The Neo-Wilsonian Worldview
Author of the landmark 1953 book The Conservative Mind, Russell Kirk once observed that “Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically.” While progressives of all stripes have always sought to restructure society according to specific liberal mechanics (socialism, feminism, etc.), Kirk believed conservatives should stress that man’s grandiose vision is no match for his nature. To proceed with their Leftist programs and big-government schemes, liberals always tend to leave human nature out of their equations, while conservatives — almost by definition — cannot afford to. This fairly conventional conservative belief would have not been the least bit controversial at William F. Buckley’s National Review, a magazine Kirk helped establish in 1955.
Unfortunately, some at National Review seem to have “progressed” from conventional conservative views concerning human nature, or as current editor Rich Lowry wrote in his syndicated column recently:
“Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab couldn’t ignite the bomb in his underwear on Flight 253 on Christmas Day. All he managed to blow up was a worldview. His failed attempt put paid to the notion that terrorism is the byproduct of a few, specific U.S. policies and of our image abroad.”
This “worldview” that was allegedly “blown up” by Mutallab is usually considered common sense when discussing any subject besides US foreign policy-namely, that when you diddle with people, they will diddle back. In ignoring Human Nature 101, Lowry seems to be saying that unlike taxation and welfare, two intrusive government interventions conservatives have long insisted affect human behavior, intervening in the business of other nations by invading, occupying or bombing them-for decades — does not elicit any specific reactions from the native population. Predictably, Lowry’s explanation for the underwear bomber’s actions is the same, lacking government narrative we’ve all become accustomed to: “Abdul Mutallab was in the grip of a violent ideology with an existential hatred of the United States at its core.”
No doubt, radical Islamic ideology was an obvious, personal motivator for Mutallab. But was it just Islamic ideology that allowed him to reach out to a wider network of terrorists to help him in his efforts?
The title of Lowry’s syndicated column, as it ran in Charleston’s Post & Courier, was “Flight 253 provides reminder of the Left’s naiveté on terror.” While Lowry is correct that the Left is foolish to ignore the religious dimension to Islamic terrorism, the naiveté on the Right is just as ignorant and even more dangerous — as too many conservatives still fail to recognize that foreign interventionism is the motivating factor behind the current terrorist threat. That Mutallab came from a wealthy Nigerian family, was educated in England and has likely never seen war up close, is far less significant than the fact that those who aided him — and who will recruit and aid more terrorists — do so precisely to resist the massive presence of “infidels” on Muslim holy land. Explains former CIA terror expert Michael Scheuer: “On no other foreign policy issue since the Cold War’s end has the truth been so easy to establish on the basis of hard facts but so hard for Americans to see… that Muslim hatred is motivated by U.S. interventionism more than any other factor.”
The same right-wingers who will readily acknowledge that for decades the war on poverty has done nothing but subsidize and expand the ranks of the poor cannot, or will not, acknowledge that our never-ending war on terror continues to have the same affect on terrorists. In the war on poverty, liberals are always insisting we must redouble our efforts and that conservative critics are simply finding excuses to hurt the poor. Similarly, Lowry does not see any reason to change course in the war on terror and has little patience for critics: “A totalist rejection of the United States, this ideology will never lack for particular reasons to hate us… . If we pull our troops from Afghanistan, they’ll object to our missile strikes in Pakistan. If we stop the missile strikes, they’ll object to our training of foreign militaries. If we stop that, they’ll object that we have the temerity to maintain a blue-water navy. Nothing short of suicidal abdication will suffice.”
Despite his flippant navy exaggeration, Lowry is basically right — collectively, such military actions really are the reasons they hate us and these actions will continue to inspire terrorists, which is why we should finally “abdicate” our commitment to such a needless, costly and counterproductive interventionist foreign policy. What is truly suicidal is continuing this quixotic project of nation-building and trying to force democracy on countries that have not known it, do not want it, and hate us for trying to impose it. This Wilsonian, neoconservative vision that continues to animate so many on the Right, has caused too much damage already and is in no way conservative — if men like Russell Kirk still have any claim on that label.
Former National Review editor Joseph Sobran once wrote, that “War has all the characteristics of socialism most conservatives hate: Centralized power, state planning, false rationalism, restricted liberties, foolish optimism about intended results, and blindness to unintended secondary results.”
“Foolish optimism about intended results, and blindness to unintended secondary results” perfectly describes the Leftist mindset and our current foreign policy, even if men like Rich Lowry are too foolish, blind — or perhaps too liberal — to recognize it.
Some of your best work, Jack.
If only we had started developing alternative energy 30+ years ago when the Shah was unassed in Iran. The ONLY reason we keep sticking our nose in the middle east is to protect our source of relatively cheap oil.
If we go all Catholic birth control on them, and pulled completely out of there, other wannabe world powers would be lined up to fill the void.
China, Russia, India, which one would be the first to test the waters with a little naval ‘training’ exercise in the Gulf over there? Which would be the first to offer a little ‘humanitarian aid’? Of course, their troops would have to deliver it, and get their foot in the door.
Then the Chinese, Russians and Indians could waste billions a year trying to pacify those unruly bastards. Maybe Uncle Sam could lend them money for their military adventures, do ho ho.
Best work? Please.
How’s it feel to be in the bed with those who hate America Jack??
Idiot.
Excellent article, Jack!
Excellent article, Jack!
@Pat
If Jack hates America because he disagrees with its policies, then you hate America if you disagree with Obama’s policies.
Oops.
Excellent points made. If we are going to have a rationale discussion about the subject of terror then our conduct must be discussed. And all aspects, to include why America is so engage overseas. Yes, it includes a very healthy dose of Wilsonian thought, though it also includes rough energy points.
It is not easy, or cheap to run a massive hegemony. The price of kings must be paid, or does it?
great article look forwarding to reading more
“common sense when discussing any subject besides US foreign policy–namely, that when you diddle with people, they will diddle back.”
Human nature and common sense tell us, more significantly, that tit-for-tat does not explain all of human conflict. What exactly did the English do to the Vikings? They committed the crime of “existing while rich” (compared to the Vikings). While we’re at it, tell me the offense of American shipping attacked by the Barbary pirates in the 1790s. Or the tort inflicted by the deer upon the leopard.
In short, welcome to the natural phenomenon of predation. Our nature makes it likely that if you’re a big, rich country with far-flung commercial and political interests, no-account countries and groups are going to try to become someone by throwing rocks at you, if the cost for doing so is non-nuclear. What did Spain do to deserve a terrorist attack? They’re not America, and they don’t particularly support Israel (the least-favorite country of both TAC and the NYT). How about England, India, France, Denmark . . . I could go on.
There is no such thing as “live and let live.” In reality, such a strategy adds up to “stand there and become road kill.” Both liberals and many paleo-conservatives seem to dream that peace can be achieved without being maintained, as it were, by conflict.
The Moslem strategy is like the Viking one: Raid, then settle in, then take over. There’s nothing new here. The Moslem presence in the Middle East could be described in detail as:
Raid. Move in and declare the zone to be what Mr. Hunter indulgently calls “Muslim holy land.” Take over. Kill everyone else or make them wear funny clothes.
Ask the Christians in Lebanon and Palestine about it sometime, if they haven’t left yet. Terrorism we will always have with us, and it is best deterred by sound intelligence and loud explosions.
That’s correct Pat
Jack is a Murican hater and is league with the Devil. Jack and I worship at the same Satanic covern and we are looking for you. Be afraid Pat. Be very afraid. BWAAAA!
But seriously old man, I would love to stick your brain on the end of a number 2 pencil and watch it roll around.
How did a fool like “pat” find this site?
>How’s it feel to be in the bed with
>those who hate America Jack??
“pat”, again, you’re a f.o.o.l.
Samurai, each incident and nation you list is a separate issue.
What exactly did the English do to the Vikings?
What did the Iranians/Persians do to the US and Britain when these two deposed Mossadegh and installed the Shah?
Vicious cycles usually have a beginning.
No one here is claiming that victims of an attack or invasion are always guilty of something that makes them deserve the attack or invasion in some way.
Why did the Barbary pirates attach American shipping? WHY ELSE did pirates ever attack a ship??
Ideology??
Deer and leopard? The deer is tasty and the leopard is hungry.
Spain? Spain joined in the attack on Iraq and terrorists warned that Spain might be attacked in retribution, and it was, right before an election which brought out hundreds of thousands of people to demand pullout and so Zapatero was elected.
This is NOT about deserving an attack, WHERE was this implied in the article by Hunter??
When police are looking for a motive to a murder is this to imply that the victim in some way deserved to be killed???
England? You have to ask why ENGLAND would be targeted by terrorists??
India??? Is your head in the sand, are you at all aware of what’s been going there since independence, let alone for almost a thousand years??
France? FRANCE?? Uhhhh, ALGERIA?!?!? Did you forget what the French were doing in Algeria and other Muslim countries?!?!
Denmark? You forget the cartoon?
***NONE*** of this is to imply any justification, JUST MOTIVE FOR THE CRIME.
>I could go on.
No, please don’t, as you have no idea what you’re talking about.
This is real conservatism as opposed to the neo-conservatism of Bush/Cheney, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and the other wackos who only condemn expanded government when they are not in charge, but when they are in power use that power to expand foreign interventions and suppress liberty at home. Of course it is to be expected from the neo-cons who are just elitist re-threads who forty- five years ago wanted to rule the world in the name of the proletariat, but now want to rule in the name of democracy. And while they condemn social welfare they embrace corporate welfare, that robs the pension funds and exports the jobs of those idiotic tea baggers who are too stupid and blinded by racism to see their own
self interests and the interests of America.
The argument is fairly well put, though I take some level of issue with Mr. Hunter’s suggestion that “liberals always tend to leave human nature out of their equations.” Perhaps they understand it far better than many conservatives wish to believe.
Much of the social engineering that has occurred since the middle of the 1960′s has appealed to the most base aspects of human nature. Feminism and the “sexual revolution” has taken the “War between the sexes” to a Defcon 1 level, and whether the results have been misogyny or misandry, abortion, skyrocketing levels of out-of-wedlock” births, psychological problems inflicted upon the offspring of almost universally narcissist, career obsessed parents, well, the “family”as we knew it has been destroyed.
Welfare? As we know, nothing is free. Yet even the thrifty, disciplined and diligent will take full advantage of a “Free Lunch” if offered. People who know better. “Conservatives.” Try discussing getting rid of Social Security and/or medicare and medicaid with one and all of a sudden the “responsibility” of taking care of ones parents gets in the way of their warped view of “freedom.” They reflexively opt for the “system” rather than familial responsibility, all the while lamenting the destruction of the family.
If so-called conservatives cannot see this dichotomy and comport their behavior accordingly, why should we be astonished at the behavior of those whose world view is not in alignment with our own?
And then regarding the Trotskyite neocons and our Imperial Legions… In the main, conservatives have been the philosophical godfathers of high military spending, which is why the Jacobites decided to infiltrate the G.O.P. and take it over. Revolutions require arms, and when the spreading of your tentacles across the entirety of the globe is the goal, what better and more welcoming place was there to move right on in and call home? The G.O.P. effectively morphed from the “American First” philosophy where engagement with the world was based upon fair commerce and not “diddling” in the affairs of others into a psychotically martial, “free market” party that has betrayed the preservation of the “good things.”
And Lord, the moral hypocrisy! Gingrich and Craig, Vitter and Ensign, and last night there was that horrid Hannity screeching about “the culture of corruption” pervasive in the Democratic Party. Does this so-called “conservative” have short-term memory loss?
What is considered “Original sin” is the center of “human nature” – narcissism, and that now untempered trait is what “liberals” appealed to. They have been killing God by the appealing temptation to our most base instincts, and the conservatives, in general terms, at least in practice, chose to go right along with them. Whether it is sinful personal behavior or the obsession and the murderous use of a military so large it has passed the point of obscene, well, we’re all Wilsonians now.
Chris,
“***NONE*** of this is to imply any justification, JUST MOTIVE FOR THE CRIME.”
Well, good. We agree on that. What I’m saying, as you so amply document, is that possible motives as justifications for terrorist and other violent acts go so far into the past as to be infinite. Generally they are not justifications in a recognizable ethical sense, as you point out, but pretexts.
What are they pretexts for? They are pretexts for opportunity. The talk of grievances, and the logical massaging of them, helps people’s motivation and even reassures them of their purpose in history. And we are not just talking about terrorists, thugs, ideologues, or fundamentalists.
An academic friend had a girlfriend, also an academic, who was a thoroughly modern, Western-dressing, cocktail-drinking refugee from Khomeini’s Iran. In my friend’s apartment, the Iranian woman’s eye fell upon an open book about Tamerlane, the Turkic conqueror who died in 1405. She asked my friend, quite pointedly, “Why are you reading a book about our enemy?”
I’m sure Tamerlane was absolutely awful to the Persians, and perhaps the French were brutes in Algeria. But that was a bit ago. You say that “vicious cycles usually have a beginning.” Except when they don’t, which is why I used the Viking example. The simplest explanation that explains both slaughtering civilians in Spain and Barbary attacks on “infidel” American shipping is that people choose which grievances to act on, according to opportunity.
Even if we stay home, men and nations with grievances will seek us out. It’s what we men do. No doubt the thousands of strangers from all over the country who descended on John Sutter’s mill in 1849 reasoned that he owed them somehow. Credible-sounding grievances are mined from history and fantasy, and are fashioned into tools for human ambition.
The reality is that we must actively hold our place in a competitive world, as justly as we can in God’s eyes.
“>I could go on.
No, please don’t, as you have no idea what you’re talking about.”
I expect that a forum for conservatives interested in upholding civilization is a place for the charitable discussion of important ideas. Please watch your manners.
Samurai, sorry for the lack of manners.
>I’m sure Tamerlane was absolutely awful to the Persians, and perhaps
>the French were brutes in Algeria. But that was a bit ago.
Tamerlane was long ago. As for the French, that was in the last 50 years!
>You say that “vicious cycles usually have a beginning.” Except
>when they don’t, which is why I used the Viking example.
Except in the Viking example? The Vikings STARTED the vicious cycle by attacking! Except the cycle didn’t continue very far.
My point was that a cycle of cause and effect is started at some point.
>The simplest explanation that explains both slaughtering civilians in
>Spain and Barbary attacks on “infidel” American shipping is that
>people choose which grievances to act on, according to opportunity.
The pirates attacked for WEALTH and I CLEARLY explained why the Spanish were attacked.
Your over-analysis is leading you to confusion.
>Even if we stay home, men and nations with grievances will seek us
>out. It’s what we men do.
That does NOT give an EXCUSE FOR THE US TO GO OUT AND CAUSE OTHERS TO HAVE GRIEVANCES AGAINST IT!
This was a VERY CLEAR and TO THE POINT article. I’m confused as to why you are having trouble with it.
“Even if we stay home, men and nations with grievances will seek us out.”
It’s comments like these from self-professed ‘conservatives’ that make you wonder about their intelligence.
Maybe said conservative would like to offer some type of evidence of this. I’ll wait.
RE: “…even if men like Rich Lowry are too foolish, blind — or perhaps too liberal — to recognize it.”
FOLLOWING THE PALIN/BIDEN DEBATE: “…I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, “Hey, I think she just winked at me.” And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can’t be learned; it’s either something you have or you don’t, and man, she’s got it.” – Rich Lowry, 10/03/08 . . .
SOURCE – http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDYzMGFiNjQ0MWRjNmI0ZTlkYjgwZTExMjA3MWNiZTk=
Right on!
Why does this even need to be discussed? Rather self-evident except to US-centric narcissists who think the US is a “good guy”.
Let’s open the newspaper….
“At least five people were killed today and three others injured when a US drone fired a pair of missiles at a home in North Waziristan’s Tappi village.”
Ok, did someone invite the US to let loose Lockeed killbots? Let’s go on…
“US forces have killed 16 people described as “suspected militants” in a pair of drone strikes on opposite sides of the province. (…) The US Predator Drone fired a Hellfire missile into what officials are describing as a “crowd of suspects” killing 13 and wounding three.”
Hmmm. Collateral damage in a “just and necessary war”… at least Prez has his peace prize already. Good for him, he will sit next to Kissinger in a dark afterlife room.
“The USS Vincennes, which shot down a civilian airliner in the Persian Gulf, killing 290 people, had gained a reputation for being an overly aggressive “robo-cruiser” and probably provoked the sea battle with Iranian gunboats….”
Oh, I have slipped a bit into the archives for the last one. Well, we got a blown up Pan Am as a return present. I guess you get the point. It’s just as well that the “terros” are fully inept and try to do stupid ridiculous stunts with explosive underwear or there would be _real_ trouble.
When he snuffs his candle at night and blows a big kiss to the fat moon outside his window, I doubt Rich Lowery believes this nation’s incessant wars are intended to spread unwanted democracy or build nations. They’re intended to guarantee our exclusive access to Mideast oil and continued hegemony of brave little Israel. Now we’re cornering Yemen on one end of the Arabian boot and the tribal areas of Baluchistan on the other, sealing off access to the Gulf’s bounty. Perhaps, in the future, we’ll operate a maritime toll road for those willing to pony up for their tankers to pass. Ah… commerce.
Good article Mr. Hunter,
The only “benefit” of spreading democracy in post Soviet countries is multi-party majoritarian elections and despotic ruling by majority. This is is issue of posttotalitarian mentality.
Proggressives are the same everywhere, while conservatives differ.
Great stuff!!!! These Neocons are destroying our country!