Get Realist

AT a time when a popular Republican president is waging a successful war, liberals are having to take their consolations where they can. Some liberals are telling themselves that the renewed esteem for the Pentagon will carry over to support for national health care. Others, bolder, are calling the war a vindication for liberal foreign policy as well as for liberal domestic policy. Al Hunt wrote, “Today’s basic policy formulations—state-building, a strong reliance on the United Nations, and multilateralism—all were articulated during the 2000 campaign by the Democratic candidate.” George Mitchell, the former Senate majority leader, says that President Bush has succeeded “in part because he has simply discarded almost everything he said on foreign policy prior to September 11.”

It is tempting to respond to this line of argument by asking why, if Clinton-Gore-style liberal internationalism is so great, eight years of it did nothing to prevent the September 11 attacks. Since it is not difficult to see how that approach to foreign affairs contributed to American vulnerability, the temptation should not be resisted. Indeed, the war so far has been a vindication of Bush’s foreign-policy inclinations as against those of his critics, both liberal and neoconservative.

About the Author

Ramesh Ponnuru

Ramesh Ponnuru is the editor of National Review, a columnist for the Washington Post, and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Featured Tags

International Criminal Court

Missile Defense

Conservatism

AT a time when a popular Republican president is waging a successful war, liberals are having to take their consolations where they can. Some liberals are telling themselves that the renewed esteem for the Pentagon will carry over to support for national health care. Others, bolder, are calling the war a vindication for liberal foreign policy as well as for liberal domestic policy. Al Hunt wrote, “Today’s basic policy formulations—state-building, a strong reliance on the United Nations, and multilateralism—all were articulated during the 2000 campaign by the Democratic candidate.” George Mitchell, the former Senate majority leader, says that President Bush has succeeded “in part because he has simply discarded almost everything he said on foreign policy prior to September 11.”

It is tempting to respond to this line of argument by asking why, if Clinton-Gore-style liberal internationalism is so great, eight years of it did nothing to prevent the September 11 attacks. Since it is not difficult to see how that approach to foreign affairs contributed to American vulnerability, the temptation should not be resisted. Indeed, the war so far has been a vindication of Bush’s foreign-policy inclinations as against those of his critics, both liberal and neoconservative.