Hawks Are in Liberal Flutter, but for Once, Clinton Is Right

The U.S. military action against Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic’s atrocities in Kosovo has brought about sad revelations regarding American politics. During the Cold War, it was a common belief that conservative philosophy would not hesitate to use military intervention for the liberty of others who were fighting totalitarians. Further, a common belief was that liberal philosophy held high the George McGovern slogan of “Come Home America,” meaning that our military should be home-based. A revelation that has become crystal clear, particularly in the past few days, is that many conservatives and many liberals were not what we thought they were.

Just listen to them regarding U.S. military intervention in the Balkans. To oppose such intervention, many conservatives are using the old arguments of veteran liberals, while many liberals are using the old arguments of veteran conservatives.

What happened?

I think I get it. Years back, to some conservatives and liberals, it wasn’t about all totalitarians. It was about selective totalitarians.

If I’m right on this, it would regrettably mean that some conservatives were tough only against one particular foreign brutality, and it would regrettably mean that some liberals had a soft spot for that brutality.

Another revelation is that both conservatives and liberals still aren’t used to having a Democrat president and a Republican Congress. We simply don’t know how to handle it. As an old-school conservative who remains a hawk, I find myself arguing with my old political allies. Some say, Clinton shouldn’t be doing this in Yugoslavia; it’s a civil war over there and he’s establishing a precedent of intervening in a sovereign state.

But wasn’t Grenada a sovereign state when we invaded? Wasn’t Panama a sovereign state when we grabbed and imprisoned its strongman? Wasn’t Libya a sovereign state when we bombed Tripoli and Benghazi? And didn’t conservatives argue against liberals who said Vietnam was none of our business because it was just a civil war? And what will the new U-turn of conservatism and the new U-turn of liberalism advocate when the People’s Republic of China makes another aggressive move to intimidate Taiwan? After all, Beijing says that Taiwan is a renegade province. Will there be conservatives who will be as understanding of Jiang Zemin’s “internal affairs” they are of Milosevic’s “sovereignty”? Will there be liberals who say it’s time to intervene?

Come on; be honest. If President Reagan rather than President Clinton had intervened in Yugoslavia to attempt to stop the horror of Milosevic, would conservatives be critical of Reagan and would liberals be praising him?

I believe that conservatives should stick to the philosophy that was so moral and so successful that it brought about the end of the Cold War. Moreover, conservatives should welcome liberals into our ranks as they are caught with a president that makes them support what they would never have otherwise supported.

I mistrust Clinton so much that I believe he is doing the right thing by mistake. If conservatives would dismiss the idea that he is Clinton, we could move the nation into what we always wanted: a nation that supports liberty throughout the world.

Let’s hear no more about this phony and undefined national interest stuff. If attempting to stop genocide is not in our national interest, then what kind of philosophy have we not adopted?

A nation is like a person. If you saw a woman and her child being assaulted, would you just walk on by? I think not, even though your intervention would be a risk to your own well-being. I ask conservatives not to walk on by. You never have. Don’t start now--or ever.