Right Web

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

Crusade of the Democratic Globalists, Neocon Democracy

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: /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: /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

Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


Falsely demonizing all Muslims, their beliefs, and their institutions is exactly the wrong way to make Americans safer, because the more we scare ourselves with imaginary enemies, the harder it will be to find and protect ourselves from real ones.


Division in the ranks of the conservative movement is a critical sign that a war with Iran isn’t inevitable.


Donald Trump stole the headlines, but the declaration from the recent NATO summit suggests the odds of an unnecessary conflict are rising. Instead of inviting a dialogue, the document boasts that the Alliance has “suspended all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.” The fact is, NATO was a child of the Cold War, when the West believed that the Soviets were a threat. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and there’s no way Moscow would be stupid enough to attack a superior military force.


War with Iran may not be imminent, but neither was war with Iraq in late 2001.


Donald Trump was one of the many bets the Russians routinely place, recognizing that while most such bets will never pay off a few will, often in unpredictable ways. Trump’s actions since taking office provide the strongest evidence that this one bet is paying off handsomely for the Russians. Putin could hardly have made the script for Trump’s conduct at the recent NATO meeting any more to his liking—and any better designed to foment division and distrust within the Western alliance—than the way Trump actually behaved.


RightWeb
share