I'm surprised at the apparent idealism of these neocons.

First off, I so unused to this idea. I'm pretty much indoctrinated to the idea that liberals are the idealists. It's to the point that the complement also seems true, that is, that all idealists are liberals. You know, Hernry the K, realpolitiks, and all that jazz. So its odd to think that these guys might be idealists.

If so, then what is it that they're so idealistic about and I don't mean the talking points and the sloganeering. What I'm curious about is how their idealism feel to them. When the dust of the status quo settles in their dreams, how do they feel? My idealism as a certain pastoral calm to it. Does theirs?

That's one of the things I'm trying to wrap my gut around. Another is this: would I support a war, and if so, under what circumstances?

I grew up in a time when the myth of the Underdog still had strong resonance in a young heart. America, above all else, supported the scrappy, energetic, bull-headed yet lovable Underdog. Be it the rough-and-tumble world of John Wayne or the picket-fences of Jimmy Stewart and Frank Capra, America was about the Underdog. And that was worth fighting for.

My good friend Alex recently wrote a thoughtful column about this. His main point is that in our fathers' generation, our leaders (for the most part) expected their sons not only to enlist, but to get into the very thick of the action. It was about a set of notions that had a noble ring; notions that don't resonate that way these days. [I'd link to it, but the Globe won't allow it. Seems Alex is the one who suffers.]

The challenge it to articulate a view that has a coherence and is not just a patchwork of reactions to their agendas and pronouncements. A good place to start is to understand how the New World Domination Order fits in with the spirit of the Underdog.

A third Hollywood myth that has been part of the fabrication of this new world order is Gary Cooper in High Noon, referred to by some neocons as the proper reference for the action in Iraq. America is the principled sheriff standing firm for the good against the waffling calculations of the shopkeepers. We stood up to the UN, the EU, Russia, and China and did the right thing by getting rid of an odious dictator.

The problem with all these myths is that the conditions don't apply. In both the John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart flicks, the hero typically stands up to protect the Underdog against the sinister establishment. The hero is either an outsider who becomes involved or is a member of the group that the Underdog belongs to. In both cases, the hero wrests power from the elite through exercise of moral authority. In High Noon, the Gary Cooper stands up to Evil in spite of the wishes of the elite. But he also does this, perhaps most importantly, so that he can live peacably in his new life away from Hadleyville.

The reason why these myths no longer are referential is because America is no longer an underdog power in the world. In terms of military technology, there is no other. We are now the elite, the establishment. We no longer can stand up to anybody, because there is no one there. Russia is down. China is down. We stand alone.

In this reality, we need to find new myths that will provide proper guidance. This new myth needs to address that we are now the elite that our old heroes fought against and describe how to use our power wisely for the whole earth. Further, this new myth has to acknowledge that there are no longer any frontiers left, that there are no longer any unknown civilizations to surprise us, that there is no wilderness left to act as a pressure release zone. The myth needs to address directly the existence of other codes and belief systems and, finally, it needs to energize our own beliefs so that direct engagement, i.e. military service, is once again seen as an honorable civic duty.

Their way has been to play the bully. Have sufficient faith in the righteousness of their action to be willing to act unilaterally. Focus on the problem at hand and let the pieces fall where they may because who can predict such volatility which is the result of real status quo change. The cultural/religious differences and the agendas of the humanitarian organizations are part of the existing status quo that needs changing. Use plausible justifications for action and gamble on winning the moral high ground.

My way was to not play the bully. Recognize the overwhelming power differential and take the time to push together a real coalition. Deal with the substantive economic issues, such as existing contracts, up front. Acknowledge the the cultural/religious differences and allow accomodation for other agendas. Reach out to the humanitarian organizations. Take the moral high ground. Don't use justifications for action that can be disproved. Address issues of equity at home.

From frontiersman to neo-con by Godfrey Hodgson; openDemocracy.net, 24 April 2003
Why the Security Council Failed by Michael J. Glennon; ForeignAffairs.org, May/June 2003