You don’t have to regularly read orgtheory (as I do, despite my disdain for sociology) to like Fabio Rojas’ elucidation of the dominant faction in the GOP since the 50s. It’s message of continuity goes against the conventional wisdom of Bush Sr’s “realists” being sidelined under Bush Jr. I’d also add that I thought Nixon was considered part of the liberal “Rockefeller” wing of the party in the 50s. You might object that he was a McCarthyite, but before he became famous Tailgunner Joe was also considered a liberal Republican (he held the progressive Fightin’ Bob LaFollette’s seat, right?). Marcus Epstein discusses Murray Rothbard’s evolving take on McCarthyism here. The American conservative has previously detailed the damage the Nixon years, and how the GOP came to define itself in opposition to McGovern & McCarthy. Daniel Larison in The Week noted that the “national security” wing of Mitt Romney’s conservative “stool” has done the most to damage the party yet has borne the least damage to its reputation. Finally, in Our Enemy the President Daniel McCarthy discusses how Willmoore Kendall & James Burnham’s distrust for the power of the executive branch relative to Congress lost our to their National Review colleague Jeffrey Hart’s view (more antagonistic to the Fourth Estate and permanent bureaucracy), formed during the Watergate era.
I’m embarrassed I have to give a hat-tip to Wilkinson. I usually do check orgtheory daily, but I was slow on the draw today.
June 3, 2009 at 1:24 am
I wouldn’t say the National Security Wing of the Republican Party has done the most damage. More like Bush’s failure to be honest with himself or the nation about the threat has caused untold damage by creating fantasies about what is really going on.
The problem is that nuclear proliferation plus unstable polygamous societies guarantee US cities will die, via deniable terrorist nuclear attacks, unless deterrence is re-established.
The President of Pakistan is a nice man. I’m sure on a good day his orders get obeyed all the way to the Presidential Palace gate. The President of Iran is a terrible man, but HIS orders are not the final say, either, though he has more leeway in enforcing them.
Pakistan, Iran, and places like them going nuclear as we speak (Yemen, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, UAE, to name a few) are not characterized by top-down rule, rather by tribal factions that must be appeased, retain freedom of action, and considerable control. Absolute leaders like Saddam or Khadaffi or Mubarak are erratic, often mortal, and prone to either sudden replacement or sudden shifts (Nasser kicking the Soviets out unexpectedly, creating the UAR with Syria, then dissolving it). Real power on which decisions turn about US cities living or dying rests on tribal leaders who are often illiterate, uneducated, and have wild ideas about the US.
The challenge to prevent US cities from being nuked is deterrence. “Being nice” to Muslims was tried and found wanting under Nixon-Ford-Carter-Reagan-Bush-Clinton and that was without a nuclear proliferation breakout which we cannot stop. The key decision makers, tribal leaders seeking to ally themselves with war-leaders like Zawahari, or Osama, who openly are trying to amass exile armies to retake their home nations (Egypt and Saudi respectively) must be persuaded that it’s not in their best interest to nuke the US.
As it stands now, tribal decision makers can reasonably assume that no “proof” of their involvement (“Hassan, give your cousin Hamid the nuke. We’ve made a deal with Osama”) would be forthcoming, and thus no retaliation.
Simply put America needs both the means to wipe out any and ALL nations with weapons programs or SUSPECTED WEAPONS programs, in the case of a US city (and ally) being nuked. And secondly, America need to be BELIEVED. Thirdly, nations that prove (through inspection on demand, no limits) that they have no weapons or programs, need to be secure.
It’s the management of fear. Fear of reprisals, fear that is not limitless, fear that can be avoided by either strict controls at the tribal level (each leader fearing his tribe will be completely wiped out) or by inspection to prove they are no threat.
Unfortunately, bipartisan reactions to be “nice” to Muslims dating back to Nixon’s non-reaction to Arafat’s murder of US diplomats, failure of Carter to make an example of Iran, failure of Bush to make an example of Saddam, failure of Clinton to make an example of either Saddam or Iran (either would have done), failure of Bush to follow up making an example of Saddam with a few other ones and manage his domestic opposition leaves America vulnerable … no one believes our threats.
Certainly not those who matter … tribal leaders who hold the real power in these rapidly proliferating nuclear powers, who decide if NYC lives or dies, and who do no believe that America can or would wipe them out.
I agree Mitt has not articulated the threat of proliferation or what the US can realistically do about it, but he’s at least better than Unicorns and Rainbows defense, from the Democrats.
June 3, 2009 at 7:28 pm
the threat
I take it you’re not a fan of John Mueller.
More like Bush
Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld etc are all considered here part of the “national security wing”. Would you like to claim otherwise or hold someone else responsible?
nuclear proliferation
Given technological trends, I think that’s inevitable. So is the “transparent society”. I am somewhat reassured by the lack of disaster following the breakup of the Soviet Union despite the disorder, economic plight and terrible security.
polygamous societies
I think polygynous. societies have problems but they don’t seem clearly more threatening than others. I also think it would be best to remember the distinction between Muslim and polygynous. societies. If I recall correctly, most Muslim countries are not characterized by polygyny. I should look up some stats on that. Checking Wikipedia I see the claim that 1-3% of the marriages in the Islamic world are polygamous (I would guess none of them are polyandrous but don’t want to misquote). I think polygyny is more common in Africa, including among non-Muslims.
US cities
Why not Canadian, European, Australian, or east Asian cities?
deterrence is re-established
Elaborate.
are not characterized by top-down rule
I would say that Saddam’s Iraq was characterized by that, and Ba’athist Syria is similar. Syria happens to have a weak successor now but I believe the Muslim Brotherhood there still has not recovered from Hama. That’s a big reason why it was foolish to remove Saddam.
and have wild ideas about the US.
As opposed to our well-informed and sensible ideas about tribal leaders, eh?
erratic
Oddly enough, the behavior of Iran strikes me as less so than the United States. It kept its cool when the Taliban was murdering some of its officials and waited for the U.S to eliminate both its neighboring enemies.
“Being nice” to Muslims was tried and found wanting under Nixon-Ford-Carter-Reagan-Bush-Clinton
You put “being nice” in quotes. Who are you quoting? By what standard were they “being nice”? If we look at an issue of contention between many Muslims and the U.S, say Israel/Palestine, we see that the U.S gave Israel massive amounts of unconditional aid throughout all of those presidents. You can blame Eisenhower for preventing Nasser from being a taught a lesson at Suez though. Additionally, Clinton fought on the side of the al Qaeda-supported Kosovo Liberation Army, which was certainly stupid. Prior to the Iranian revolution (or even the collapse of the Sovet Union) if you asked someone’s opinion of the threat of Muslims you’d likely get a puzzled response. Islam had long been a spent force and nationalism/communism was causing the problems.
who openly are trying to amass exile armies to retake their home nations
Relative to groups that didn’t elect to focus on the “far-enemy” they aren’t significant. HAMAS & Hezbollah are prepared to wield power, al Qaeda are like the anarchist & nihilist “revolutionaries” of the late 19th and early 20th century. Al Qaeda is anti-nationalist, advocating the replacement of the nation-state with a caliphate ruling over the ummah. Not a chance in hell of even getting close.
Simply put America needs both the means to wipe out any and ALL nations
This is the kind of apocalyptic talk that gets one regarded as a dangerous loon. Ever consider that the threat of nuclear attack encourages countries to go nuclear?
And secondly, America need to be BELIEVED.
Does anyone really doubt we wouldn’t retaliate if we got nuked? We just invaded a country that didn’t do a damn thing to us because Afghanistan didn’t leave us fully satisfied. We could threaten to nuke Medina and then Mecca regardless of who is responsible, and it would deter Muslims all over the world.
Thirdly, nations that prove (through inspection on demand, no limits) that they have no weapons or programs, need to be secure.
Iraq was willing to let in inspectors but Bush insisted on going ahead with the invasion anyway. Turns out everything the administration told us was bullshit, oh well.
each leader fearing his tribe will be completely wiped out
I believe we do have enough nukes to wipe out every tribe and the capability of delivering them.
failure of Bush to make an example of Saddam
He crushed his army in one of the most lopsided victories in history, removed the threat to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and imposed crippling sanctions along with inspections. I don’t agree with his decision (screw those ungrateful Saudis & Kuwaitis), but it was a slam-dunk and clearly in the tradition of the sensible wars of kings as opposed to the idiotic wars of nations.
failure of Clinton to make an example of either Saddam or Iran (either would have done)
What would be the occasion for either? Just the Ledeen doctrine?
failure of Bush to follow up making an example of Saddam with a few other ones
Sheesh, how many are necessary? It’s like the Keynesian who says the experience of Japan proves you just need larger deficit spending! I think the obvious clusterfuck experienced with Iraq gives people reason to believe even Bush wouldn’t be dumb enough to try that again.
Unicorns and Rainbows defense, from the Democrats.
I’ve hated Democrats since I was a child, but I don’t recall any important ones (i.e not Kucinich although I’d doubt that even of him) putting anything like that on the table.
June 4, 2009 at 8:00 pm
I said:
I totally disagree with this post. Firstly, your definition of “Nixonite” is faulty. Everyone who served in the Nixon administration was not a “Nixonite”. The Nixon administration, like every GOP administration from 1952 to 1988, was a coalition of liberal Republicans (the Rockefeller-Kissinger wing of the party) and conservatives (e.g. Nixon). It is the liberal Rockefeller / Kissinger faction that has been the dominant group in elite GOP politics from the early 1950s until the present.
Nixon, Reagan, and Goldwater were in the same faction: conservative cold Warriors who supported containment.
Eisenhower, Ford, and Bush I were members of the liberal faction.
It would be more accurate to say that the liberals allowed conservatives like Nixon and Reagan a seat at the table than the other way around.
“Nixon and his coalition were able to put themselves on the national ticket in 1952, which displaced earlier liberal Republicans.”
Nixon was not “dominant” from 1952-60, Ike was.
“Nixon and his personal friend Gerald Ford were in office in 1969-1975.”
But Ford was not a conservative like Nixon, and Ford in any case was the Emperor to Kissinger’s Shogun. Calling it the “Nixon-Ford” era obscures the fundamental policy changes after Watergate (liberal Republicans in power, conservatives out), which was a silent coup by the Kissingerites against Nixon.
“Reagan – who had a different base than Nixon – had to accommodate another Nixon appointee – GHW Bush – as VP in 1980.”
Reagan had the SAME base as Nixon – conservative Cold Warriors based in the South and West.
“Bush (a Nixon appointee) was president from 1989-93 and brought in more Nixon/Ford appointees (e.g., Cheney) to run things.”
Bush and all the people he appointed were Kissingerite liberals, not conservatives like Nixon.
“Bush II’s campaign was run by a mix new folks (Rove, Hughes) and assisted by more old Nixonites (James Baker).”
Again these people were all from the Kissingerite liberal faction for all that they served in the Nixon administration.
“Bush II’s administration, until about 2006 or so, was lead by Nixon and Ford appointees (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell).”
Yet more Kissingerite Republicans.
Now, if you wanted to argue that the Kissingerites had been the dominant faction in the GOP since 1973, you’d really have a coherent, correct post.
“the consistent theme, going back to the late 40s, is that the Nixon wing has been, almost without major exception, in favor of international interventionism”
The actual consistent theme is that the Nixon wing (i.e. the conservatives) favored containment of the USSR while the Kissingerites favored detente with the USSR and later, China. Yes, detente started under Nixon – but only to give him some breathing room to restructure containment. The Kissingerites hijacked detente for completely different purposes (to destroy containment).
June 4, 2009 at 8:39 pm
I did not use the word “Nixonite” anywhere in my post. I think you should have left your comment at orgtheory.
I’m not willing to concede that Nixon was part of the conservative wing of the party. He declared “We are all Keynesians now” put the final nail in the gold standard’s coffin. He created the EPA and OSHA. He introduced price controls. He supported affirmative action. He endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment. He signed Title IX and the EEOC. Even McGovern attacked for for having so many people on welfare and the increase in costs under his tenure. Finally, to use the “litmus test” of today, he was pro-choice.
You want to use the term “Kissingerite” as if there is some huge distinction between that and “Nixonite”, but Nixon engaged in all the things you want to pin on Nixon. Could you discuss a little how the White House behaved differently before and after the “silent coup”?
Do you consider Cheney & Rumsfeld to be liberal “Kissingerites” on foreign policy, unlike the “conservatives” Nixon & Bush II?
June 4, 2009 at 9:41 pm
I did leave my comment there – but I wanted you to see it, too! Just sharing the love.
What you have to understand is that even though Nixon was a member of the conservative wing of the party, that does not mean that every policy he enacts will be conservative. Since he was in a coalition with the liberal wing of the party, some (or even many) liberal policies will necessarily be enacted.
There were large differences between Nixon and Kissinger (though the Kissingerites have done their best to obscure the policy disputes). The best treatment is Thornton’s Nixon-Kissinger Years (http://www.amazon.com/Nixon-Kissinger-Years-Reshaping-American-Foreign/dp/0887020682).
Yes, Cheney and Rumsfeld are of course Kissingerites. I don’t regard Bush II as a conservative, either. His policy was classic Kissinger, which is no surprise since Bush II regularly consulted Kissinger and all Bush II’s important subordinates were Kissingerites.
June 4, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Alright. It would be helpful if you stated something like “I posted the following to the orgtheory post”.
It would be understandable if some of a conservative president’s policies were liberal. It is odd when so many are. Among Republican presidents, Nixon stands out as one of the most liberal. It is also understandable that a President may have disagreements some of their appointees on, say, foreign policy. In the case of Bush II vs Powell, it was the latter who was overridden and pushed out (the same thing happened with his Treasury secretary). I think the reason Kissinger was more successful than either of them was that Nixon supported him.
I’m going to see if I can find Nixon’s DW-NOMINATE scores for when he was a representative and, later, senator. There’s an excel file here that gives him a score as Vice President of 0.171 every year. In comparison, during his vice presidency house speaker Joseph W Martin Jr gets 0.168, while senate majority leaders Robert Taft and William F. Knowland get 0.325 and 0.299, respectively. As Vice President, Gerald Ford got 0.272, while he got 0.271 as house minority leader. George Bush Sr. got 0.235 as vice president. Nelson Rockefeller’s score as vice president is unfortunately blank. Just so you know, democrats have negative scores and a score closer to 0 would indicate non-partisanship.
June 4, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Blast that link.
http://www.amazon.com/Nixon-Kissinger-Years-Reshaping-American-Foreign/dp/0887020682
June 5, 2009 at 8:23 am
It would be helpful if you stated something like “I posted the following to the orgtheory post”.
Yeah, sorry, I thought saying “I said” at the top of my post made that clear.
In the case of Bush II vs Powell, it was the latter who was overridden and pushed out
If Kissingerite liberal Powell “disagrees” with Kissingerite liberal Rumsfeld and is replaced by Kissingerite liberal Rice, can we really say that the “disagreements” were over fundamental issues and that the personnel change reflected a policy change? I see no change in policy from Powell to Rice. I don’t think Powell was forced out, I think he left because he was tired of the job.
Shouldn’t really surprise you that liberalism increases over time regardless of who is President.
June 5, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Hmm, guess I missed or misunderstood the intro.
I think Bush & Cheney were more important in getting rid of Powell & O’Neill. Rumsfeld himself was ousted when they got tired of him. Bush was clearly sympatico with Rice, and so she was promoted from NSC to Sec State. Same deal with Kissinger. I wouldn’t distinguish between “Bushite” and “Riceite”, because I don’t see any huge gap between them.
June 5, 2009 at 12:22 pm
[…] Nixon’s Revenge by TGGP […]