В 1996 Каган в соавторстве с Биллом Кристалом написал нашумевшую статью “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy”, в которой проповедовалась роль США, как «доброжелательного гегемона».
Conservatives will not be able to govern America over the long term if they fail to offer a more elevated vision of America's international role. What should that role be? Benevolent global hegemony. Having defeated the "evil empire," the United States enjoys strategic and ideological predominance. The first objective of U.S. foreign policy should be to preserve and enhance that predominance by strengthening America's security, supporting its friends, advancing its interests, and standing up for its principles around the world. The aspiration to benevolent hegemony might strike some as either hubristic or morally suspect. But a hegemon is nothing more or less than a leader with preponderant influence and authority over all others in its domain. That is America's position in the world today. The leaders of Russia and China understand this. At their April summit meeting, Boris Yeltsin and Jiang Zemin joined in denouncing "hegemonism" in the post-Cold War world. They meant this as a complaint about the United States. It should be taken as a compliment and a guide to action. <...> The United States achieved its present position of strength not by practicing a foreign policy of live and let live, nor by passively waiting for threats to arise, but by actively promoting American principles of governance abroad -- democracy, free markets, respect for liberty. During the Reagan years, the United States pressed for changes in right-wing and left-wing dictatorships alike, among both friends and foes -- in the Philippines, South Korea, Eastern Europe and even the Soviet Union. The purpose was not Wilsonian idealistic whimsy. The policy of putting pressure on authoritarian and totalitarian regimes had practical aims and, in the end, delivered strategic benefits. Support for American principles around the world can be sustained only by the continuing exertion of American influence. Some of that influence comes from the aid provided to friendly regimes that are trying to carry out democratic and free market reforms. However strong the case for reform of foreign aid programs, such programs deserve to be maintained as a useful way of exerting American influence abroad. And sometimes that means not just supporting U.S. friends and gently pressuring other nations but actively pursuing policies in Iran, Cuba, or China, for instance -- ultimately intended to bring about a change of regime. In any case, the United States should not blindly "do business" with every nation, no matter its regime. Armand Hammerism should not be a tenet of conservative foreign policy. https://carnegieendowment.org/1996/07/01/toward-neo-reaganite-foreign-policy-pub-276
Написанная в разгар избирательной кампании, статья неявно обращалась к Бобу Доулу и подсказывала, каким образом он мог бы подобно Рейгану в 1980 сделать Клинтона президентом одного срока. Но Доул не оправдал ожиданий.
Mr. Dole sounds more like Jimmy Carter than Ronald Reagan. Back then, the Democrats believed they could paint Mr. Reagan as a trigger-happy cowboy who couldn't be trusted to keep America out of war. Their strategy failed when the American people decided they needed a President willing to lead the world. The parties have now reversed roles. In last week's debates, Mr. Dole accused President Clinton of haphazardly deploying troops abroad. Mr. Dole expressed concern about lost jobs in California because of cuts in military spending, but neither he nor Mr. Kemp made the case for ballistic missile defense. Neither man challenged the Administration for reacting too meekly to Saddam Hussein's attack on the Kurds. Instead, Mr. Kemp called the bombing of Iraq ''precipitous'' and said the President should have tried ''diplomacy first.'' When Mr. Dole chastised the President for inadequate consultation with the United Nations, he gave Mr. Clinton a golden chance to sound Reaganesque: ''Sometimes,'' Mr. Clinton declared, ''the United States has to act alone . . . we cannot let other countries have a veto on our foreign policy.'' https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/14/opinion/the-new-isolationist.html
Билл Кристол, как и Каган, происходил из семьи известных неоконов и пришёл в администрацию Рейгана в 1985 одновременно с Каганом - в качестве руководителя администрации министра образования Билла Беннетта.
BENNETT: You will remember this; you were helping me. It was said once of Bill Bennett, Secretary, and Chief of Staff Bill Kristol, “The problem with that place,” said a journalist, “is they have no brakes, it’s all accelerator, everybody’s just pressing on the accelerator.” And so I was saying some very critical things about education, about teachers’ unions, about performance, about tenure. And there was a move to get rid of me, and I got a lot of bad press. The President came into Cabinet meetings, carrying three folders, one of them said “Bennett.” And he opens up the folder - KRISTOL: So you’re all sitting around the Cabinet table, and the aides are at the back of the room. BENNETT: Right, and the President starts reading these headlines - Bennett must go, Bennett is the James Watt of the second terms. James Watt was the guy who created quite a fuss on a lot of fronts and ended up going. KRISTOL: So the President is reading these headlines while you’re sitting right there as the kind of relatively new Education Secretary. BENNETT: Right, and the chairs are drawing away. KRISTOL: The Secretary of State is right there and Secretary of Defense. BENNETT: George Shultz, Casper Weinberger. Chairs are pulling away. And I said, “Man, I have blown it.” You know. The President put the - closes it and said, “Well, that’s what Bill Bennett is doing to shake things up. What’s wrong with the rest of you?” Wow. Yeah, wow. You know, he put his arm, figuratively put his arm around me and said, “Stay at it.” So, boy, I stayed at it. https://conversationswithbillkristol.org/transcript/bill-bennett-transcript/
После определенной эволюции в 2016 Билл Кристол стал лидером невертрамперов.
The two men have emerged as rivals of almost cartoonish contrasts: Kristol, the courteous intellectual who loves opera and Greek philosophy; Trump, the confrontational populist who hosted The Apprentice. Kristol battled Trump in his magazine, on television and on his quirky Twitter account, emerging as generalissimo of the #NeverTrump movement as he called the mogul “loathsome,” “a con man” and “a charlatan and a demagogue” who is “soiling the robe of conservatism.” He then watched in horror as one GOP ally after another surrendered. With his hope fading that Republican leaders would reject Trump-and unwilling, he says, to vote for Hillary Clinton (“semi-corrupt,” “nanny-state liberalism”)-Kristol eventually tried to recruit a new candidate to join the race. But no one-not Mitt Romney, Senator Ben Sasse or retired Marine General Jim Mattis-wanted to be his kamikaze pilot. All of which has made Kristol less a daunting foe than a handy foil for Trump, an insider who was already famous for his many wrong political predictions, long before he incorrectly judged the Trump presidential candidacy dead on arrival. To Trump, Kristol is the rigged system he’s fighting against, the personification of an elite establishment overdue for a rude awakening. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/2016-bill-kristol-republicans-conservative-movement-donald-trump-politics-214025/
Каган и Кристол - в январе 2002 с призывом к войне в Ираке.
“Whether or not we remove Saddam Hussein from power will shape the contours of the emerging world order, perhaps for decades to come. Either it will be a world order conducive to our liberal democratic principles and our safety, or it will be one where brutal, well-armed tyrants are allowed to hold democracy and international security hostage. Not to take on Saddam would ensure that regimes implicated in terror and developing weapons of mass destruction will be a constant--and growing--feature of our world. <...> If we turn away from the Iraq challenge--because we fear the use of ground troops, because we don't want the job of putting Iraq back together afterwards, because we would prefer not to be deeply involved in a messy part of the world--then we will have made a momentous and fateful decision. We do not expect President Bush to make that choice. We expect the president will courageously decide to destroy Saddam's regime. No step would contribute more toward shaping a world order in which our people and our liberal civilization can survive and flourish.” https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/what-to-do-about-iraq-2064
Кристол в 2021 агитирует за усиление демократической партии за счёт бывших республиканцев.
- There is a pool of ex-Republican voters (and conceivably, office holders) available to the Democratic party. - Many current Democratic voters are open to including these future former Republicans in their coalition. - It would be good to move the relative strength of the two parties off the current knife’s edge, and for the Democrats to become the nation’s majority party as quickly and as decisively as possible. Can these three theses be acted on? Why not? Couldn’t this be a moment when entrepreneurs could bring supply, demand, and the moment together in the political marketplace to create an expanded pro-democracy, governing majority party. With entrepreneurship and leadership on all fronts-in politics and policy, among the public and among elites-this doesn’t seem an impossible task. https://thebulwark.com/towards-a-real-democratic-majority/?amp&__twitter_impression=true
Conservatives will not be able to govern America over the long term if they fail to offer a more elevated vision of America's international role.
What should that role be? Benevolent global hegemony. Having defeated the "evil empire," the United States enjoys strategic and ideological predominance. The first objective of U.S. foreign policy should be to preserve and enhance that predominance by strengthening America's security, supporting its friends, advancing its interests, and standing up for its principles around the world.
The aspiration to benevolent hegemony might strike some as either hubristic or morally suspect. But a hegemon is nothing more or less than a leader with preponderant influence and authority over all others in its domain. That is America's position in the world today. The leaders of Russia and China understand this. At their April summit meeting, Boris Yeltsin and Jiang Zemin joined in denouncing "hegemonism" in the post-Cold War world. They meant this as a complaint about the United States. It should be taken as a compliment and a guide to action. <...>
The United States achieved its present position of strength not by practicing a foreign policy of live and let live, nor by passively waiting for threats to arise, but by actively promoting American principles of governance abroad -- democracy, free markets, respect for liberty. During the Reagan years, the United States pressed for changes in right-wing and left-wing dictatorships alike, among both friends and foes -- in the Philippines, South Korea, Eastern Europe and even the Soviet Union. The purpose was not Wilsonian idealistic whimsy. The policy of putting pressure on authoritarian and totalitarian regimes had practical aims and, in the end, delivered strategic benefits. Support for American principles around the world can be sustained only by the continuing exertion of American influence. Some of that influence comes from the aid provided to friendly regimes that are trying to carry out democratic and free market reforms. However strong the case for reform of foreign aid programs, such programs deserve to be maintained as a useful way of exerting American influence abroad. And sometimes that means not just supporting U.S. friends and gently pressuring other nations but actively pursuing policies in Iran, Cuba, or China, for instance -- ultimately intended to bring about a change of regime. In any case, the United States should not blindly "do business" with every nation, no matter its regime. Armand Hammerism should not be a tenet of conservative foreign policy.
https://carnegieendowment.org/1996/07/01/toward-neo-reaganite-foreign-policy-pub-276
Написанная в разгар избирательной кампании, статья неявно обращалась к Бобу Доулу и подсказывала, каким образом он мог бы подобно Рейгану в 1980 сделать Клинтона президентом одного срока. Но Доул не оправдал ожиданий.
Mr. Dole sounds more like Jimmy Carter than Ronald Reagan. Back then, the Democrats believed they could paint Mr. Reagan as a trigger-happy cowboy who couldn't be trusted to keep America out of war. Their strategy failed when the American people decided they needed a President willing to lead the world.
The parties have now reversed roles. In last week's debates, Mr. Dole accused President Clinton of haphazardly deploying troops abroad. Mr. Dole expressed concern about lost jobs in California because of cuts in military spending, but neither he nor Mr. Kemp made the case for ballistic missile defense.
Neither man challenged the Administration for reacting too meekly to Saddam Hussein's attack on the Kurds. Instead, Mr. Kemp called the bombing of Iraq ''precipitous'' and said the President should have tried ''diplomacy first.'' When Mr. Dole chastised the President for inadequate consultation with the United Nations, he gave Mr. Clinton a golden chance to sound Reaganesque: ''Sometimes,'' Mr. Clinton declared, ''the United States has to act alone . . . we cannot let other countries have a veto on our foreign policy.''
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/14/opinion/the-new-isolationist.html
Reply
BENNETT: You will remember this; you were helping me. It was said once of Bill Bennett, Secretary, and Chief of Staff Bill Kristol, “The problem with that place,” said a journalist, “is they have no brakes, it’s all accelerator, everybody’s just pressing on the accelerator.” And so I was saying some very critical things about education, about teachers’ unions, about performance, about tenure. And there was a move to get rid of me, and I got a lot of bad press. The President came into Cabinet meetings, carrying three folders, one of them said “Bennett.” And he opens up the folder -
KRISTOL: So you’re all sitting around the Cabinet table, and the aides are at the back of the room.
BENNETT: Right, and the President starts reading these headlines - Bennett must go, Bennett is the James Watt of the second terms. James Watt was the guy who created quite a fuss on a lot of fronts and ended up going.
KRISTOL: So the President is reading these headlines while you’re sitting right there as the kind of relatively new Education Secretary.
BENNETT: Right, and the chairs are drawing away.
KRISTOL: The Secretary of State is right there and Secretary of Defense.
BENNETT: George Shultz, Casper Weinberger. Chairs are pulling away. And I said, “Man, I have blown it.” You know. The President put the - closes it and said, “Well, that’s what Bill Bennett is doing to shake things up. What’s wrong with the rest of you?” Wow. Yeah, wow. You know, he put his arm, figuratively put his arm around me and said, “Stay at it.” So, boy, I stayed at it.
https://conversationswithbillkristol.org/transcript/bill-bennett-transcript/
После определенной эволюции в 2016 Билл Кристол стал лидером невертрамперов.
The two men have emerged as rivals of almost cartoonish contrasts: Kristol, the courteous intellectual who loves opera and Greek philosophy; Trump, the confrontational populist who hosted The Apprentice. Kristol battled Trump in his magazine, on television and on his quirky Twitter account, emerging as generalissimo of the #NeverTrump movement as he called the mogul “loathsome,” “a con man” and “a charlatan and a demagogue” who is “soiling the robe of conservatism.” He then watched in horror as one GOP ally after another surrendered. With his hope fading that Republican leaders would reject Trump-and unwilling, he says, to vote for Hillary Clinton (“semi-corrupt,” “nanny-state liberalism”)-Kristol eventually tried to recruit a new candidate to join the race. But no one-not Mitt Romney, Senator Ben Sasse or retired Marine General Jim Mattis-wanted to be his kamikaze pilot.
All of which has made Kristol less a daunting foe than a handy foil for Trump, an insider who was already famous for his many wrong political predictions, long before he incorrectly judged the Trump presidential candidacy dead on arrival. To Trump, Kristol is the rigged system he’s fighting against, the personification of an elite establishment overdue for a rude awakening.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/2016-bill-kristol-republicans-conservative-movement-donald-trump-politics-214025/
Reply
“Whether or not we remove Saddam Hussein from power will shape the contours of the emerging world order, perhaps for decades to come. Either it will be a world order conducive to our liberal democratic principles and our safety, or it will be one where brutal, well-armed tyrants are allowed to hold democracy and international security hostage. Not to take on Saddam would ensure that regimes implicated in terror and developing weapons of mass destruction will be a constant--and growing--feature of our world. <...>
If we turn away from the Iraq challenge--because we fear the use of ground troops, because we don't want the job of putting Iraq back together afterwards, because we would prefer not to be deeply involved in a messy part of the world--then we will have made a momentous and fateful decision. We do not expect President Bush to make that choice. We expect the president will courageously decide to destroy Saddam's regime. No step would contribute more toward shaping a world order in which our people and our liberal civilization can survive and flourish.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/what-to-do-about-iraq-2064
Reply
- There is a pool of ex-Republican voters (and conceivably, office holders) available to the Democratic party.
- Many current Democratic voters are open to including these future former Republicans in their coalition.
- It would be good to move the relative strength of the two parties off the current knife’s edge, and for the Democrats to become the nation’s majority party as quickly and as decisively as possible.
Can these three theses be acted on?
Why not?
Couldn’t this be a moment when entrepreneurs could bring supply, demand, and the moment together in the political marketplace to create an expanded pro-democracy, governing majority party. With entrepreneurship and leadership on all fronts-in politics and policy, among the public and among elites-this doesn’t seem an impossible task.
https://thebulwark.com/towards-a-real-democratic-majority/?amp&__twitter_impression=true
Reply
Leave a comment