Ukraine and the Neoconservative compatibility with the American Left

Ukraine and the Neoconservative compatibility with the American Left

by -
0 805

WASHINGTON, April, 8, 2014 — Just when you thought it might be safe to watch those news and interview programs again and that those omnipresent “talking heads” would relent a bit in their ceaseless chatter about the Ukraine issue, Fox News has continued the drum beat of misinformation.

Currently, there is a lot of  speculation about possible American military aid to Ukraine, and the possibility of joint NATO-Ukrainian military exercises, despite the overwhelming lack of support for involvement by the American public.

Back on Sunday, March 30, on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, the lead off segment dealt with that faraway part of the world and America’s reaction (or lack of reaction) to what is continually spun by the uniformity of the American media as Russian “aggression” and what to do about it.

Fox News, that Murdoch empire outpost of zealous Neoconservative globalist evangelism, trotted out the Representative Mike Rogers (R-Michigan), who chairs the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman Rogers, who supposedly has access to reams of “intelligence” supplied by various American intelligence agencies, proved again that everything depends on how you define “intelligence.” Several times, he mentioned the former Soviet republic of Moldava and the break-away state of Transnistria, and their periphery on the Baltic Sea. Of course, a very quick look at any atlas would tell him that Moldava  and Transnistria come very close to, but do not actually border the Black Sea….and that the Black Sea is over one thousand miles from the Baltic (which is in northern Europe).

Rogers or his minions almost certainly will explain that his mistake was only a slip of the tongue, that he actually meant, “Black Sea.”  The problem is he repeated his mistake several times.  Perhaps he actually meant “Baltic,” and he was thinking about the three Baltic republics, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, that belong to NATO? In any case, it was not the kind of mistake that a chairman of a very important House of Representatives committee should make. Indeed, what would we say if the head of the Russian Duma’s intelligence committee kept referring to “Virginia, and other states that border on Lake Michigan”?  What might it say about their intelligence level?

Rogers announced that he was retiring from Congress, and that is good. For his consistent appropriation of Neoconservative talking points and his unquestioning acceptance of State Department “intelligence briefings” makes him only slightly more palatable than the ubiquitous  Karl Rove, who showed up in the panel discussion segment to offer his “expert” views on Ukraine and Russia.

No one doubts Rove’s political prowess in dumping money into the campaign chests of “moderate” Republicans who want to “save the party” from Tea Party “extremists.”  He has a long track record of doing just that. But his foreign policy bona fides are much more dubious—indeed, one might suggest that they are non-existent. Like every other guest, every “talking head,” every interviewee and interviewer, on Fox, Rove took the “party line”: (1)  that Russia and Putin were re-establishing the “Soviet empire,” (2) that Russian “aggression” had to be met with stepped up economic AND possible military action by the US and its allies, and (3) that Obama was reacting rather weakly and tentatively. Oh, goodness, where is Winston Churchill when we need him?! Will John McCain do in a pinch?

Rove’s views on foreign policy are strictly out of the globalist Neoconservative playbook: that is, that American-style “liberal democracy” must be spread around the world and introduced into every benighted backwater on the globe, whether that “backwater” wants it or not; that across-the-board equality and full voting rights for everyone is the only form of government acceptable in “the progressive 21st century” (and thus, all the eventual consequences of equality, including feminism, same sex marriage, etc., that flow from this premise); and that the full effects of American consumerism and Wall Street financial control are something truly wonderful. Just think, all those poor Ukrainians able to get “Desperate Housewives,” “Big Brother,” and “Judge Judy” on the boob tube!

In the past I have remarked on the fascinating fact that the American Neoconservatives and their allies in Europe advocate a policy that would bring Ukraine into the orbit of the European Union….that is, into the orbit of the EU’s rigid secularist, statist, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, and increasingly anti-Christian managerial structures. This, in effect, is what every one of them, from Sean Hannity, to Bill O’Reilly, to Rush Limbaugh, to Charles Krauthammer, is implicitly advocating, whether they recognize it or not.  And this is just one more indication of the deep-seated Leftwing “hangover” that these “sons of Trotsky “and “spawn of Wilson and FDR” continue to experience and amply illustrate.

Although Rush or Hannity would deny it, the intellectual benchmarks for these Neocons is demonstrably on the historical Left. That they hold up FDR (Krauthammer),  Martin Luther King (Jonah Goldberg), and Abraham Lincoln (Limbaugh and Rich Lowry) as their intellectual forebears and heroes should offer pause to the conservative rank-and-file.  Sadly, that so many so-called conservatives accept such intellectual fraud as truth demonstrates to just what depths of decay and degradation the once-vibrant “conservative movement” has now fallen.

Of course, we shouldn’t expect Congressman Rogers to have read that deeply. Like most Republicans in Washington, he probably has taken advantage–if you want to call that–of the Neocon think tanks (e.g., AEI, Ethics and Public Policy, etc.) and publications (e.g., National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal, etc.) and the clearly-sculpted “briefs” provided by the foreign policy “keystone cops” in the Obama administration, and then gets on national television, qualified as an “expert,” but in fact, only mouthing the Neocon party line and the woefully inept views of most of our foreign policy establishment.

Men like Rogers and Karl Rove, against the saner and wiser counsel of former Ambassador to the USSR (under Reagan), Jack Matlock,  Dr. Paul Craig Roberts (Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, under Reagan), and even Henry Kissinger, are pushing the United States towards an avoidable conflict, perhaps a violent one, with a non-Communist Russia, a country that now is arguably more Christian and traditional in its beliefs than the United States (and certainly so, in comparison with the rest of Europe).  Back on February 11, 2014 (in The American Conservative), long-time conservative geopolitical strategist and author, William Lind, questioned why the US was so hostile to Russia, given its history since 1991. A careful examination of recent Russian history (e.g., Prof. Allen Lynch’s Vladimir Putin and Russian Statement; Prof. John Garrard, Russian Orthodoxy Resurgent; etc.) indicates that Russia (and it president) have taken a sharp turn to what is identifiably a conservative and traditionally Christian posture on a whole host of major issues.  Why wouldn’t we welcome such a turn of events? Why wouldn’t we welcome a partnership with the largest nation in the world? Why would we continually treat Russia like a second-rate American camp follower?

The answer lies in the postulates and principles of Neoconservatism, and its close and historically incestuous relationship and compatibility with the American Left in foreign policy. Both Rogers and Rove partake of this dangerous brew, as do most all Democrat and Republican politicians. It is a recipe for international conflict and future disaster — another Bosnia, another Afghanistan — for goals that never seem to be realized, for establishing a worldwide “Idea of Progress,” where liberal democracy and across-the-board equality reign, but, in fact, a world controlled by statist managers, where real liberty, real regionalism, and real independent thought are extinguished.





Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Communities Digital News

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.