Comments on: DM vs. Douthat/Salam http://www.theamericanconservative.com/mccarthy/2008/09/27/dm-vs-douthatsalam/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=dm-vs-douthatsalam www.ToryAnarchist.com Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:59:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: James Kabala http://www.theamericanconservative.com/mccarthy/2008/09/27/dm-vs-douthatsalam/comment-page-1/#comment-1327 James Kabala Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:01:32 +0000 http://toryanarchist.com/?p=793#comment-1327 Thank you. I have yet to read the book, I confess. Thank you. I have yet to read the book, I confess.

]]> By: Daniel McCarthy http://www.theamericanconservative.com/mccarthy/2008/09/27/dm-vs-douthatsalam/comment-page-1/#comment-1326 Daniel McCarthy Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:47:59 +0000 http://toryanarchist.com/?p=793#comment-1326 Salam is pro-war, from what I hear, and the Douthat-Salam composite, while cautiously avoiding any serious discussion of foreign-policy in GNP, takes a couple of whacks at Democrats for being "pacifists." But in connecting Douthat and Salam to the neocons, I'm not using the term in its debased sense: the point of Douthat and Salam's book is, in large part, to defend the domestic record of neoconservatives and build a (neo)conservative case for paternalistic (or maternalistic) government, which used to be a neocon theme before they became all-war, all the time. GNP explicitly praises "neoconservatism in action," and credits most Republican policy successes in the '80s and '90s to neoconservatives. It's well and good that Douthat regrets his support for the Iraq War. But what I wonder is whether he'll make the right call on the next war. Speaking of which, <a href="http://www.theamericanscene.com/2008/07/26/early-stirrings-of-a-republican-revival" rel="nofollow">Salam's view of Iran can be inferred from this passage</a>: <blockquote> My hope is that the post-Bush Republicans will remain very tough on national security — that is, that they will reject the new Bush-Obama “carrots-and-carrots” consensus on Iran — but that they’ll also continue in the Gatesian direction, emphasizing that resources need to match commitments.</blockquote> It's no accident that Bill Kristol, David Frum, and David Brooks are great fans of GNP. What the book prescribes is very much in line with their vision of domestic politics, and does not conflict in the least with Kristol-Kagan foreign policy. Salam is pro-war, from what I hear, and the Douthat-Salam composite, while cautiously avoiding any serious discussion of foreign-policy in GNP, takes a couple of whacks at Democrats for being “pacifists.” But in connecting Douthat and Salam to the neocons, I’m not using the term in its debased sense: the point of Douthat and Salam’s book is, in large part, to defend the domestic record of neoconservatives and build a (neo)conservative case for paternalistic (or maternalistic) government, which used to be a neocon theme before they became all-war, all the time. GNP explicitly praises “neoconservatism in action,” and credits most Republican policy successes in the ’80s and ’90s to neoconservatives.

It’s well and good that Douthat regrets his support for the Iraq War. But what I wonder is whether he’ll make the right call on the next war. Speaking of which, Salam’s view of Iran can be inferred from this passage:

My hope is that the post-Bush Republicans will remain very tough on national security — that is, that they will reject the new Bush-Obama “carrots-and-carrots” consensus on Iran — but that they’ll also continue in the Gatesian direction, emphasizing that resources need to match commitments.

It’s no accident that Bill Kristol, David Frum, and David Brooks are great fans of GNP. What the book prescribes is very much in line with their vision of domestic politics, and does not conflict in the least with Kristol-Kagan foreign policy.

]]> By: James Kabala http://www.theamericanconservative.com/mccarthy/2008/09/27/dm-vs-douthatsalam/comment-page-1/#comment-1325 James Kabala Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:27:53 +0000 http://toryanarchist.com/?p=793#comment-1325 Are Douthat and Salaam really neocons? Even if the word has lost all meaning other than "self-described conservative who supported the war," which seems to have happened over the last seven years, Douthat seems to regret his support for it (which before his journalism career even began) and Salaam, as far as I know, has never made any statement on it one way or the other. Are Douthat and Salaam really neocons? Even if the word has lost all meaning other than “self-described conservative who supported the war,” which seems to have happened over the last seven years, Douthat seems to regret his support for it (which before his journalism career even began) and Salaam, as far as I know, has never made any statement on it one way or the other.

]]> By: Daniel McCarthy http://www.theamericanconservative.com/mccarthy/2008/09/27/dm-vs-douthatsalam/comment-page-1/#comment-1324 Daniel McCarthy Sun, 28 Sep 2008 04:25:16 +0000 http://toryanarchist.com/?p=793#comment-1324 Yep, it should be on-line eventually. Yep, it should be on-line eventually.

]]> By: John http://www.theamericanconservative.com/mccarthy/2008/09/27/dm-vs-douthatsalam/comment-page-1/#comment-1323 John Sun, 28 Sep 2008 04:07:28 +0000 http://toryanarchist.com/?p=793#comment-1323 Is that going to end up online, Dan? I don't want to miss it. Is that going to end up online, Dan? I don’t want to miss it.

]]>