Where Are the Liberal Hawks?

Before I was a hawk, I was a liberal.  Part of my transformation to “neocon” was due to the fact that the Democratic Party was hi-jacked by the MoveOn.org crowd.  Liberals, in their intense dislike of Bush, gave in to a faith in illogical hatred–motivated by an any-means-necessary hatred of Bush, which Charles Krauthammer termed Bush Derangement Syndrome–so much so, even, that they have all but written off the very real threat of Islamo-fascism and terrorism.

But it goes deeper than that.  During the Clinton era, Democrats and Liberals were not so quick to decry war in whatever form it took.  The Balkans did not raise such an intense fuss that the entire Party was usurped by peace-nicks.  The first Gulf War went off without much protest, and certainly without the virulence and vitriol we see today.

The funny thing to me is that I was against this second invasion of Iraq, along with many other liberals, but once we had invaded, once we had invested ourselves in this fight–and the Iraqi people–my dissent ended–not my criticism of tactics or the rushed invasion, but my dissent over the war itself.  I recalled the preemptive move out of Iraq in the early 90’s.  The Iraqi people that had risen up to help us were then beaten back down by Saddam Hussein, utterly abandoned by America.

And we’d done this before–leaving the fight before it was over.  We invested guns and training in Afghanistan during the fight against the Soviets, but we failed to invest in the country.  There was nothing wrong with the initial investment, but we let go too early, and in waltzed the Taliban.  If America had invested in democracy in Afghanistan many years ago, perhaps 9/11 could have been avoided.

Over the years, my disgust was two-fold.  I felt angry that the Bush administration seemed to continue with failed strategy, and this disgust only finally left when the new counter-insurgency under Gen. David Petraeus and the Surge began to change the tide for the better, toward victory.

But even more pathetic and worthy of disdain was the emergent anti-war crowd, bleating loudly and incessantly under the MoveOn.org banner.  I was fine with these people prior to the invasion, but afterward it was as though they abandoned all reason.  Hating war and wanting peace are both good things, but one cannot wish them into the world.  One cannot wave signs and expect things to change.  There is no magic wand for peace.  Sometimes, you have to finish a war for it to end.

The fact is, you should never enter another country by force lightly, but even more importantly, once you have invaded, you had better accomplish your mission.  Leaving should be an even more serious decision, because at some point during the invasion and occupation you’re bound to upset the equilibrium, and if you don’t fix that before you leave, then the whole thing was a waste, and a lot more innocent people are bound to pay the price.  Iraq can either become a democracy or a theocracy or a secular totalitarian state.  We are responsible for the outcome, whether we like it or not.

The hypocrisy of the “peace” movement is that they would just as gladly leave the Iraqi people to their fate, and this just doesn’t strike me as very humane, democratic, or representative of what the peace movement aught to be fighting for.

Essentially, I’m a hawk, a “neocon” because I love peace, and I understand that it can’t be won through chants and marches.  Sometimes peace is only found at the end of a war.

I’m not a traditional conservative in many other respects, and have taken heat from especially the paleo-conservative crowd and the religious right on this.  While I value limited government and low taxes, and adhering to the Constitution, and while I loathe government programs such as Affirmative Action, the global warming hysteria that has entered our politics, or the bloated welfare system we have created to perpetuate poverty, and while I feel strongly that the most essential actions of the government should be to protect US soil and commerce, I also believe we are stuck in some way with the Government we have.

In some respects Big Government has been good for this country, and in some respects it has been very bad.  It is a double-edged sword, and we should always find legislators who promise to do their best to be non-partisan and fight corruption.  We will likely never rid ourselves of the Bigness of Government, so we should at least attempt to make it as honest as possible.

As Irving Kristol wrote:

Neocons feel at home in today’s America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. Though they find much to be critical about, they tend to seek intellectual guidance in the democratic wisdom of Tocqueville, rather than in the Tory nostalgia of, say, Russell Kirk.

Kristol’s assessment of the Government, like mine, draws fire from more traditional Conservatives.  The idealists believe that we truly can bring the Government back to its former size.  I disagree.  The traditionalists believe that globalism can only come at the cost of national sovereignty, but I disagree.  I am avidly anti-UN, but I would not be against a League of Democracies.  Such an organization would never need to cede national sovereignty, as they would act in their own interest when acting in the interests of other allied nations.  Democracies and trading partners simply do not make war against each other, and there is no reason to cede national sovereignty to an ally.  Might there be a push to do so?  Perhaps, but Americans are devout believers in the Constitution, often in spite of their political leanings.

So in some senses, I side with the traditional Liberal globalists.  The New Left and the Old Right are both isolationists at heart, protectionists living in denial of the geopolitical and global economic realities of our time.  I think such stances are noble but foolish.  I prefer logic to nobility, and the logical outcome of free trade is a shift in our society, in our jobs, in our politics and policies, that will hurt as we grow, but in the end could result in the closest thing to world peace this earth has ever seen.

I am an advocate of free trade, and I do believe that for the most part private enterprise can spend money better than government, however I also understand the need for smart regulations and oversight, both to stop criminal acts, and to prevent the sort of collapses we’ve seen in the mortgage industry.  Smart government is essential, and it need not be huge or oppressive to protect us from bad businessmen and bad business practices.  Similarly, I don’t advocate extremely low or extremely high taxes. I think simplifying the tax code is the most important move our government can make–far more important than either tax cuts or hikes.  I wish one of the candidates could muster the strength to advocate tax code reforms rather than just hikes or cuts.

On social fronts, I also find myself often in agreement with Liberals.  I’m pro-gay rights; pro-choice; and believe in some sort of network for the uninsured (though not socialized health care).  I am against forcing rights down societies throat, however, or granting special rights to anyone.  I support gay rights because I think they should be treated equally, not specially.  I find the fixation with family values on the traditional right hypocritical and un-American.  We are a society of individuals.  Leave government out of the bedroom and out of our lives.

So Sarah Palin represents a side of the Republican Party that I feel quite distant from, unlike McCain who represents centrist policy better than most politicians.  I like Palin, and I like her more libertarian stances on some things, but her affiliation with the Religious Right is a turn off.  Still, nobody on the Left appeals to me even slightly save Joe Lieberman, and he is out of the running.  McCain may make him Secratary of Defense…

So where are the Liberal Hawks?

There is Michael J. Totten, a hawkish center-left blogger.  And Andrew Sullivan. In the UK there are sites like Harry’s Place which advocate a liberal, hawkish political ideology.  There is the Euston Manifesto and its signatories.  There is the Henry Jackson Society.  There are bloggers such as Roland Dodds of But I Am A Liberal!, and blogs like ModernityBlog and The New Centrist.

I identify with many of these writers and bloggers and political thinkers, much as I identify with both John McCain and Joe Lieberman more than I can with either Barack Obama or Sarah Palin.

In the end, it comes down to one thing.  As Roland Dodds writes,

I will likely still vote for McCain in November, even if Palin’s support for the war in Iraq seems more lukewarm than McCain’s, and even if I have a difficult time stomaching her more socially conservative positions. I have come to terms with the fact that I will never have an ideal ticket up for grabs, and that compromise is understandable and acceptable. I have said in the past that I am a one issue voter, and as long as McCain does not backpedal on democracy promotion, I will still see him as a superior candidate to Obama.

On many issues there are huge gaps between center-right neoconservatives such as Little Green Footballs, American Power, or Neo-Neocon and the center-left.  Not all liberal hawks are supporting McCain, despite his obvious credentials in the promotion of democracy and American influence.  Some are.  I find myself unenthusiastic over either candidate.  On the one hand, even though I have never supported Obama during this election, there is something exciting about his election–and yet, he offers those of us in the middle no promise of a strong, powerful American foreign policy.  This is a huge detractor from his candidacy.  His support of an undivided Jerusalem was almost good to hear, until he backtracked.  His support of crossing into Pakistan is excellent, but one wonders if he has anywhere near the experience necessary to not botch it altogether.

In the end, I too am a one issue voter.  The Presidency is a foreign policy job, more than anything else.  In all other areas, the Congress is more important, or the Courts.  But in our policy overseas, it is the President who calls the shots, and in a few months that will either be seasoned John McCain, or green Barack Obama, and despite the polls, my money’s on Barack.

Makes you kind of, almost, miss Hillary, doesn’t it?