DISQUS

Steve C · 6 months ago

You had me until the part about "Cheney wiping the floor with Obama". This must be a report from a parallel universe.

Will Wilkinson · 6 months ago

It's a report of what I take to be the feedback from public opinion. The whole thing left Cheney more popular.

musa · 6 months ago

Doubtful. Bush's popularity has also increased by a similar measure over the same period, but with nary a word about torture. Meanwhile, Obama's approval ratings have generally held steady. Cheney's leaving is what has left him more popular.

uknowbetter · 6 months ago

Have you looked at recent polls about people's opinions on Guantanamo and interrogation practices? They favor Cheney's positions more than Obama's.

simonkinahan · 6 months ago

I don't think Cheney wiped the floor with Obama, even in the eyes of public opinion. If his popularity improved, its because, as a now-former-politician he can say exactly what he thinks, which people like, provided the person doing the speaking is in no danger of having any power.

William · 6 months ago

It's been a while since I took Latin, but should it be "Nixonites delenda sunt"?

J.P. · 6 months ago

Only if the Nixonites have been neutered.

William · 6 months ago

delendi sunt?

Trevor · 6 months ago

Isn't this the thesis of The Big Con, only about a different interest group? I want to see a Chait/Wilkinson smackdown over whether the always-cut-taxes-for-rich-people or the always-bomb-foreigners wing is _really_ more powerful.

Trevor · 6 months ago

Or a Chait/Rojas smackdown, at least.

Liz · 6 months ago

"Even (especially?) Democratic executives are flattered by all the secret briefings, etc. and the gravity of Hard-Headed Big-Boy World-Saving responsibilities into sticking with the program."

In other words, same shit, different assholes?

Matt C · 6 months ago

"The message, I take it, is that the damn hippy kids can appoint bisexual robot Latinas to the Supreme Court and tell GM to make cars that run on fairy kisses as long as they know the Serious People will continue to control the power that matters. All signs point to Obama going along, which, as Nixon knew, is what you can expect from self-impressed Ivy League assholes."

this is great stuff

mike farmer · 6 months ago

On target.

John Thacker · 6 months ago

The GOP seems to have approved of nearly every American projection of power overseas, no matter which party is behind it.

Odd that Senator Bob Dole was given to cracks about "Democrat wars," despite being one of those old Nixon hands.

But in any case, "seems to have approved?" The GOP split as much or more on Bosnia and Kosovo than the Democrats did on Iraq (both times). Of course, both times under Clinton a solid Democratic voting block joined a number of "responsible" "moderate," yes, "Nixonian" Republicans to vote for it.

Surely you would have to amend the thesis to point out that the interventionist wings of both parties combine to support every military action.

John Thacker · 6 months ago

The Nixonite establishment is a bipartisan one. It has the firm support of the bureaucracy as well, one notes.

uknowbetter · 6 months ago

Al Queda and their ilk sure help the Nixonites by actually being an enemy.

You can accuse people of making up enemies, but when they are actually real and do threaten Americans and American interests then your argument is weakened.

That is one of the biggest problems with libertarians. Even if the US pulled back from most of the world militarily (and I want it to start in Europe and Korea for sure), there are still going to be enemies.

kensilber · 6 months ago

The Rojas post and Wilkinson gloss on it read is as though the people writing them never heard of detente or the opening with China. Nixon's foreign policy was less aggressive than what many conservatives (who were also more free-market than Nixon) wanted.

chad · 6 months ago

What I find most amusing is just how much international security is discussed openly on public forums. Fortunately for us, there are entire realms of people who have no grasp of wit or sarcasm, and take everything at face value.

So far as enemies, when we have so many within our own borders the point is sort of moot… that's what drove us over to China to begin with! We honkies have an entire history of driving each other nuts and then running to distant lands to introduce more conflict into the picture.

chad · 6 months ago

If you are proposing communism as a solution to prevent uprisings on U.S. soil— better wear your bullet-proof vest, sir.

Mike Farmer · 6 months ago

"That is one of the biggest problems with libertarians. Even if the US pulled back from most of the world militarily (and I want it to start in Europe and Korea for sure), there are still going to be enemies."

I think the US can be realistic about its enemies and still uphold a non-interventionist policy -- with a strong national defense and the willingness to use it when necessary. Defensivism seems the best policy -- and this might just lessen the number of our enemies.

Dr. Strangelove · 6 months ago

Will, this line of attack on the Republican Party strikes me as a little odd coming from a libertarian. Isn't national security supposed to be one of the few legitimate concerns of the federal government? On a libertarian view, being the party of national security *and* limited government ought to be a good fit.

Is the complaint supposed to be that the national security wing always gets more of what it wants because they really control inner workings of the Republican party? Fabio observes that the national security guys always seem to get the national security jobs when the Republicans are in power. That's neither a stunning insight nor evidence that the national security guys are really running the show. He also observes that the national security guys do a pretty good job of getting what they want even when the party is out of power. But that seems like pretty good evidence that they don't even need control of the party. Whatever the source of their mojo is, it can't be control of the Republican party if it still works when the party is on the outs.

A much more plausible explanation for the relative success of the national security wing is that national security is a much easier sell than limited government at election time. Rather than blame the national security guys who have done a good job of persuading the public that national security always matters, you ought to blame the limited government guys who have done such a piss poor job of explaining why limited government always matters.

John Markley · 6 months ago

"Will, this line of attack on the Republican Party strikes me as a little odd coming from a libertarian. Isn't national security supposed to be one of the few legitimate concerns of the federal government? On a libertarian view, being the party of national security *and* limited government ought to be a good fit."

Sure, but it helps if the "national security" measures a party is promoting actually promote national security, and do so effectively enough to make the costs and other trade-offs worthwhile.

John · 6 months ago

Cheney wiping the floor with Obama re the torture "debate" is absolutely true.

Not only has it left Cheney more popular, as Wilkinson notes, but has also fractured some in the Democratic caucus. The whole episode had Pelosi running to China for cover and gave the GOP some campaign fodder for the 2010 midterms.

Joe Marier · 6 months ago

Except that the national-security apparatus is far from permanent. It was pretty much mothballed from 1975-1981, if I remember my history. That didn't work out so well for the party in power.

I'm not sure who thinks Goldwater was the guiding light of the GOP. His campaign was important to the GOP activist tradition, but there's a pretty big distinction between the campaign and the man himself.

Assistant Village Idiot · 6 months ago

Well, worth thinking about, but count me among the doubters. National security simply is a big issue, and should be. To maintain that we may be going too far suggests that people know how much is enough. That defensivism "just might" lessen the number of enemies is an attractive idea, but not strong on evidence. Our enemies, particularly Islamic ones, say they will be more friendly if only we would stop being belligerent. I recall that the communists said the same throughout Latin America for decades. Turns out the opposite was true. Helluva risk to take on a flier.

That said, it always good to separate the two motivations for intervention and consider them separately: are we doing this because it is good for us, or on moral grounds to promote justice and punish bad guys? The Nixonite view seems pretty quick to jumnp to the answer "both," and then switch back and forth between the two during debate. In fairness, this is largely a response to Democrats switching from one to the other whenever cornered, but we should strive to keep that distinction clear before the public at all times.