04-18-2018 10:16:00 AM -0700
04-16-2018 01:32:51 PM -0700
04-16-2018 09:59:36 AM -0700
04-12-2018 09:53:41 AM -0700
04-10-2018 11:19:03 AM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

Are We Facing a Dangerous Return of the Old Conservative Isolationism?

In this strange pre-election season, when the Republican Party is trying to sort out to which candidate it might turn for the 2012 election, it seems that the Republicans and some conservatives are contemplating a dangerous return to the old pre-World War II isolationism, as well as to the Robert A. Taft neo-isolationism of the early Cold War years.

The result is hypocrisy on all sides. A group of Republicans has been condemning the president for violation of the War Powers Act -- a law put into effect in the waning days of Vietnam, and which the Nixon administration argued was unconstitutional and an attempt to limit presidential power. Last week, Speaker John Boehner -- who actually voted for repeal of the Act -- criticized President Obama for making the argument that his actions in Libya were not a violation of the Act’s statutes, since it was only a limited skirmish and not a war.

As defense expert Max Book argues, “The hypocrisy of Democrats who once damned Bush for his supposed misuse of presidential powers -- in spite of the fact Bush won Congressional approval for his wars -- while now defending Obama’s flagrant power grab is stunning. But no more disturbing than the hypocrisy of Republicans like Speaker John Boehner who in the past called the War Powers Act unconstitutional and voted to repeal it, but are now blasting Obama for refusing to abide by its terms.”

The speaker once understood how our constitutional system works. He said:

A strong presidency is a key pillar of the American system of government -- the same system of government our military men and women are prepared to give their lives to defend. Just as good intentions alone are not enough to justify sending American troops into harm’s way, good intentions alone are not enough to justify tampering with the underpinnings of American democracy.

Now the speaker tells the president:

You took an oath before the American people on January 20, 2009, in which you swore to “faithfully execute the Office of President" and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The Constitution requires the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," and one of those laws is the War Powers Resolution, which requires an approving action by Congress or withdrawal within 90 days from the notification of a military operation. ... I sincerely hope the administration will faithfully comply with the War Powers Resolution and the requests made by the House of Representatives, and that you will use your unique authority as our President to engage the American people regarding our mission in Libya.

So the man who once decried “tying the hands of future presidents” and favored a strong executive who could act decisively to implement our nation’s foreign policy is speaking in the manner of left-wing Democrats in the Vietnam era.

On the other side, the neo-conservative Foreign Policy Initiative convened a group of foreign policy experts, who urged House Republicans to not only support the NATO operation in Libya, but who argued that the action should be waged relentlessly and without hesitation. As they put it,

The United States should be leading in this effort, not trailing behind our allies. We should be doing more to help the Libyan opposition, which deserves our support. We should not be allowing ourselves to be held hostage to U.N. Security Council resolutions and irresolute allies.

The problem, they said, “is not that the president has done too much, however, but that he has done too little to achieve the goal of removing Qaddafi from power.” Their conclusion is sharp:

For the United States and NATO to be defeated by Muammar al-Qaddafi would suggest that American leadership and resolution were now gravely in doubt -- a conclusion that would undermine American influence and embolden our nation’s enemies.

The statement includes the names of experts who are Republicans and Democrats, and thus harks back to the kind of bipartisan foreign policy that helped win the Cold War against the Soviet Union. The signers include William Kristol, Elliott Abrams and Tod Lindberg on the Republican side, and Robert Lieber, R. James Woolsey and Martin Peretz on the Democratic side.