New York Times: Hawks Are Standing In the Way of a New Republican Party

In the wake of the Trump years, I have become more upbeat, optimistic and productive. I’ve done this by drawing an important distinction within the Republican Party.

Since I only have one vote and I live in Alabama, I don’t think much about voting for politicians. I’m just an analyst. I see myself as working in media. I focus now exclusively on sharing my thoughts on this blog and trends in public opinion. I’m content to leave the voting to other people now.

As far as the Republican Party goes, there is a lot to be positive about. Specifically, the electorate changed and voters have become more nationalist and populist and have warmed up to our views in most areas. There are a lot of positive things going on in conservative media where the old taboos are being broken. Conservative intellectuals have also broken away from the stale old Reaganite orthodoxy. There is a lot to be happy about like the normies waking up and becoming more radical under Joe Biden.

At the level of elected Republican politicians, however, we’re still looking at Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy returning to power and maybe Dump in 2024. We’re looking at the same gerontocracy in the Senate with maybe the occasional outlier like Josh Hawley. While we can probably count on these people to block Joe Biden’s agenda (this isn’t nothing), we can’t expect much else from them.

New York Times:

“A painful contradiction lies at the heart of the American right. Even as conservatives are breaking with some Cold War orthodoxies on domestic policy, Republican politicians remain wedded to that era’s violently expansionist foreign policy. They oppose liberal imperialism in the United States —the aggressive push to impose progressive values, often joined to corporate power — while still contriving to spread the same order to the ends of the earth.

It’s a contradictory vision, and for many members of the so-called new right who are pushing for a political realignment of the Republican Party,  it presents a major stumbling block. We do not want to see this new vision of conservative American politics co-opted by hawkish ideologues more interested in posturing abroad than in reform here at home. Conservatives must make a clear break with neo-neoconservative foreign policy and instead emphasize widely shared material development at home and cultural nonaggression abroad as the keys to U.S. security.

The crisis in Ukraine illustrates the problem. Even Republicans sympathetic to the new right haven’t been able to resist the hawkish temptation. Among the loudest voices calling for escalation were Republican Senators Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Marco Rubio of Florida, politicians who have otherwise tried to articulate a more populist domestic vision for their party. Senator Rubio resorted to inapt Churchill-Hitler parallels (though he later said he opposes deploying troops to Eastern Europe); Senator Cotton lambasted President Biden for “appeasing Vladimir Putin.” …”

Obviously, I agree with Sohrab Ahmari, Patrick Deneen and Gladden Pappin on this specific issue. I don’t give a shit about protecting liberal democracy in Ukraine. I don’t know anyone who cares about what goes on in places like that either. I don’t see it as being any of my business or my problem.

Do we seriously want to use force to remake the rest of the world in the image of the contemporary United States? Do we want to risk nuclear war to spread this cancer? Really?

Will Admiral Rachel Levine be leading us into battle?