Permalink | Date posted: July 29, 2011
Generally defined by their foreign policy proclivities, neoconservatives’ ideas on economics rarely get discussed. However, as evidenced from a cursory glance at the debt ceiling coverage featured in Commentary, the Weekly Standard, or the American Enterprise Institute blog, neocons generally tend to lean to the right on matters of social spending and government debt. Nevertheless, they have a diverse range of opinion on the matter – Marc Thiessen of AEI and the Washington Post, for example, favors the Boehner plan, while William Kristol has heaped praise upon “Cut, Cap, and Balance.”
There is, however, a common thread. If Republicans like Rep. Paul Ryan or members of the Tea Party Caucus can be accused of leveraging tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans on the backs of the most vulnerable, for neoconservatives the ultimate budgetary goal is something else: unrestricted funding for the U.S. military and its sundry foreign adventures.
Jamie Fly, a former adviser to President George W. Bush and the executive director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, recently penned an op-ed in the National Review to this effect. “The American people,” he writes, will not reward Republicans “who are willing to sacrifice our national security rather than make tough political decisions about runaway domestic discretionary spending and entitlement programs.” He praises Speaker John Boehner’s debt ceiling proposal for “avoid[ing] significant defense cuts, making it the best option for conservatives concerned about U.S. national security.”
Perhaps more interesting is the role of David Addington, one of the country’s foremost foreign policy hawks—if not outright neocon. Currently coordinator of domestic and economic policy at the Heritage Foundation, Addington is probably best known for helping craft the so-called torture memos, as well as his role in developing the Bush administration’s rationale for the warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.
Addington famously avoided the media during his tenure in the Bush administration, but on the debt ceiling he has aggressively and publicly pushed a tea party line in opposition to the Boehner plan and in favor of the Cut, Cap, and Balance approach. “Debt limit legislation,” he wrote at the Foundry blog, “should drive down federal spending on the way to a balanced budget, while preserving the ability to protect America, and without raising taxes.” Translation: current military spending should be preserved with massive cuts to U.S. social services.
Notably, Addington rejects the notion that the Obama administration has the constitutional authority to bypass congressional oversight of the U.S. debt limit, the so-called “14th Amendment option.” The irony was not lost on the National Journal, which opined : “Addington, as strong a proponent of unbridled executive branch authority as can be found in either party, is now in the strange position of supporting lawmakers trying to bind a president’s hand.”
While such posturing no doubt reflects the economic conservatism that foreign policy hawks often share, it is also colored by neoconservatives’ tacit acknowledgment that the U.S. military budget will likely be curtailed in the coming years—and along with it the blank check for unbridled power projection in the Middle East and beyond. Some on the right see this already taking place. In a factually dubious op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, George Melloan writes, “The U.S. is busted. That's not primarily because of its foreign policy engagements, which have been a good investment. It is mainly because America's political leaders have overburdened the productive sector with social obligations that cannot be fulfilled.”
Of course, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are one of the largest single drivers of U.S. debt—after the Bush tax cuts and the economic downturn.
Melloan continues, “Sadly, when budgets are stretched, U.S. politicians usually don't menace entitlements, which buy votes. Instead they look to cut military and foreign policy expenditures.” This too overlooks the fact that Pentagon spending has increased every year since 1998 and now sits at more than twice its 2001 level.
Similarly, approvingly quoting Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin has alleged that defense cuts contained in Sen. Harry Reid’s debt ceiling proposal would be “disastrous,” even as she calls these same cuts “phony savings.”
Republicans have won a remarkable number of concessions from Washington Democrats on the debt ceiling issue. But neoconservatives’ paranoia on the military budget and the foreign policy it funds remains unassuaged. Their willingness to grasp at straws is perhaps best encapsulated by Rubin’s previous pitch for defense spending: the need to combat “Islamic” terrorism of the type witnessed in Oslo.
David Addington, an author of the “torture memos” and other controversial legal documents while serving as an aide and counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney, is vice president of the conservative Heritage Foundation.
The Foreign Policy Initiative, founded in 2009 by a host of neoconservative figures, is a leading advocate for a militaristic and Israel-centric U.S. foreign policies.
Jamie Fly, a former adviser to the George W. Bush administration, was the executive director of the neoconservative Foreign Policy Initiative before being tapped by Sen. Marco Rubio to “counselor for foreign and national security affairs.”
Jennifer Rubin is a blogger at the Washington Post who is notorious for her anti-liberal invective and “pro-Israel” advocacy.
Marc Thiessen, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, is a Washington Post columnist and American Enterprise Institute visiting fellow known for his defense of hawkish U.S. security and defense policies, including “enhanced interrogation techniques."
Many have hailed the midterm elections as a victory for the Tea Party. The dramatic Republican Party gains in the…
Inter Press Service In one of U.S. president Dwight D. Eisenhower's most remembered speeches, he warned against "the acquisition of…
Yochi J. Dreazen, Former Cheney Aide Addington, Now at Heritage, Driver in Debt Debate, National Journal, July 26, 2011
“The [debt ceiling] debate,” writes Dreazen, “doesn’t simply involve warring economists. Instead, one of the louder voices belongs to David Addington, the architect of the George W. Bush administration’s harsh interrogation policies and a former chief of staff for then-Vice President Dick Cheney.”
Reid's Deficit Plan Reportedly Includes Military Cuts, NPR, July 25, 2011
Todd Harrison from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments discusses how defense “cuts” in the Reid plan come almost entirely from the drawdown of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, presumably decreases that would have occurred naturally anyway.
Nin-Hai Tseng, How to raise the debt ceiling? Cut military spending, Fortune, July 15, 2011
“Defense spending helped create today's fiscal problems,” writes Tseng, “So why isn't it being considered seriously as a way to help fix them?”
Right Web is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
For media inquiries,
or call 202-234-9382.
Sen. Ted Cruz is a Tea Party Republican senator from Texas who recently announced his candidacy for the 2016 Republican Party presidential nomination. Although Cruz has described his foreign policy approach as between “the isolationism of Rand Paul” and the “neoconservatism of John McCain,” when asked by Bloomberg View which foreign policy experts he trusts, he listed three overt militarists: former George W. Bush U.N. ambassador John Bolton, Iran-Contra veteran Elliott Abrams, and former CIA director James Woolsey.
At a recent hearing before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, David Albright appeared to echo Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s criticisms of the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran when he argued that the “verification conditions” on Iran should be “permanent” or “last at least a generation.” Other experts, however, like Richard Nephew of the Brookings Institution, have pointed out that such sunset clauses are standard in arms control agreements and that “most people currently taking issue with the sunset clause are really just opposed to any deal with Iran.”
John Bolton, the notorious hardliner who served as President Bush’s UN ambassador, argued in a recent New York Times op-edthat the United States should bomb Iran even as nuclear negotiations appear to be making progress. He then wildly claimed that “the United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary.” He added: “Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.”
Clifford May is president of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies. A stringent hawk and Obama critic, May recently lambasted President Obama for his efforts to peacefully resolve the Iranian nuclear dispute. He wrote: “At this point, it’s all but certain that Mr. Obama is prepared to accept a deal that will be dangerous for America and the West—and, yes, life-threatening for Israel.” May then made the outlandish claim that Shia Iran could give a nuclear weapon to the avowedly anti-Shia al-Qaeda, writing: “[I]n addition to worrying that Iran’s rulers will use nuclear weapons or give them to Hezbollah, their proxy, there is now reason to believe they might provide a bomb to al Qaeda.”
The Philos Project is a Christian advocacy organization that promotes hawkish U.S. policies towards the Middle East. Backed by right-wing “pro-Israel” donors like Paul Singer, the group has called for the use of U.S. ground troops against ISIS, has strongly defended Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and has criticized efforts to peacefully resolve the Iranian nuclear dispute. Wrote one critic: “The Philos Project stands as an object lesson in the eagerness with which neoconservatives try to create the perception that their views are shared by a vast, diverse constituency, which in this case is warning Christians about the imperial designs of Iran and the dangers of a nuclear deal between it and the P5+1.”