John McCain, Neocon
The canonization of John McCain has begun. In his Monday New York Times column, William Kristol suggested that McCain isn't simply a candidate for president. He's something more-the next Winston Churchill who can lead the U.S. to victory in the war on terror. According to Kristol, who has long been a close friend of McCain's and quoted him reciting a turgid Victorian poem, he is a "not-so-modern type. One might call him a neo-Victorian - rigid, self-righteous and moralizing, but (or rather and) manly, courageous and principled." For both Kristol and David Brooks, McCain epitomizes the belief in American national greatness that can replicate the glories of the nineteenth century British empire. In reality, their anachronistic exaltation of warfare as the highest test of manly courage may end up ruining the U.S., much as it did the British empire.
The neoconservative obsession with the Victorian era is longstanding-and most revealing. It dates back to Kristol's own mother, Gertrude Himmelfarb, a prominent historian who has long sought to rehabilitate the often-scorned Victorians. In a series of books, including a new collection of essays just released by Yale titled The Spirit of the Age, she has mythologized the Victorians for shunning welfare and relying on thrift and self-initiative to create a benevolent empire. Himmelfarb and other neoconservatives such as Midge Decter believe that the rise of post-Victorian mores, including homosexuality and feminism, have weakened the manly virtues that are necessary for defending the homeland.
The neoconservatives, who believe, or pretend to believe, that supposed foes abroad always represent new Hitlers and that wimpy liberals are about to recapitulate the appeasement that English liberals espoused in the 1930s, are constantly searching for a new Churchill. They see Churchill as the last great representative of the Victorian era in contrast to the weaklings that surrounded him. (George W. Bush himself keeps a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office.) For the neocons, McCain, a military hero who has written a number of books and become a politician, eerily resembles Churchill himself. McCain himself has made his admiration for Churchill abundantly apparent in his most recent book, Hard Call, in which he hails the great man's prescience in warning of Germany's aggressive intentions in the run-up to both World War I and World War II. But more to the point, McCain represents for the neocons the ultimate synthesis of war hero and politician. And McCain, in turn, has been increasingly drawn to the neocons' militaristic vision of the U.S. as an empire that can set wrong aright around the globe.
The neocons became close to McCain in the 1990s, when they supported American intervention in the Balkans. According to the New Republic's John Judis, the first sign of neocon influence on McCain came in 1999. McCain delivered a speech at Kansas State University in which he touted "national greatness conservatism," arguing: "The United States is the indispensable nation because we have proven to be the greatest force for good in human history." He went on to state that the U.S. should have "every intention of continuing to use our primacy in world affairs for humanity's benefit."
Since then, McCain has, of course, become the most prominent advocate of ramping up the U.S. effort in Iraq, not to mention Sudan and a variety of other hotspots. If McCain becomes president, the neocons will be in charge.
It's no small irony that they may well end up destroying the very American empire they seek to expand, just as the British empire collapsed during the past century.
Jacob Heilbrunn is the author of the newly released, They Knew They Were Right: the Rise of the Neocons, and a senior editor at the National Interest.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
HOPELESS277 said... "I actually support the Iraq 'war'. The way I see it, anyone stupid enough to join the military at this point truly deserves to be culled from the herd. Cull on, Neocons, pretty soon it will be YOU on the front lines."
You know, I cannot stand John McCain. He kissed up to Rove and Bush so he could run for President YET AGAIN. He supports the surge; which is nothing more than a temporary bandage on a festering incurable wound.
He capitulated on 527's. He uses fear mongering just like Bush/Cheney. He is clearly unethical with zero integrity, and will do ANYTHING to become President. I believe he is not only immoral but is also profoundly stupid.
But nevertheless - Anyone who says (Hopeless277) that people deserve to be culled from the herd if they join the military are just cowardly and pathetic weasels.
I would be willing to bet that hopeless277 wouldn't dare say his facile and glib comments in person to a returning Veteran or to the child of a fallen soldier.
It's not any soldiers fault that Bush and Cheney are war mongerers.
Hopeless277 is aptly named.
"U.S. victory in the war on terror".
What the hell does that even mean? What constitutes victory over a tactic (terror) that has been used for millennia by non-state participants in conflicts? Will there ever be a point at which someone can credibly state that "we've won the war on terror", suggesting that there will never be another terrorist attack. I would be willing to bet that a statement like that would immediately be followed by another terrorist attack somewhere.
And why is Kristol still employed by the Times if not to add comic contrast to actual news and rationality-based editorial content?
McCain has not proven himself hesitant to send others to war. During the Bosnian conflict, he berated Clinton for not putting boots on the ground saying that the war could not be won from the air. He was wrong. It was won from the air. He wants to continue our stay in Iraq, not saying where the manpower and the money is coming from.
I am not sure where you get that Clinton deployed troops moer frequently than any other president.
Not to take anything away from McCain's service and suffering, but he actually did not see the Vietnam war on the ground. He saw the war from a plane and from a Vietnam prison. Despite his indisputable courage and patriotism, his experiences with the Vietnam war were very different from those who experienced it day to day on the ground.
As for voting for a Clinton, that is certainly your choice. Just don't be decieved that McCain would not deploy troops needlessly. He is now a member of the neocon club and their ideology calls for preemptive combat like in Iraq. How has that turned out?? Besides, it is actually Independents who determine elections. Right now they are siding with the Dems.
I don't need another reason not to vote for McCain. The fact that Bill Kristol supports him is just another in a long list and probably goes to the top. "Straight Talking" McCain has zigged zagged enough to make one dizzy. In 2000 he spoke out against religious zealots, now he kowtows to them.
He is as bellicose and delusional as his good friend GWB and thinks we need to stay in Iraq indefinitely. He does not say where we get the money or the manpower to do so. I actually think that he would be easy to defeat either by Clinton or Obama. Aren't we all getting a little tired of that phoney phrase "my friends" which he is constantly uttering???
To me McCain's cranky rigidity suggests pre-senility, a mind starting to close down for good.
McCain a war criminal for bombing civilians in Vietnam and a traitor for violating the UCMJ, Uniform Code of Military Justice,also failed to protect his own family in the 2000 campaign in South Carolina when Bush insulted and abuse them. McCain had his head up Bush's ass ever since.Bomb
Personaly I have had enough of neo-cons being in charge. I think there are quite a few voters that agree with me
See David Horton's Profile
The "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" moment should have set alarm bells ringing loudly, no matter how sane McCain appears compared to Romney, Huckabee and Guiliani. I am intrigued by the comment "wimpy liberals are about to recapitulate the appeasement that English liberals espoused in the 1930s". In fact the appeasers were the English Right wing and aristocracy (including the Cliveden Set, and up to and including the Duke of Windsor) who secretly and not so secretly (Mosley) admired Hitler, Franco (and had fought for him), and Mussolini. The left were the realists about what fascism was up to. As they are now.
I am at a loss as to how preemptive warfare benefits mankind. Often such warfare is launched on shoddy or politicized intelligence. The same neocons who advocate spending hundreds of billions abroad fight every tax dollar that may be used at home. We borrow billions and billions from abroad and our dollar plunges, as our economy sinks. Do the neocons really consider our present place in the world as a policy success? Their dream has faded and has always been slightly delusional. There is a place for humanitarian missions, but that does not include regime change. Their vision is as unsustainable as the Victorians. One can ask- how did so few get their hands on the policy apparatus that affects so many?
Warmongers like the neocons (including Kristol and McCain) are responsible for giving us the Iraq war fiasco. Why do these people who have been so wrong have any power or influence still.
After WWIII(the 2nd War to end all wars)Great Britain realized it couldn't be both an empire and a democracy so it abandonned the empire.The Neo-Cons have realized America cannot be both an empire and a democracy and so they've abandonned democracy.
I came to this website wanting to learn more about how democrats feel since I myself am having doubts about much of the GOP, but these comments have literally left me sick to my stomach. All of you have a right to say what you want, but do so at the risk of turning away potential newcomers.
To give you another perspective, many military believe in McCain because since he has witnessed the war firsthand, he might be less inclined to needlessly send others.
Fmr Pres. Clinton never served and he deployed troops more frequently(albeit at a smaller scale) than any other president. Add to that, I know of no republican willing to vote for another Clinton. If the democratic party wants there nominee to receive any conservative support, don't go with Clinton.
Kind of amusing(as in disgusting)if you consider these same Neo-Cons were the same ones who orchestrated a smear-campaign against John McCain in 2000.But then historical revisionism is a key(if not vital)component of their idealogy!
No one, not even McCain, can win the 'War on Terror' since there is no defined victory point. Even if you did define one based on logic instead of spin, then you still can't win it via military means. This is 2008, not 1808.
The sooner people realize this and vote for a candidate who will work on the underlaying problem instead of the result of bad policy, the sooner we will all be safer.
Excellent analysis.
I am afraid all the dem and rep candidates left are neocon, with the exception of one republican that I keep hearing about.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
