition yet departs from their central philosophy as soon as the light of self introspection becomes too painful to bear.  He adopts the banner cry of modern victim politics: it's all someone else's fault, not ours.

It must be pointed out that the Circe Institute's core mission is educational and it makes perfect sense that Kern would focus on the weaknesses found in modern curricula.  And it is understood that his primary audience is concerned with reviving a superior mode of education.  But the Circe Institute is also read by many non-educators and Kern's article had the potential for a greater impact, but by not fully addressing the very problem he brings to light (and courageously so, I must give him that), I feel he helps perpetuates the sad state of affairs.  If we accept the philosophy of self reliance and rugged individualism, we must accept the responsibility for our own failures.  The university system has never stopped anyone from entering a library and reading Kirk or Burke.

It isn't "the liberals’ " fault that conservatives are so reactionary.  Conservatives are reactionary because they so freely give themselves over to these pop-conservatives and refuse to even question them. It is as simple as that. These lesser people are given a place of honor they have not earned. It is an indulgence on the part of conservatives.

Kern is accurate when he describes the modern approach to social sciences:

He’ll be compelled to study analytical approaches to normative subjectives for years. If his soul survives at all, it will have a respect for tradition and simply tune out the hyper-analysis of the modern university. But it won’t have been given the good food it so craved.

And later...

We’re only given the calculators (i.e. analysts, pragmatists, skeptics) to read.

Russell Kirk 1918 - 1994

This was my experience as a student of political science.  However, I do not blame a curriculum or a university system for my lack of exposure.  Any deficiency on my part I considered my fault if I refused to inquire further.  In order to make the best grades possible, was it not my responsibility to do my homework and research as thoroughly as I could?  It was the hunger for an older and higher excellence that was always just out of reach (and still is) that drove me into the arms of Aristotle, Cicero, Russell Kirk, and Shakespeare.

At this moment in American culture the pop-conservatives mentioned by Kern (Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Beck) carry more clout and are relied upon more heavily among the average conservative.  In contrast, humanities educators are viewed with great skepticism especially those in the social sciences.  So if we must blame someone other than ourselves, it makes little sense to point the finger at the university.

Kern's article gives us the perfect platform from which to ask why Rush, Hannity, Coulter, or Beck have never done an on-air study of G. K. Chesterton or Russel Kirk.  Kern's article gives us the perfect platform from which to ask why Rush, Hannity, Coulter, or Beck have never debated Noam Chomsky as did William Buckley.  The simple reason is that these modern opinion leaders simply do not have the intellectual ability despite their never ending, self-glorifying bombast. In order to maintain their media constructed image of "leader", they necessarily must avoid drawing listeners' attention to the greats. Kern's article is the timely platform from which to start openly discussing the fact that Rush, Hannity, Coulter, or Beck have more opportunity to impart virtue to their loyal followers than even the best curriculum, yet they do not.

If we are going to preach personal responsibility we need to practice it ourselves.