Right Web

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

National Interest

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

TheNational Interest is a U.S. foreign policy magazine. Founded in 1985 by Irving Kristol, the trailblazing neoconservative writer, the magazine has historically showcased both neoconservative and realist viewpoints on U.S. foreign policy, often fostering debates between the two perspectives. Although the magazine continues to publish authors from neoconservative, realist, and sometimes liberal or libertarian backgrounds, it has identified with a solidly realist editorial bent since its 2001 takeover by the Nixon Center, which rebranded itself in 2011 as the Center for the National Interest.

“Since its founding by the neoconservative thinker Irving Kristol,” summarized David Kirkpatrick in the New York Times, “TheNational Interest has been a central forum for the most influential conservative foreign policy thinkers of all stripes to hash out their differences. It launched ideas that entered the public policy vernacular, like ‘the end of history,’ ‘the West and the rest,’ and ‘geo-economics.’”[1]

A major theme in the National Interest's commentaries of recent years has been the alleged decline of U.S. power since the Iraq War and the global financial crisis, both of which eroded popular support in the United States for foreign interventions. "In a democracy, no president can sustain a costly and ambitious foreign policy without public support," wrote contributing editor Ian Bremmer in April 2014. “In America today, that support just isn’t there." Bremmer wrote that the erosion of popular support at home and damaged U.S. relationships with allies—especially "second-tier" allies like Brazil, Turkey, and Germany—made the success of U.S. foreign policy more contingent on the whims of regional powers elsewhere. He added that the United States had contributed to its own weakness by alienating its allies with its controversial foreign and security policies. "The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and drone strikes inside other countries have made it harder for foreign leaders to persuade voters they should still support U.S. policy," he wrote. "The U.S. National Security Agency has made matters worse."[2]

With growing support in the Republican Party for a more modest foreign policy of a kind championed by libertarian Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and other Republican critics of the neoconservative movement, the National Interest began focusing on efforts by hawkish commentators like William Kristol, Jennifer Rubin, and Bret Stephens to tarnish the Kentucky senator as an out-of-touch fringe figure. Although few of the magazine’s writers endorsed Paul outright, most held out hope that he might steer the GOP back toward a more realist foreign policy. "While it's too much to dub [Paul] an isolationist—the boo word of American foreign-policy debates—he clearly is enunciating stands that are at variance with the Bush-Cheney legacy," wrote National Interest editor Jacob Heilbrunn. Heilbrunn likened Paul's critics to Cold War-era neoconservatives who "were all full of talk of confrontation and readiness to resort to nuclear war," and who "embraced the rollback doctine, which never really ended up rolling back anything." Heilbrunn held out that Paul "could seek to revive a different tradition, the realist one exemplified by Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush."[3] Pointing to public opposition to U.S. intervention in Ukraine and Syria—two high-profile issues where neoconservatives battered Paul for his anti-interventionist stance—another contributor added, "The claim that Paul is so wildly out of the mainstream is more often asserted than proved."[4]

Francis Fukuyama, an erstwhile supporter of the neocons and a longtime National Interest advisory board member, spurred a bruising debate at the magazine when he published a harsh critique of neoconservative support for the Iraq War in 2004. He reserved special criticism for Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, a noted neoconservative and a fellow advisory board member, whose ideas Fukuyama argued had become "strangely disconnected from reality." After Krauthammer published a critique of Fukuyama's article in a following issue of the magazine, a long debate ensued in the letters section of the magazine about neoconservatism and the role of U.S. power. 

Around the same time, the National Interest featured a commentary by Robert Ellsworth and Dimitri K. Simes—"Realism's Shining Morality"—that amounted to an indictment of neoconservatism and a call for a more realist foreign policy: "The second Bush administration will have to deal with two fundamental dilemmas,” the authors wrote: “first, how to reconcile the war against terror with a commitment to make the world safe for democracy; and second, how to assure that unchallenged U.S. military supremacy is used to enhance America's ability to shape the world rather than provoke global opposition to the United States, making us more isolated and accordingly less secure."[5]

The debate eventually led to the departure of 10 of the magazine’s 14 advisory board members—including such notable hawks as Midge Decter and Samuel P. Huntington—who complained about the increasingly realist bent of the publication under the Nixon Center. Oddly enough, the defectors were led by Fukuyama, who wrote in a letter signed by all 10 departing members, “What we liked about the old National Interest was the variety of viewpoints that it published. We do not have confidence that this kind of editorial policy can long be retained by a magazine with a mandate to represent the interests of the Nixon Center." Despite his own recent broadside against the neoconservatives, Fukuyama told the New York Times, "In the wake of Iraq, I think there is going to be this fight over what a certain conservative foreign policy is, and I personally don't want to see the realists walking about with a lot of moral authority at this point."[6]

Along with former National Interest advisers Zbigniew Brzezinski, Eliot Cohen, and Josef Joffe, Fukuyama subsequently launched the American Interest to compete with his former journal. Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank described the spat as “a classic Washington brawl about ego and influence” that nonetheless exposed a growing rift between the Republican Party’s realist and neoconservative factions in the Bush administration. “President Ronald Reagan kept a relative truce between the two factions, as did Irving Kristol's National Interest among intellectuals,” Milbank wrote.  “But during this presidency, both cease-fires have ended.”[7]

Although the National Interest’s editorial bent is avowedly realist, the magazine continues to publish a variety of perspectives on foreign policy. Its leadership, while Republican-leaning, contains hints of ideological diversity as well. Its publisher and CEO is Dimitri K. Simes, a former Nixon adviser who was appointed by the former president to head the Nixon Center when it was founded in 1994. Its advisory board, which was headed by former Secretary of Defense and CIA director James R. Schlesinger until his death in 2014, includes a few notable foreign policy hawks—including Conrad Black, Zalmay Khalilzad, Ruth Wedgwood, and Dov Zakheim—as well as Republican internationalists like Brent Snowcroft and Leslie Gelb. But it also includes liberal internationalist Gary Hart and noted “Israel lobby” critic John Mearsheimer, along with Russian scholar Alexey Pushkov, Moroccan publisher Ahmed Charai, and a handful of others. Henry Kissinger, a hard-nosed realist responsible for many of the Nixon administration’s most controversial foreign policies, is the magazine’s honorary chairman.[8]

According to its website, the Center for the National Interest is “supported by foundation, corporate, and individual donors as well as by an endowment.”[9] It reported a little over $1 million in receipts in 2012, compared to over $8.7 million in 2011 and $1.6 million in 2010.[10]

Share RightWeb

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

Sources


[1] David Kirkpatrick, “Battle Splits Conservative Magazine,” New York Times, March 13, 2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/weekinreview/13kirk.html.



[2] Ian Bremmer, "The Tragic Decline of American Foreign Policy," National Interest, April 16, 2014, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-tragic-decline-american-foreign-policy-10256.



[3] Jacob Heilbrunn, "The Rand Paul Threat," National Interest, April 16, 2014, http://nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/the-rand-paul-threat-10273



[4] W. James Antle III, "GOP Hawks Gear Up for War on Rand Paul," National Interest, April 17, 2014, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/gop-hawks-gear-war-rand-paul-10265



[5] Robert F. Ellsworth and Dimitri K. Simes, “Realism’s Shining Morality,” The National Interest, December 1, 2004, http://nationalinterest.org/article/realisms-shining-morality-1213.



[6] David Kirkpatrick, “Battle Splits Conservative Magazine,” New York Times, March 13, 2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/weekinreview/13kirk.html.



[7] Dana Milbank, “No Lack of Interest in GOP Foreign Policy,” Washington Post, May 7, 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/06/AR2005050601448.html



[8] National Interest, “Masthead,” http://nationalinterest.org/masthead.



[9] Center for the National Interest, “About,” http://www.cftni.org/indexcc42.html?action=showpage&page=about.



[10] Guidestar.org, “Nonprofit Report for the Center for the National Interest,” http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/26-2117013/center-national-interest.aspx.


Share RightWeb

National Interest Résumé


Contact Information



www.nationalinterest.org





Founded



1985





Mission Statement



“The National Interest seeks to provide a space for vigorous debate and exchange not only among Americans but between U.S. and overseas interlocutors. This is the new home for informed analysis and frank but reasoned exchanges on foreign policy and international affairs.”





Masthead (as of 2014)

  • Maurice R. Greenberg (Chairman)

  • Henry A. Kissinger (Honorary Chairman)

  • Jacob Heilbrunn (Editor)

  • Harry J. Kazianis (Managing Editor)

  • Dimitri K. Simes (Publisher and CEO)




Advisory Council (as of 2014)

  • Morton Abramowitz

  • Graham Allison

  • Conrad Black

  • Ahmed Charai

  • Leslie H. Gelb

  • Evan G. Greenberg

  • Gary Hart

  • Zalmay Khalilzad

  • Kishore Mahbubani

  • John J. Mearsheimer

  • Richard Plepler

  • Alexey Pushkov

  • Brent Scowcroft

  • Ruth Wedgwood

  • J. Robinson West

  • Dov S. Zakheim 

Related:

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share