eternal returnAmerican Conservative magazine has endorsed John Kerry.
Don't get excited: American Conservative is nutty as a Snickers bar. They tend toward exposes on how black people are all on welfare and the dirty Mexicans are invading the formerly all-white state of California. On foreign policy, they're strictly a "seal the borders and let the world go to hell" crew, firmly determined to keep American purity uncontaminated by inappropriately degrading interactions with lesser peoples. This spring, they ran a story arguing that it was entirely reasonable for the government to have thrown tens of thousands of Japanese-American citizens into camps during WWII. They have, in other words, a bug up their unmentionable on the topic of race. And they have a view of foreign policy that is, viewed historically, genuinely conservative.
So what does that make George W. Bush's foreign policy?
What's amazingly bizarre about this Bush-vs-conservatives debate is that it's very much -- and I mean very much -- a nineteenth century debate over empire. Conservative isolationism has always been the answer to a kind of global salvationist agenda, a.k.a. the "white man's burden." Whatever you think about Bush, you can't deny him this: he's
one of the most enlightened 19th-century policymakers we've ever seen.
The nation is once again split over the War of 1898. I ask you: is this "conservative" foreign policy, or is this?