New Republic Endorses Kerry

I wanted to say a few words about The New Republic's long overdue but not unexpected endorsement of John Kerry for President.

The terms in which the endorsement is expressed seem to me to be part of the movement of non-Administration-linked neoconservatives (back) towards the Democratic Party (where they belong). The editorial acknowledges that the Bush Administration's ideological rhetoric after 9/11 aligned neatly with The New Republic's position. The editors' problem with Bush, and the reason why they feel he must go, is that the Bush team has been unsuccessful in realising the goals and aims that they expressed, and they do not seem to be prepared to adapt, change or admit error:

The ideology that guides this president's war on terrorism is more appealing than the corporate cronyism that guides his domestic policy. But it has been pursued with the same sectarian, thuggish, and ultimately self-defeating spirit. You cannot lead the world without listening to it. You cannot make the Middle East more democratic while making it more anti-American. You cannot make the United States more secure while using security as a partisan weapon. And you cannot demand accountable government abroad while undermining it at home.

And so a president who promised to make America safer by making the Muslim world more free has failed on both counts. This magazine has had its differences with John Kerry during his career and during this campaign. But he would be a far better president than George W. Bush.

TNR then explains how Kerry's domestic policy is better than Bush's.

Back on the issue of foreign policy, TNR points out that despite his comments about the importance of multilateralism and the United Nations, Kerry also seems to realise the importance of acting outside the UN, especially when it comes to dealing with intra-state conflict and crisis:

Kerry's apparent willingness to act within states is particularly important because the U.N.'s obsession with sovereignty renders it impotent in such circumstances. His support for the Kosovo war, waged without U.N. approval, is encouraging in this regard, as is his openness to using U.S. troops--presumably without the Security Council's blessing--in Darfur, Sudan. These encouraging signs counterbalance his worrying tendency to describe multilateralism--and U.N. support--as an end in itself rather than instrument of American power. If elected, this tension will likely be a theme of his presidency, as it was of Clinton's.

It should be remembered that during the mid-nineties, a faction of the neoconservatives were strongly supportive of, and therefore highly critical of the Republican Party's stand against, the Clinton Administration's decision to intervene in Kosovo, even without UN approval.

It should also be noted that the neoconservative "movement" (or whatever is the appropriate term for so loose a collection of individuals) is factionalising more noticeably in the last few months, as evidenced by the debate on the ideology of neoconservatism in the last two issues of the National Interest between Francis Fukuyama and Charles Krauthammer.

Given these recent events, and given a Kerry victory, we will see a group of neoconservatives begin to define themselves more closely with the hawkish wing of the Democratic Party (e.g. Senator Joseph Biden and Senator Joseph Lieberman) and identify themselves more as liberal hawks.