U.S. vs Them

That's the title of a newish book by the child executive editor of the New Republic, Peter Scablick. The subtitle: "How A half Century of Conservatism Has Undermined US Security". So that would be from 1958 until now. In 1958, a liberal Republican (Eisenhower) was President. His foreign policy was not conservative or aggresive or neo-conservative or whatever. He let the commies have North Korea, told the Brits & Frogs to pull out of the Suez and generally presented a weak face to the world. Then his VP, Nixon, was defeated in 1960 by a liberal Democrat candidate (JFK) who exploited the issue of a "missile gap". That is, he said we needed to catch up with the Soviets in the number of missiles. Nevermind that the "gap" was non-existent. Now that is what I would call an aggresive, paranoid foreign policy stance but executed by a liberal. And then we had the Vietnam War---courtesy of a Democrat president and congress. After that, we had a Republican president who ended the war, introduced detente with the Soviets and renewed relations with the Chicoms. Still, no National Review conservative foreign policy in sight until 1980 when Reagan became President. And what were the wretched results of his aggressive conservative foreign policy? Oh yeah...the fall of the Soviet Union! Then after the Republican lite, weak foreign policy of Bush 1 (excepting the liberation of Kuwait) we had eight years of the masters of "negotiation" and "nuance" and "realpolitik", the Clinton administration. And what did we get? The first bombing of the WTC, Khobar Towers, East African embassies, the USS Cole, an instransigent Saddam Hussein, and then 9/11 was the ultimate result of those eight years of timidity and unnecessary butt-kissing of murderous thugs. Hey thanks a lot, liberal foreign policy!
I heard Mr. Scudliker talking on "Fresh Air" about how conservatives look at foreign policy as a struggle between good and evil (us being good) and how that is naive and unproductive. Liberals conduct foreign policy based on the idea that we were, with the Soviets, and now are in a power struggle with folks whose interests may sometimes overlap ours and we should negotiate on that basis.
I think Mr. Scobbler's view of what constitutes liberal and conservative foreign policy to be naive and simplistic---or he really thinks we should negotiate with Osama bin Laden. It is patently ridiculous to say that conservatives have dominated foreign policy for the last 50 years when they haven't even dominated the leadership of any branch of government! Add the fact that the State department is riddled with liberal career diplomats who undermine any attempt at an aggressive foreign policy in the name of getting invited to villas in the south of France over the summer.