I wonder whether the effects of the recession will push hawkish foreign policy to the margins. My fear is that the mere coincidence of recession with an administration that is accused of insufficient Americanism will lead people to see economic recovery and the “recovery” of national pride as being somehow linked. This is why the hawks are leaning so hard on the Carter comparisons right now, regardless of the flaws in these comparisons.

But I am more hopeful than you Daniel. Criticism of Obama’s alleged lack of hawkishness will drive some conservative critics to more extreme hawkishness, but non-intervention has really established a foothold on the right. Look at the comments on mainstream conservative sites. Where non-interventionism used to never be heard, it is now common. And it clearly represents a more thoughtful and intelligent element. While reflexive hawkishness is still common, there is very little of the grand making the world safe for democracy schemes of the past. Still a lot of America as the indispensible nation talk, but more passive and less active. So not giving up ground but few calls to take new ground.

The long term problem is that the two visions are largely incompatible. There is very little room for consensus in the middle. So there is likely to be essentially two rights for some time to come. Hopefully in the long run, the non-interventionist will triumph and will become the new consensus and the hawks will fade away. Our domestic economic problems make this more likely.