Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Crusade of the Democratic Globalists, Neocon Democracy

Print Friendly

Note from Editor: Right Web News depends solely on individuals’ contributions and subscribers. For fear of coming under administration scrutiny or attack by the powerful right web itself, liberal and centrist foundations decline to fund the IRC’s Right Web program, despite complaining that most of the funding priorities -from arms control to sustainable development­-are being undermined by the right’s phalanx of institutes, constituency groups, think tanks, and government operatives. To produce an average profile costs about $250 in research, writing, and production time. That’s ten Right Web subscribers at $25 a year, or one donor who can afford $250. Lately, we have been besieged with requests to have profiles done on this or that right web figure or organization. We’d like to oblige, but profiles don’t grow on trees. For those who haven’t become IRC members or subscribers, please consider doing so today—by clicking http://www.irc-online.org/donate.php for secure donations, including Pay Pal. Thank you.

This Week on the Right

The Neoconservatives and Political Aid: The New Crusade of the Democratic Globalists

By Tom Barry

(Editor’s Note: Excerpted from new Right Web analysis, available in full online at: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/2005/0508crusade.php)

One of the major achievements of the neoconservatives over the past two decades has been to integrate the missionary impulses of liberal internationalism with right-wing interventionism. Not only have the democratic globalists succeeded in setting the ideological foundations of a new U.S. foreign policy, they have also played a central role in directing that policy.

Hard-liners they certainly are, but neoconservatives like Elliott Abrams—who directs the Bush administration’s Global Democracy Initiative—come armed with an internationalism that preaches values and mission, as well as military might. Their foreign policy is neo-Reaganite. Like Reagan’s policy agenda, which he said was based on “moral clarity” and “peace through strength,” the Bush agenda has sought to merge idealism and militarism.

Nowhere else is the “soft side” of the U.S. government’s global vision so clearly on display as at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Not even in the Pentagon are the delusions about American might and right so shamelessly exhibited.

Celebrating the 20th anniversary of the birth of NED, President Bush in a November 2003 speech delivered at NED headquarters reaffirmed the U.S. government’s role as international provocateur in a “global democratic revolution.” Aside from those attending the speech at the NED offices and the neoconservatives who coined the term “global democratic revolution,” the speech was largely ignored. But for those listening, it was the sound of the second shoe dropping.

The entire world had already heard the loud and clear message of the Bush administration’s embrace of a new militarism in international affairs after September 11. At a June 2002 speech at West Point, President Bush spelled out the defining principle of a new national security strategy: a commitment to preventive war and the use of U.S. military supremacy to order the globe.

Neoconservative military strategists such as Paul Wolfowitz had long argued—most explicitly in the draft Defense Policy Guidance that he coauthored with I. Lewis Libby in 1992—that the post-Cold War order should be shaped by the exercise of overwhelming U.S. military power. Other neoconservatives, especially those operating out of the American Enterprise Institute, shared the Wolfowitz vision. However, they argued that the unapologetic use of U.S. military superiority should be accompanied by social engineering strategies that would politically restructure key parts of the globe. Among the more prominent “democratic globalists” is Carl Gershman, the neoconservative who has presided over the NED since 1984.

But just as the Reagan foreign policy had a soft side in its promotion of “free-market democracies” through new political aid programs funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Information Agency (USIA), the George W. Bush administration coupled its aggressive military policies with a renewed but very selective commitment to democracy building. [Read entire article]

Featured Profiles

Democracy for Whom, by Whom, of Whom?
The NED, created by Ronald Reagan the in the early 1980s, has made an art of using “democracy” as a weapon at the service of U.S. interests.
Right Web Profile NationalEndowment for Democracy

The Neo-Right Trajectory
At one time a leading member of the Socialist Party-USA, Carl Gershman hasspent the last 30 years as head of the NED.
Right Web Profile Carl Gershman

Freedom’s Just Another Word …
Created by Eleanor Roosevelt in 1941, Freedom House today epitomizes theselective approach to human rights that is a hallmark of neoconservatism.
Right Web Profile Freedom House

Venezuela, Haiti … What’s Next?
The International Republican Institute, a key conduit of NED funds to U.S.-friendly “democrats” acrossthe globe, has been in the middle of a series of recent coups in America’sbackyard.
Right Web Profile InternationalRepublican Institute

Letters From Our Readers

(Editors Note: We encourage feedback and comments, which can be sent for publication through our feedback page, at: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/form_feedback.html. We reserve the right to edit comments for clarity and brevity. Be sure to include your full name. Thank you.)

Re: Whose Side Are You On

Tom Barry essentially classifies all those in favor of immigration restrictions as being on the right. This is wrong. Many people concerned with population control in the United States are concerned with maintaining a healthy natural environment and do not consider themselves as rightists. Barry underplays this significant group, which also includes a number of leftists. The difficult question is whether we should have totally open borders, and if not, how to control those borders as well as legal immigration. Those are thorny questions, not helped by ignoring or downplaying the difficulties. That people sympathetic to immigrants’ problems necessarily have to be for unrestricted immigration is a PC position, one too common in the discussion.

– Morton K. Brussel

Re: John R. Bolton, UN Ambassador-designate

I enjoyed your article on John Bolton, despite its negative slant. Bolton is obviously the best man for the UN job. We, the public, like plain-speaking criticism of the UN and most Americans consider the organization a wasteful, useless entity which exists just to embarrass and shackle the United States. If we won’t dump the UN, then let Bolton try to reform it from the inside. Time for a wake up call.

– Mike Bowens

If you would like to see our variety of free ezines and listservs, please go to: http://www.irc-online.org/lists/.
To be removed from this list, please email rightweb@irc-online.org with “unsubscribe Right Web.”

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Established in Baltimore in 1897, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) is the oldest Zionist organization in the United States—and also among the most aggressively anti-Arab ones.


U.S. Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Mike Pompeo (R-KS) is a conservative Republican congressman who was voted into office as part of the “tea party” surge in 2011 and chosen by Donald Trump to be director of the CIA.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a 2016 Republican presidential candidate.


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


Billionaire investor Paul Singer is the founder and CEO of the Elliott Management Corporation and an important funder of neoconservative causes.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

President Trump and his Iranophobe supporters are itching for a war with Iran, without any consideration of the disastrous consequences that will ensue.


Print Friendly

The war of words and nuclear threats between the United States and North Korea make a peaceful resolution to the escalating crisis more difficult than ever to achieve.


Print Friendly

The new White House chief of staff, retired Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, is anything but non-partisan or apolitical. For the deeply conservative Kelly, the United States is endangered not only by foreign enemies but by domestic forces that either purposely, or unwittingly, support them.


Print Friendly

The prospects of Benjamin Netanyahu continuing as Israel’s prime minister are growing dim. But for those of us outside of Israel who support the rights of Palestinians as well as Israelis and wish for all of those in the troubled region to enjoy equal rights, the fall of Netanyahu comes too late to make much difference.


Print Friendly

Rich Higgins, the recently fired director for strategic planning at the National Security Council, once said in an interview on Sean Hannity’s radio program, that “more Muslim Americans have been killed fighting for ISIS than have been killed fighting for the United States since 9/11.”


Print Friendly

This is how the Trump administration could try to use the IAEA to spur Iran to back out of the JCPOA.


Print Friendly

President Trump seems determined to go forward with a very hostile program toward Iran, and, although a baseless US pullout from the JCPOA seems unlikely, even the so-called “adults” are pushing for a pretext for a pullout. Such an act does not seem likely to attract European support. Instead, it will leave the United States isolated, break the nuclear arrangement and provide a very reasonable basis for Iran to restart the pursuit of a nuclear deterrent in earnest.


RightWeb
share