Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

Please be sure to listen to The Notes tonight at 8:00pm EST on Blog Talk Radio; our guest will be former Bush speechwriter Matt Latimer, the author of Speech-Less: Tales of a White House Survivor!

Jeff Jacoby on public-sector compensation.

Conor Friedersdorf on military spending.

J. C. Watts on President Carter’s remarks about President Obama’s critics.

Sen. Jon Kyl on Obamacare.

Morton Janklow on the passing of William Safire.

The New York Times on Liz Cheney.

Ross Douthat on Afghanistan.

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs remains on top.

Words of wisdom from Jeff Jacoby, George Will and Rod Dreher.

Repairing the broken bond between social conservatives and libertarians in the Republican Party is not the only necessary step in bringing new strength and vigor to the American right. The enmity that exists between neoconservatives and neo-isolationists must also cease.

Conservatives who have been skeptical of America’s foreign-policy direction in the 2000s have argued, with some justification, that it was the neoconservatives within the Bush administration that destroyed his Presidency and the GOP along with it. According to this argument, by aggressively lobbying Bush to invade Iraq and spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives in the name of nudging that country towards democracy, neoconservatives damaged the GOP’s credibility on foreign-policy issues and set the stage for Barack Obama’s fall 2008 Presidential win.

This is a subset of the general neo-isolationist critique of neoconservatism. To neo-isolationists (or, to use a less pejorative term, paleoconservatives), neoconservatives are fixated upon exporting Western-style democracy to foreign countries, particularly countries that are seen as being hostile to Israel. Some of the more offensive neo-isolationists suggest that neoconservatives have divided loyalties, or are explicitly attempting to have the United States act as Israel’s unofficial defense force.

These are ugly claims. Most neoconservatives are loyal to America and America only; they feel that America and the world will benefit from the worldwide spread of democracy. And if in fact some neoconservatives are directly interested in having America stick up for Israel, so what? Is it wrong for democracies to stand with each other against mutual fanatical enemies? That’s common sense, no?

My sympathies lie with the neoconservatives. They are correct that the worldwide expansion of democracy will, at least in theory, lead to world justice, if not world peace. Neoconservatives are a key part of the center-right political coalition, and they have done so much—with insufficient appreciation—to combat the perception that American conservatism lacks intellectual integrity.

Yet neo-isolationists have legitimate claims of their own. They are right to note that neoconservative activism dating back to the late-1990s ultimately led Bush into Iraq. They are right to note that neoconservatives underestimated how much of a struggle it would be to secure victory in Iraq. They are right to note that America is not actually the world’s police force, and that it may not be America’s job to spread democracy around the globe.

Some neoconservatives have argued that Saddam Hussein never posed a direct threat to the United States, and that Bush was wrong to launch Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003. While I still support the initial decision to remove Hussein from power based on the now-questionable intelligence provided to Bush, I have come to conclude that it was not in the US’ national interest to try to democratize Iraq. A better, less costly solution (in terms of dollars and lives) would have been to follow the strategy Richard Nixon implemented in the early 1970s, when it was determined that Chilean President Salvador Allende represented a potential threat to US national security. Nixon’s efforts to seek the removal of Allende from power were certainly controversial, but not nearly as controversial as what Bush ended up doing three decades later. If the Nixon administration could bring about “regime change” in Chile without having to spend mountains of money and lose legions of lives, why couldn’t Bush do the same in Iraq?

Presumably, neo-isolationists would have supported Bush if he found an alternate route to “regime change” in Iraq, one that would not have taken the United States down the road to state-building. That’s a road the Republican Party should steer clear of, as the tolls on that thoroughfare are much too high for average Americans to pay.

Neo-isolationists and neoconservatives must reach a consensus when it comes to US foreign policy. Ideally, both sides would agree that the United States should, as a moral and practical rule, encourage the expansion of democracy worldwide through means other than direct military action. America should, and must, find ways to help other countries whose residents are thirsty for democracy, but should, and must, avoid implementing methods that will cause this country to be hurt.

Neoconservatives and neo-isolationists both have logical arguments. A democratic world is a stronger world, a better world, a healthier world. Yet America cannot bankrupt itself trying to wire the currency of democracy to foreign lands. America is often said to be the last, best hope of mankind. If she embraces a reasonable approach to foreign policy, she won’t be the only hope.

So what’s all the fuss about with Glenn Beck?

Arguably the biggest media story of 2009 is the emergence of Mr. Beck as the symbol of anti-Obama America. The veteran talk-radio star attracted a significant following in the mid-2000s on CNN Headline News; late last year, he left CNN for the greener pastures of the Fox News Channel.

Beck has become Fox’s most valuable pundit, embodying red-state anti-Obama contempt just as Rush Limbaugh once embodied hardcore anti-Clinton sentiment. He has been condemned by progressives as a race-baiting raconteur exploiting the dark side of American politics and culture. In addition, at least one prominent conservative has expressed his scorn for Beck: in a recent appearance on Don Imus’ nationally syndicated program, talk-radio rival Mark Levin declared that comparing Limbaugh to Beck is like comparing George Washington to George Jefferson. (Former Republican Congressman and current MSNBC star Joe Scarborough has also denounced Beck in no uncertain terms.)

For the record, I’m not a Beck fan myself. He seems desperate to possess the prosperity and undying fanbase loyalty Limbaugh currently enjoys. Some of his past statements cannot be defended by any rational person—not his November 2006 assertion that Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison may have divided loyalties because of his Muslim faith, not his July 2009 suggestion that Obama is some sort of closet Elijah Muhammad in terms of his racial views. Beck is the oddest of odd ducks, a man with a manic-depressive personality and a fondness for conspiracy theories. No one will ever confuse him with Paul Harvey.

Yet his impact on conservative politics is not negligible and must be respected. He almost single-handedly forced Van Jones out of the Obama administration, and has arguably gone further than Sarah Palin in reviving the spirit of conservative populism that was prominent on the right in the 1980s and 1990s. While Levin and Scarborough may not like it, Beck has become a kingmaker; the GOP’s only hope for success in the 2010s lies in exploiting the same anti-Washington anger Beck has successfully tapped into.

Despite his sarcasm and strangeness, Beck is a clear asset to the conservative/libertarian movement, an asset whose value will not soon depreciate. He has a compelling life story, that of a man whose personal tragedies and setbacks never caused him to lose his love for America. It can be argued that because Beck is not explicitly affiliated with either George W. Bush or the Republican Party, his criticisms of Obama have more resonance with average Americans than those of Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, both of whom became pro-Bush, as opposed to pro-conservative/libertarian, during the 2000s.

Does Beck pose a real threat to the Limbaugh media empire? On paper, the answer is no, since Limbaugh is an established brand name and Beck is still something of an upstart. Yet stranger things have happened—two decades ago, did anyone really think Oprah Winfrey would leap past Phil Donahue to become the dominant figure in daytime talk? Beck clearly covets Limbaugh’s fame and acclaim, and from a certain perspective, one can’t fault Beck for his ambition: he knows that no one stays at the top forever, and that under the right circumstances, even the seemingly unbeatable can be beaten. Presumably, Beck intends to succeed where Laura Schlessinger narrowly failed: in the late 1990s, “Dr. Laura” came extremely close to replacing Limbaugh as the most listened-to nationally syndicated radio host before her show was damaged by a prolonged controversy surrounding her criticisms of the gay rights movement. Schlessinger ran neck-and-neck with Limbaugh by seizing upon the public concern about the perceived decline in traditional values. By harnessing the electorate’s rage against the American political machine, Beck could indeed realize his goal.

One wonders what Limbaugh makes of Beck’s obvious attempt to take his throne. Although imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, he can’t possibly be thrilled by Beck’s point-by-point copying of his own rise to power (including the production of live stage shows to expand his audience). What are An Inconvenient Book and Arguing with Idiots if not the late-2000s versions of The Way Things Ought to Be and See, I Told You So? Would Beck have even agreed to take the CNN gig if he didn’t believe he could equal or surpass the quality of Limbaugh’s mid-1990s television show?

If Beck avoids self-destruction in the 2010s, he could become the conservative/libertarian media icon that others model themselves after. Or, to use a musical analogy, if Limbaugh is the Mick Jagger of the right, Beck could become its Bono.

A potentially positive development in the bizarre legal case involving former Boston talk-radio star Reese Hopkins.

UPDATE: More from Men’s News Daily.

Be sure to listen to The Notes on Blog Talk Radio tonight at 8:00pm EST. Conor Friedersdorf and Matt Margolis will join us!

Jeff Jacoby on Obamacare.