It looks like there is a big split in the military wing of the Republican Party, and it might result in the end of Republican domination of the military. We should have seen that coming a long time ago. People generally make a big mistake when they refer to the military wing of the party as “foreign policy conservatives”. This is actually more of a contradiction in terms than the old joke about “military intelligence”, maybe on a par with “conservative Democrat”. Like it or not, if you want to find a true foreign policy conservative, you are required to venture into Patrick Buchanan territory. I have, and intend to stay there.
Unfortunately, this sector of American politics is as welcome in American political life as the KKK at an Obama rally. If you adhere to the principles of true foreign policy conservatism, the naysayers immediately tar you with the brush of isolationism. I prefer another, more accurate label-Washingtonian.
Be that as it may, when the internationalists took over the Department of Defense, sometime during the Truman presidency, they grew roots which have grown so deep it will be probably impossible to dislodge them, at least in the short term. The closest anybody has come to venturing into realization of the reality of the attitude of entitlement that has permeated the military-industrial complex was Dwight D. Eisenhower, when he gave his farewell address at the end of his second term. Ironically, liberal Democrats of the sixties and seventies were much more conservative in economic terms regarding military spending than their conservative Republican opponents. Of course, this was chiefly because they had other more urgent spending priorities of their own.
Both parties are unfortunately internationalist. Both parties have experienced divisions in their foreign policy wings, one made up of what we usually call hawks, which tend to dominate the Republicans, and the doves, which tend to dominate the Democrats, in both cases in terms of foreign policy and military affairs.
Now,
Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barak Obama has signaled a potential shift along the fragile fault line of American international affairs that could result in a massive earthquake, one that goes beyond the simplistic view that Powell’s support for Obama is based solely on race.
Race is of course a part of it. Just as important as race is the fact that both men are outsiders in regards to their race. They are both a son of immigrants, Powell’s parents having emigrated from the Caribbean. As for their connections to slavery, no word yet on whether any of Powell’s white ancestors, if he had any, were slave owners. There will of course be the inevitable backlash among those who resent the accusation that their refusal to support Obama is racist. It is all too tempting to point out that Obama’s support amongst blacks is of course race based.
There is actually no way of resolving this to anyone’s satisfaction. I might point out, for example, that I would gladly vote for a conservative black candidate over a liberal white one, but then of course you will hear something along the lines, “oh sure you would vote for that god damn Uncle Tom over a decent white man or woman that wants to help black people.”
The obvious slur aside, this is in fact getting closer to the root of the problem. It is a matter of ideology, and I am reasonably convinced this is the case with Colin Powell. Powell has been a fixture in Washington for decades and began his official career under the Carter Administration. A vocal supporter of Affirmative Action, he is a known moderate, more left than right of center on economic and social issues and, of course, he is an internationalist.
However, so in fact were most of the foreign policy experts and officials of preceding Republican administrations, beginning with Nixon, and on through Ford, Reagan, and Bush I. The only difference with Reagan was a determination to go beyond mere containment of the old Soviet Union. He openly sought its destruction, and succeeded beyond his or anyone else’s wildest dreams.
So where did the split come in, and how did it come about? After all, true foreign policy conservatives have been as rare in Washington inner circles and official decision-making processes as John Birch Society members in a multi-cultural think-tank.
Remember, however, how I said that there have always been factions in both parties? The hawks controlled the Republican foreign policy wing while the doves came to control the Democratic foreign policy wing. Still, both parties had stalwart members of both sides of the equation. It was the Democratic Party hawks who bolted and went to the Republican side and began to influence policy for the first time during the George Bush II Administration, where they became known as Neo-cons.
Much has been made, by some of their detractors, of their domination by American Jews and Zionist Israeli supporters. As sure as night follows day, this has culminated in a charge of anti-Semitism thrown at anyone who disagrees with, opposes, or otherwise disparages Neo-con policies, which is a bit of nonsense engaged in even by some otherwise intelligent, reasonable, and thoughtful people (you know who you are).
The fact remains, it is Neo-con policies which has resulted in the shift and possibly, maybe even probably, realignment of military party loyalties. The Democratic Party knows they can only go so far in reducing military spending, even in those areas where restraint is appropriate. It is too easy to tar them with the brush of anti-Americanism, and the Republicans have used that tactic to great effect. The Democratic Party has learned from this and will probably use at least some caution, at least at the outset of the likely on-coming new Democratic Party dominated Washington power structure.
The great irony is that the debacle in Bush Administration foreign policy that has resulted in widespread dissatisfaction with the party, even among party regulars and the rank-and-file, owes its origins to the same Kennedyesque foreign policy philosophies and adventures that brought us the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Vietnam. It is the same kind of foreign policy blunders under a different banner-the Republican label.
Colin Powell held off his endorsement of Obama for some time, and I have no doubt he will figure prominently in a prospective Obama presidency, doubtless at the cabinet level-possibly as Secretary of Defense, maybe even reinstated as Secretary of State (although I would not be greatly surprised if Obama retained Condoleeza Rice in that position). Whatever position Powell might find himself in, we can assume this had a lot to do with his endorsement as well as the other things I mentioned, to say nothing of some degree of resentment over his treatment in the Bush Administration.
It might have been John McCain, however, who gave Powell the final shove, during the last debate, when he said there should be some spending cuts in defense, along with his assertion of waste and corruption in the awarding of contracts. This is in fact McCain’s one legitimate claim to a conservative foreign policy position. It may be the one thing that ultimately served to cost him the support of Colin Powell, however tenuous and unlikely that potential support might have always been.
Even at this, the Neo-cons will not go away easily or quickly. They will hold tenaciously to their grip on power until the last possible moment. What you are seeing is a civil war in the form of an inter-party rivalry for control of foreign policy of the Republican Party, but these two rival sets of internationalist hawks do not fight over ideology so much as military spending contracts, in my opinion.
Still, there is a profound ideological divide between them. One of them believes in the old Republican ideal of continued and growing defense spending and international American leadership of traditional treaty allies such as NATO. The other believes in controlled chaos, in upheaval and sustained and on-going crisis management and manipulation. The Democratic foreign policy, meanwhile, consists principally of moderate defense spending with a posture aimed at leadership by way of international cooperation. It will be as easy, and possibly even as necessary, for the Republican traditional foreign policy wing to gravitate to the Democratic Party as it once was for the old Democratic Party war philosophy adherents, inspired by the ideals of the early Vietnam era, to migrate to the Republican Party.
The Neo-cons have almost single-handedly wrecked the Republican Party, and despite the potential for backlash, they have induced Colin Powell to hand the Democrats and Obama a vital and important strategic and symbolic victory.
In the meantime, George Washington is still spinning in his grave for going on sixty years now. Some people say we are heading toward a new world, a new America, one that would be unrecognizable to our founding fathers.
Don’t look now, but that already happened long before most of us were ever born. I just happen to be one of the very small percentage of people that want to take us back. I won’t be holding my breath waiting for any mass movement to join with me, and that includes so-called “conservatives”.
Conservatives, like liberals, will always go where the money is. Their only ideological difference when it comes to defense spending isn’t so much how much to spend, but simply how and where to spend it. It still spends, and whoever doles it out will still spin it to look like its in America’s vital national interests, whether it is or not. If it is not, it can be made to be so. Perception is reality.
That’s why I have no doubt our allies will love and respect us more if a Democrat such as Obama takes power this year. It might be true that you can’t buy love, but you can lease a degree of temporary loyalty, while not in reality changing anything.
