The difference between the Obamians and the neocons? Fifty years of American hegemony

We all remember the neocon hubris embodied in their Project for the New American Century. It turns out that the Obamians nurture a similar and only slightly more modest ambition: American world domination for just another fifty years.

James Mann writes:

Over his years in office, Obama has evolved and now is running for reelection as something of a Hard Power Democrat, highlighting his prowess in the use of force. Still, generational differences persist between the Obamians and the Clinton alums. For example, Bill Clinton and his secretary of state Madeleine Albright spoke of America as the “indispensable nation.” As secretary of state under Obama, Hillary Clinton has offered similar themes. “The United States can, must and will lead in this new century,” she said in a 2010 speech.

But when Obama’s younger aides talk about America’s role in the world, there is a subtle recognition that its post-World War II dominance may not last forever. “We’re not trying to preside over America’s decline,” deputy national security adviser and Obama speechwriter Ben Rhodes observed in an interview. “What we’re trying to do is to get America another 50 years as leader.”

In the language of Washington centrist politics, 50 more years of global domination is supposed to signal moderation.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2 thoughts on “The difference between the Obamians and the neocons? Fifty years of American hegemony

  1. delia ruhe

    A dying empire struggling to grab 50 more years as top dog . . . I can’t think of anything more dangerous.

  2. DE Teodoru

    It is hard to imagine that the last term under the yoke of the Clintonistas has formed any Obama global outlook. Recall please his original anointment by the Kennedy crew to be a Teddy-standin president. With Teddy’s disability and death, Obama PERSONALLY pleaded with the Clintons to give him guidance, thus becoming a Bill Clinton surrogate instead. As Bill was by then already playing international corpoRATism, he had Hillary as his toolbox at DoS, Paneta at CIA and, in Clinton style, a Republican to feign bipartisanship at DoD. That last item was really for continuity of blame for 8 years of Bush-it neoconisms, deliberately done by the White House Clintonistas a la Bill Clinton. Truth is that Vietnam and Afghanistan are only comparable in demonstrating continuity of big bang mentality in our general staffs. Vietnam was a war of two worlds that Nixon ended in such a way as to permanently split the Communist Bloc. No Dem would have dared try that trick as did TRICKY Dick, violating the Dem rule: NO DEAL WITH CHINA and taking a Democrat as executor of this policy, Kissinger, whose first act was to screw Harriman at Paris, even before Nixon got to the White House.

    In Afghanistan– after 9/11 for Pres. Bush-it only a total cover-up for war with Iraq– Obama wanted to balance his sealing of Iraq into a failure but without seeming that Dems are soft by a doubling-down surge that failed. The neocons– Old line Lefties totally Zionism’s gang in Wash DC as a profession (just as they were in CIA employ as anti-Communists when I knew them well) were without any prior Likudnik background in the Cold War days. They went to neocon-ism (anti-Red–>Zionist Right) for the same reason as Dellinger went to the banks: BECAUSE THAT’S WHERE THE MONEY IS!

    Bill’s chicks in foreign affairs (Madelaine, Hillary and Susan) are rather weak on substance, leaving policy to be made by the guys at NSC and DoD. There, you won’t find anyone with experience in the Vietnam days when the Sino-Soviet Split and Mao’s “one, two, three….many revolutions” strategy were real worries. Obama’s Afghanistan was all a Petraeus blackmail that exposed the weakness of both the Zionists and the foreign-policists and intel-ist pros in Wash DC. Basically, the military would do anything short of a coup– so far– for more money for more toys and men. That drove us to our current use of alternate means (drones) as co-means to forestall defeat in Afghnaistan before this election. If there were a Nobel Prize for mindless incompetence in world affairs Obama&Co. would surely win it. All they did so far was to hold on. With Petraues sealed in the vault at CIA, the drones are a desperate exit strategy. Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus, but there ain’t no Obama foreign policy. Obama devotes only one bucket to put out foreign fires and, where he can, just leaves them to simmer. The smell of Bill Clinton global incompetence is very noticeable when you get close to Obama. Never-served Obama and Clinton both feared being called pussies by big hefty GI-Joe type generals. But, as the second term unfolds, we’ll see a closing of that venue as Obama’s way of making Hillary as the next president impossible. For he surely prefers a return to “Dems are pussies on global threats” so that he can meanwhile regain the Middle Class economically. Islamic Radicals are a drain on assets with no return. Since 9/11, we’ll find, the cost (relative to needs in other areas) will prove to have been far greater than Vietnam. While the whole world devotes itself to economic recovery, Obama II will be devoted to trying to deal with the world on the cheap so as to reinvest in America. In that sense, abandoning Bill Clinton, Obama will be the Democrat Reagan that he warned us in 2008 he could very comfortably become. The deficit will grow tremendously getting jobs at home instead of killing Muslims. He will leave office as the President who crawled back up to zero before retirement from office.

Comments are closed.