PARTISAN REVIEW
337
2. The
World
The recent invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union has not
only startled established opinion into a reconsideration of the idea of
detente with Russia and of American foreign policy as a whole, but it
has also bolstered the position of the neoconservatives and given a
certain amount of credibility to their strong anti-Soviet and antiradi–
cal stand. Many liberals who spend their lives wobbling between
radical and conservative views have been leaning toward the tough
talk of the neoconservatives, which combines an appeal to patriotism,
to
self-esteem (standing up to the Russians), with the ideals of
freedom and human rights, and with the seductive logic of realpoli–
tik.
It
is an almost irresistible appeal, until one begins to examine its
political content and strategies-most of which boil down to the old
rhetorical bluster about using American military and political power.
When it comes down
to
the question of how
to
use that power
effectively all we get is an increase in the military budget and a
warning not
to
trust the Russians.
In my opinion, neither Podhoretz nor the other neoconservatives
address the real problems and difficulties that have so far stymied
American foreign policy ..For one thing, it is certain ly no secret that
America does not have a foreign policy: what goes under that name is
a succession of ad hoc, contradictory, shifting moves. There is no
enduring and clear cut estimate of Russian power or intentions, or for
that matter, of any other country, whether friendly , neutral, or hostile.
Nor is there any accepted idea of the national interest, beyond the
assumption that Europe, and maybe Israel, are
to
be defended.
There are many reasons for this weird mixture of empiricism and
anarchism in our handling of foreign affairs. But the main one is that
America is made up of such a conflicting melange of interests that it
is almost impossible to get a consensus except in time of war. Big
business wants maximum profits and low taxes, small business
worries about its own ledgers, and both are more interested in
carrying on as usual than in gearing themselves
to
a long term policy
that may not be economically advantageous
to
them in the short run.
Labor wants higher wages, even at the cost of losing out to foreign
industry on the world market. Politicians have
to
satisfy their constit–
uency at home with a piece of the pork barrel. The minorities want
more. The ecologists want to curb big business. Big business is
against both. And so on . And how do the conservatives propose to
cope with these obstacles? The truth is that they have no program for
