Okay, that was a little rude. The subject of my latest outburst is a posting in The National Interest (the “Buzz” column, to be precise) by Zachery Keck, providing a synopsis of a recent symposium held by the Center for the National Interest. Among the speakers was Robert Kaplan, a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, which may (or may not) constitute a striking example of Beltway incest. Anyway, what Zach said Bob said is that “All major American newspapers have adopted Wilsonianism to a greater or lesser degree”—though it appears that what Bob meant was “all major American newspapers named the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.”
According to Zach/Bob, “All three editorial boards adopt the Wilsonian view that if the United States doesn’t actively spread democracy across the globe, [Bob said] ‘we are not living up to our values.’”
“The major difference between the editorial pages of the three newspapers, Kaplan contended, is the Wall Street Journal’s editorials are more militant Wilsonian (though the most interesting to read), whereas the New York Times’ editorials are more moderate Wilsonian. The Washington Post editorial page falls somewhere in between, according to Kaplan, although it has veered to the more militant Wilsonian end of the spectrum in recent years.”
Unfortunately, 99% percent of Bob’s analysis is DC politeness/DC jive. Allow me to deconstruct, with less politeness and more precision.
The foreign policy editorials of both the Journal and the Post have a single goal: to generate conflict and international tension. The two papers want desperately for Americans to believe that they are threatened on all sides by remorseless powers around the globe—Russia, Iran, North Korea, ISIS, al-Qaeda—who actively seek our total destruction as a nation. Any and all negotiations with these powers are simply so many Munichs. War is the ultimate argument of kings and force should be the single bargaining chip of the U.S.: Do it our way and we won’t destroy you.
The single difference between the Journal and the Post is that the Journal lies to its readers in the name of the Republican Party while the Post lies in the name of Israel. The two go together of course, but for the Journal unstinting support for Israel is a means for guaranteeing the rule of the Republican Party while for the Post unstinting support for the Republican Party is a means for strengthening Israel.
It must be said that the Post is far more scrupulous than the Journal, regularly publishing op-eds that go directly counter to its own position. Furthermore, the Post’s long-standing support for liberal domestic policies, universal health care in particular, make it rather schizophrenic come election time. In 2012, the Post even went to the extreme of subjecting Mitt Romney’s tax “plan” to the brutal and complete ridicule it so richly deserved. The Journal, of course, has no such complications.
The Times, on the other hand, is a definite outlier. It’s certainly true that Timesmen can moralize with the best of them, but they aren’t nearly as warlike as the Post and the Journal. Above all, of course, the Times is still a Democratic paper, as the Post once was but no longer is.
It is symptomatic of polite conversation in DC that Zach’s article makes no mention of Israel at all, despite the fact that Israel is the sun around which the Post’s editorials revolve and scarcely less than a second sun for the Journal’s. Hey, who wants to piss off AIPAC unless it’s absolutely necessary?