Hillary Clinton and the Neocons

by | Nov 4, 2016

Hillary Clinton and the Neocons

by | Nov 4, 2016

Veteran GOP foreign policy hawks are flocking to Hillary Clinton. Is it callow opportunism, or a major realignment?

Much has been made of the swing in political allegiances of neoconservatives in favor of Hillary Clinton.

As a group, Washington’s neocons are generally terrified of Trump’s unpredictability and his flirtation with the alt-right. They also support Clinton’s more assertive foreign policy (not to mention her closer relationship to Israel). Perhaps, too, after eight long years in the wilderness, they’re daydreaming of an appointment or two in a Clinton administration.

This group of previously staunch Republicans, who believe in using American military power to promote democracy, build nations, and secure U.S. interests abroad, have defected in surprising numbers. Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan, the Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens, and the Foreign Policy Initiative’s James Kirchick have all endorsed Clinton. Other prominent neocons like The National Review’s William Kristol, the Wall Street Journal’s Max Boot, and SAIS’s Eliot Cohen have rejected Trump but not quite taken the leap to supporting Clinton.

A not particularly large or well-defined group, neoconservatives have attracted a disproportionate amount of attention in this election. For the Trump camp, these Republican defectors merely prove that the elite is out to get their candidate, thus reinforcing his outsider credentials (never mind that Trump initially wooed neocons like Kristol). For the left, the neocons are flocking to support a bird of their feather, at least when it comes to foreign policy, which reflects badly on Clinton. The mainstream media, meanwhile, are attracted to the man-bites-dog aspect of the story (news flash: members of the vast right-wing conspiracy support Clinton!).

As we come to the end of the election campaign, which has been more a clash of personalities than of ideologies, the neocon defections offer a much more interesting story line. As the Republican Party potentially coalesces around a more populist center, the neocons are the canary in the coalmine. Their squawking suggests that the American political scene is about to suffer a cataclysm. What will that mean for U.S. foreign policy?

Read the rest by John Feffer at Foreign Policy in Focus.

Our Books

Recent Articles

Recent

The State Is Socializing the Cost Of the Iran War

The State Is Socializing the Cost Of the Iran War

War is often sold to the public as an act of national will: decisive, necessary, and under control. The bill arrives later, in a quieter form. It shows up in insurance markets, shipping rates, emergency guarantees, higher fuel prices, and sudden policy reversals...

read more
Arguing Against the State Without Hesitation

Arguing Against the State Without Hesitation

In 2008, a book appeared called Deleting the State: An Argument About Government. It was a trim volume, barely a hundred pages of actual text, but it hit me with the force of a hundred pounds from the very first page. As an undergraduate political science student, I...

read more
How ‘Real’ Is the Iran War?

How ‘Real’ Is the Iran War?

Over the last week, the war between Iran, Israel, and the United States has played out in a second theater that never sleeps: the timeline of X/Twitter. The feed is saturated with claims about battlefield damage, casualty numbers, “secret” losses, and the health or...

read more

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This