Friday 20 July 2018

Neo-con jihadis

SHARE
Paul Gottfried explains here that of course neo-cons are imperialists. He uses the word imperialism as if it were a bad thing, when in its time British imperialism did a huge amount of good, as well as some bad things. The neo-cons had idealistic motives for wanting to export their values to the world but unlike the great Clive of India, who was not idealistic at all, their legacy is disastrous. 

Vladimir Putin is a bad man, as was Peter the Great. Putin's bloodless invasion of the Crimea and the bloody proxy wars he wages in Eastern Ukraine are completely unjustified, but his perception that he is combating US and EU imperialism is accurate enough. 


The EU and Nato extended their borders to close to St. Petersburg, albeit because the Balts wanted protection from the bear. The EU and US were working to help Ukrainian civil society find a way of preserving democratic values under an unpleasant pro-Russian government and this helped the overthrow of his regime, undoubtedly by the wish of much of the population. Bringing liberal values is a sort of imperialism, as the Arabs see most clearly.

From Paul Gottfried's article:


It might be argued (and has been by neoconservatives many times) that the U.S. is both morally superior and less dangerous than ethnically defined societies because we advocate a “value” or “creed” that’s accessible to the entire human race. But this is hardly a recipe for peace as opposed to what Krauthammer called a “value-driven” relationship with the rest of the world. British journalist Douglas Murray, in his intended encomium Neoconservatism: Why We Need It, tries to praise his subjects but ends up describing a kind of global democratic jihadism. While Douglas admits that “socially, economically, and philosophically” neoconservatism differs from traditional conservatism, he insists that it’s something better. He commends neoconservatives for wishing to convert the world to “values.” Their primary goal, according to Murray, is the “erasing [of] tyrannies and [the] spreading [of] democracy,” an arduous task that requires “interventionism, nation-building, and many of the other difficulties that had long concerned traditional conservatives.” 

Please tell me this is not what it obviously is: an invitation to war and empire building. The quest for hegemony always looks the same, no matter what moral labels some choose to give it.

6 comments:

  1. Please tell me this is not what it obviously is: an invitation to war and empire building. The quest for hegemony always looks the same, no matter what moral labels some choose to give it.

    Of course it is. Gottfried is absolutely correct.

    The neo-cons had idealistic motives for wanting to export their values to the world

    The neo-cons had idealistic motives for wanting to export their values to the world in the same way that Hitler, Stalin and Trotsky had idealistic motives for wanting to do such things. Almost all the real full-blown evil in the world is caused by idealists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a lot of truth in that, though idealists do good too. But idealism and foreign policy do not mix well.

      Delete
    2. There is a certain 18th century quality about Trump even though he does not drink.

      Delete
  2. Idealism and coercion don't mix well. Idealism is ok without any imposition.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I’m at a bit of an intellectual impasse here. On the one hand, people such as yourself say that Putin is “bad” man, a dictator who opposes the "democratic values" of the EU because he wants to hack our elections, poison OAPs in Salisbury and do horrendous things such as promote traditional Christian values instead of child drag queens and butt sex.

    But on the other hand, I see openly without any sort of spin the Russian government stepping in to help a population of men and women desperate to escape what appears to be their looming racial genocide.

    https://www.rt.com/business/433772-boers-sa-russia-resettlement/

    Refugees who I might add, have been repeatedly turned away from “democratic” Western nations left, right, and centre.

    I really can’t decide which stance to take.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David in Belgrade21 July 2018 at 16:51

      @Rob
      Take heart, you don't have to take a stance by choosing one side over another. You can choose to stand on the side-lines and just be an interested observer.

      Delete