DOCSLIB.ORG

TF 41 Is the Dam Breaking Part 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TF 41 Is the Dam Breaking Part 2 TF 41 Is the Dam Breaking Part 2 Harry Litman [00:00:05] We are back at Politicon in Nashville, Tennessee, and we are still ​ ​ live. Welcome back to Talking Feds Prosecutors Roundtable that brings together prominent former federal officials for a dynamic discussion of the most important legal topics of the day. I'm Harry Litman. I'm a former United States attorney and deputy assistant attorney general and a current Washington Post columnist. Today, we're back at Politico on for the second part of a discussion around one question. Is the dam finally breaking? Harry Litman [00:00:44] These are days that are going to be in the history books one way ​ ​ or another. We'll be talking about comparing and contrasting these days for our lives and the lives of our grandchildren. Our panel yesterday focused on the political and strategic considerations in Congress and White House and the White House around the impeachment effort. Today, we turn to two other aspects of the accelerating snowball downhill that is the Trump impeachment and to discuss. We have a fantastic panel with two brilliant commentators, seriously, and both first time visitors to Talking Feds and one charter member, well-known, I think, to everyone here. Talking Feds regular Barb McQuaid hi, everyone. Barb McQuade [00:01:40] Thanks, Harry. ​ ​ Harry Litman [00:01:42] Barb, as you know, is the former United States attorney for the ​ ​ Eastern District of Michigan. She served as vise chair of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee CO chaired the Terrorism and National Security Subcommittee and is currently a professor from practice at the University of Michigan Law School. Harry Litman [00:02:02] Next, author and political commentator David Frum joins us for ​ ​ the first time, he's a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush. He is, to my mind, as thoughtful and as moral a voice within the Republican Party that exists today. And his strong identification with the party coexists with exceptionally trenchant criticism of what ails it and where it needs to go. David's the author of many books Trump Autocracy The Corruption of the American Republic, to name a a prominent one. He writes for The Atlantic. Oh, and he coined the phrase axis of evil. David, welcome. David Frum [00:02:48] Thank you. ​ ​ Harry Litman [00:02:51] And finally, Malcolm Nance. Malcolm is a former. One, two, ​ ​ three. I think you've won the dance contest, a former United States Navy officer involved in numerous counterterrorism intelligence and combat operations. He's done the real deal. And since leaving the service, he's become a premier intelligence, national security and foreign policy analyst, especially on various terror groups. He wrote, by the way, a fantastic book on ISIS a few years ago that you may want to get back off your bookshelves after today's news and his latest book, The Plot to Betray America, a richly detailed argument of the Russian campaign to secure influence over our president. Donald Trump just came out this month. Oh, and he speaks Arabic. Harry Litman [00:03:50] Malcolm, thank you very much for coming. I'd actually like to start ​ ​ with you because we're here. Sure. Having just received the breaking news of the killing of the prominent terrorist Abu Baqir, al Baghdadi and I think probably no one in Nashville or Tennessee or maybe the United States knows more about him and that event. Could you just give us sort of three to five minute, however you long, but give us the basic skinny on how important this is and who this guy was? Malcolm Nance [00:04:25] Well, thank you for the introduction. The first thing I'd like to do ​ ​ is we really owe our men and women of the armed forces a debt of gratitude for carrying out an exceptionally dangerous mission. I mean, the people who carry this out are literally the tip of the spear in every aspect of special operations and intelligence. And we do have to give props to the president for having the wherewithal to sign a national finding that would direct them to go and kill Abu Bakar Baghdadi, a man who deserved to die. Malcolm Nance [00:05:03] I mean, some people in this world need to be destroyed. As ​ ​ the leader of ISIS, he was at the top of the list, however. Let's put this into context. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was a very junior level player in the early 2000s in al-Qaida in Iraq. He was an Iraqi. And he didn't become extremely radicalized until he was captured by U.S. forces and sent to a U.S. prison camp in southern Iraq. Camp Bucca, where at the time when I was in Iraq, we were calling that the Jihadi Postgraduate School, and we were actually the people we were collecting. We're getting lessons learned from each other and becoming more and more radical to where Iraqis who would have been with the Saddam Fedayeen or some other local Iraqi group were now joining al-Qaida in Iraq. And then what would become the Islamic State of Iraq, which Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi became the commander of in 2006? So when you hear those tropes about, well, what is it, Barack Obama inventing ISIS? Well, no. ISIS existed as a rebranding of al-Qaida in Iraq. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi took over that organization in the low years between 2006 and 2011. And then when the Syrian civil war started, they sent forces to Syria and they were actually supported directly by the government of Syria. So when the civil war started, they just went back to the bases and stole all the weapons that they were getting for free from the Syrian government and became the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. They executed Osama bin Laden's concept of the Islamic State of a caliphate, which would be a central location where all jihadis could come together. But bin Laden was smarter than that. You have to remember, Osama bin Laden was the man who killed 3000 American citizens on September 11th, caused the deaths of seven thousand U.S. service members in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians in all of the wars that are being carried out through the Middle East and North Africa. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was the Islamic State's figurehead and general operational commander just within their caliphate. So historically, bin Laden is a giant, enormous figure, you know, akin to Adolf Hitler. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi would be essentially, you know, the governor of Silesia in World War 2 or or Erwin Rommel or something like that, a smaller figure. But he definitely needed to be done away with. Malcolm Nance [00:07:43] And after five years of collecting intelligence and we've learned ​ ​ recently the Kurds provided a lot of intelligence, we learned that Osama bin Saadi Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was finally taken down in a special mission by our Tier 1 special operations forces. Harry Litman [00:08:00] Thanks, Malcolm. All right. Let's push ahead with our overall ​ ​ theme of is the dam breaking? Finally now? It feels as if a narrative of profound abuse of power, one that the American people we learned of one month ago, if this is all developed and that quickly is really now basically been established nearly beyond refutation on the facts that those are the facts on the ground floor for the White House, for these that congressional Republicans, the congressional Democrats. In the meantime, the White House is taking its lumps in the courts, most recently Friday, with a decision saying that the Congress has is entitled because it's. It's carrying on a valid process, potentially leading to impeachment. To see the grand jury materials that Robert Mueller developed, which adds all kinds of possibilities, maybe ones that they don't want to exploit, but possibilities for Congress and in the case they are constitutionally prescribed to prosecute. So. From other other bombs are also in position to go off the most incendiary. I think being the potential indictment of Trump's personal attorney and the nation's shadow secretary of state, Rudy Giuliani, who we also learned last week, is the subject of a counterintelligence investigation and a prolific but dialer. Let's start with him, because I see him as the sort of, you know, crazy comic book villain lurking in the background, but destined to be the number two figure after only the president in the coming impeachment battle. And I'd like to just talk about a few different aspects. Barb, you wrote or co-wrote a really interesting article this week detailing Giuliani's possible criminal exposure here and now. But based both on events that are ancillary to the impeachment charges involving Trump and Zelinsky and others that are central to it is an indictment likely, as you see it, speaking as a former prosecutor. And would it be for conduct related to the Ukraine? How do you sort of book these possibilities? Barb McQuade [00:10:29] Yeah, thanks, Harry. Thanks for inviting me to be here for ​ ​ Talking Feds. And I also want to thank the folks at Politicon. I've always wanted to come to Politicon because I'm so delighted to meet the people who are here, engaged citizens who want to learn more about what's going on in our democratic processes.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Appendix M of Army Field Manual on Interrogations Dear Mr
    Nov. 16, 2010 The Honorable Robert M. Gates Secretary of Defense 100 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301 Re: Appendix M of Army Field Manual on Interrogations Dear Mr. Secretary, We are writing regarding the updated U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogations, adopted on September 6, 2006 and officially known as “FM 2-22.3, Human Intelligence Collector Operations.” While we support efforts to adopt a single, well-defined standard of conduct for U.S. personnel engaged in the detention and interrogation of all people in U.S. custody, we are very concerned about a handful of changes that were written into the manual in 2006. The most critical of these may be found in an appendix, added to the updated manual, that places unnecessary restrictions on an effective interrogation technique known as “separation.” Separation must not be confused with isolation. The former seeks only to protect a detainee from the negative influences of—or unnecessary exposure to—other detainees. The latter is commonly employed as a means of punishment and/or coercion in an ill-conceived effort to “break” a detainee. These restrictions make it very difficult, in all but the most sensitive situations, for U.S. interrogators to create an environment of trust and protection that is often necessary to gain the cooperation of certain detainees, especially those who have been identified as “high value.” Unnecessarily restricting the use of this technique may severely hamper the United States’ ability to obtain accurate and complete information from detainees. Perhaps unintentionally, the appendix also appears to authorize the use of several sensory and sleep deprivation tactics that could be employed in an abusive fashion.
    [Show full text]
  • Record of the Communications Policy & Research Forum 2009 in Its 2006 National Security Statement, George W
    TWITTER FREE IRAN: AN EVALUATION OF TWITTER’S ROLE IN PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND INFORMATION OPERATIONS IN IRAN’S 2009 ELECTION CRISIS ALEX BURNS Faculty of Business and Law Victoria University [email protected] BEN ELTHAM Centre for Cultural Research University of Western Sydney and Fellow, Centre for Policy Development [email protected]) Abstract Social media platforms such as Twitter pose new challenges for decision-makers in an international crisis. We examine Twitter’s role during Iran’s 2009 election crisis using a comparative analysis of Twitter investors, US State Department diplomats, citizen activists and Iranian protestors and paramilitary forces. We code for key events during the election’s aftermath from 12 June to 5 August 2009, and evaluate Twitter. Foreign policy, international political economy and historical sociology frameworks provide a deeper context of how Twitter was used by different users for defensive information operations and public diplomacy. Those who believe Twitter and other social network technologies will enable ordinary people to seize power from repressive regimes should consider the fate of Iran’s protestors, some of whom paid for their enthusiastic adoption of Twitter with their lives. Keywords Twitter, foreign policy, international relations, United States, Iran, social networks 1. Research problem, study context and methods The next U.S. administration may well face an Iran again in turmoil. If so, we will be fortunate in not having an embassy in Tehran to worry about. From a safe distance, we can watch the Iranian people, again, fight for their freedom. We can pray that the clerical Gotterdamerung isn’t too bloody, and that the mullahs quickly retreat to their mosques and content themselves primarily with the joys of scholarly disputation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Religious Right and the Rise of the Neo-Conservatives, in an Oral Examination Held on May 10, 2010
    AWKWARD ALLIES: THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT AND THE RISE OF THE NEO-CONSERVATIVES A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Social and Political Thought University of Regina By Paul William Gaudette Regina, Saskatchewan July 2010 Copyright 2010: P.W. Gaudette Library and Archives Bibliotheque et Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-88548-2 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-88548-2 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distrbute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Strait of Hormuz: Al-Qaeda's Newest Jihad Zone?
    SMALL WARS JOURNAL smallwarsjournal.com The Strait of Hormuz: al-Qaeda’s Newest Jihad Zone? Malcolm Nance After the July 28 explosion alongside the Japanese oil tanker M. Star in the Strait of Hormuz (SOH) initial speculation was that it had struck a derelict sea mine from the 1991 Iraq war, encountered a rogue wave from an earthquake in Iran or had a collision with a whale or submarine. Pundits and even some counter-terror observers, particularly those in the Gulf States, spent an inordinate amount of time attempting to explain it away with any possibility except the most obvious one - terrorism. That can no longer be ignored. When news of the incident broke caution was called for in the region as to assigning a specific cause and terrorism was specifically rejected as likely. Here in the UAE, skepticism is the preferred form of denial and critics of the suicide boat theory are being given strong voice. The very mention of the possibility of terrorism originating in or near the United Arab Emirates is met with hushes and alternative explanations, hence the whale, wave and submarine theories. The “T” word (Terrorism) is not welcome in public or political discourse. Some political pundits claim that conventional war with Iran is a greater threat to the Strait. That may be true solely in relation to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but a wave of successful al-Qaeda suicide attacks could destabilize the markets in a way that rising tensions with Iran cannot. However, on 6 August the UAE Coast Guard confirmed a terrorist act was indeed the cause of the blast.
    [Show full text]
  • Twitter: Transparency and Accountability
    This is a preliminary, unedited transcript. The statements within may be inaccurate, incomplete, or misattributed to the speaker. A link to the final, official transcript will be posted on the Committee’s website as soon as it is available. 1 1 NEAL R. GROSS & CO., INC. 2 RPTS SAM WOJACK 3 HIF248000 4 5 6 TWITTER: TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY 7 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2018 8 House of Representatives 9 Committee on Energy and Commerce 10 Washington, D.C. 11 12 13 14 The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:30 p.m., in Room 15 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg Walden [chairman 16 of the committee] presiding. 17 Members present: Representatives Walden, Barton, Upton, 18 Shimkus, Burgess, Scalise, Latta, McMorris Rodgers, Harper, 19 Lance, Guthrie, Olson, McKinley, Kinzinger, Griffith, Bilirakis, 20 Johnson, Long, Bucshon, Flores, Brooks, Mullin, Hudson, Collins, 21 Cramer, Walberg, Walters, Costello, Carter, Duncan, Pallone, 22 Rush, Engel, Green, DeGette, Doyle, Schakowsky, Butterfield, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com This is a preliminary, unedited transcript. The statements within may be inaccurate, incomplete, or misattributed to the speaker. A link to the final, official transcript will be posted on the Committee’s website as soon as it is available. 2 23 Matsui, Castor, Sarbanes, McNerney, Welch, Lujan, Tonko, Clarke, 24 Loebsack, Schrader, Kennedy, Cardenas, Ruiz, Peters, and Dingell. 25 26 Staff present: Jon Adame,
    [Show full text]
  • Torture and the Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment of Detainees: the Effectiveness and Consequences of 'Enhanced
    TORTURE AND THE CRUEL, INHUMAN AND DE- GRADING TREATMENT OF DETAINEES: THE EFFECTIVENESS AND CONSEQUENCES OF ‘EN- HANCED’ INTERROGATION HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION NOVEMBER 8, 2007 Serial No. 110–94 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 38–765 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Aug 31 2005 15:46 Jul 29, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 H:\WORK\CONST\110807\38765.000 HJUD1 PsN: 38765 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah ROBERT WEXLER, Florida RIC KELLER, Florida LINDA T. SA´ NCHEZ, California DARRELL ISSA, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MIKE PENCE, Indiana HANK JOHNSON, Georgia J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia BETTY SUTTON, Ohio STEVE KING, Iowa LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM FEENEY, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California TRENT FRANKS, Arizona TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas ANTHONY D.
    [Show full text]
  • Torture and Coercive Interrogation: a Critical Discussion
    Torture and coercive interrogation: A critical discussion WATKINS-SMITH, Dominic J. Available from the Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive (SHURA) at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/19153/ A Sheffield Hallam University thesis This thesis is protected by copyright which belongs to the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. Please visit http://shura.shu.ac.uk/19153/ and http://shura.shu.ac.uk/information.html for further details about copyright and re-use permissions. TORTURE AND COERCIVE INTERROGATION: A CRITICAL DISCUSSION DOMINIC J WATKINS-SMITH A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Sheffield Hallam University for the degree of Master of Laws by Research. September 2017 Acknowledgements I would like to take this opportunity to thank Sam Burton and James Marson for all of the advice and support they have provided. Further, I would like to express my gratitude towards them for their continual dedication to the Sheffield Hallam Law department. Abstract This thesis aims to explore why torture, deemed illegitimate by the Western world for more than a century, has resurfaced as a topic of debate, and persists despite its formal prohibition. It also endeavours to shed light on the main issues involved in the ‘torture debate’. To do so, it begins by exploring the history of torture; examining how it has developed over time, and how its uses have changed.
    [Show full text]
  • “Benevolent Global Hegemony”: William Kristol and the Politics of American Empire
    Gary Dorrien “Benevolent Global Hegemony”: William Kristol and the Politics of American Empire by Gary Dorrien ear the end of the Cold War a group of neo-conservative intellectuals and Npolicy makers began to argue that instead of cutting back on America’s vast military system, the United States needed to use its unmatched power to create a global Pax Americana. Some of them called it the unipolarist imperative. The goal of American foreign policy, they argued, should be to maintain and extend America’s unrivaled global dominance. The early advocates of unipolar dominance were familiar figures: Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, Charles Krauthammer, Paul Wolfowitz, Joshua Muravchik, and Ben Wattenberg. Their ranks did not include the godfather of neo-conservatism, Irving Kristol, who had no interest in global police work or crusading for world democracy. Though he later clarified that he was all for enhancing America’s economic and military preeminence, Irving Kristol thought that America’s overseas commitments should be determined by a classically realist calculus. His son William Kristol had a greater ambition for America, which he called “benevolent global hegemony.” In 1992, the New York Times revealed that Wolfowitz, then an undersecretary for defense, was drafting a new policy plan for the Pentagon that sought to prevent any nation or group of nations from challenging America’s global supremacy. President George Bush disavowed the controversial plan, and for the rest of the 1990s establishment Republicans did not speak of grand new strategies. But the neo-cons continued to argue for “American Greatness,” founded new institutions, and made alliances with hard-line conservatives such as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
    [Show full text]
  • Gaslit Nation Mueller Speaks! Andrea Chalupa Sarah Kendzior Theme Music Robert Mueller: and As Set Forth in the Report After
    Gaslit Nation Mueller Speaks! Andrea Chalupa Sarah Kendzior Theme Music Robert Mueller: And as set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume 2 of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a present president can not be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. And I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments that there were multiple systematic efforts to interfere in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every American. Sarah Kendzior: I'm Sarah Kendzior, a journalist and scholar of authoritarian states, and the author of the book The View from Flyover Country. Andrea Chalupa: I'm Andrea Chalupa, a writer and the screenwriter and producer of the upcoming journalistic thriller Gareth…sorry! "Mr. Jones.” My film is called Mr. Jones. Sarah Kendzior: And this is Gaslit Nation, a podcast covering corruption in the Trump administration and rising autocracy around the world. And today we are joined by a very special guest Andrea's sister, Alexandra Chalupa, a researcher and activist who is one of the first Americans to alert the world to the dangers of the Trump campaign's illicit collaboration with Russia. Alexandra will be telling us her story, in her own words, later in the show. But first, we are going to discuss the press conference that Robert Mueller just held on the Russia investigation and his resignation from the Department of Justice.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bush Revolution: the Remaking of America's Foreign Policy
    The Bush Revolution: The Remaking of America’s Foreign Policy Ivo H. Daalder and James M. Lindsay The Brookings Institution April 2003 George W. Bush campaigned for the presidency on the promise of a “humble” foreign policy that would avoid his predecessor’s mistake in “overcommitting our military around the world.”1 During his first seven months as president he focused his attention primarily on domestic affairs. That all changed over the succeeding twenty months. The United States waged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. troops went to Georgia, the Philippines, and Yemen to help those governments defeat terrorist groups operating on their soil. Rather than cheering American humility, people and governments around the world denounced American arrogance. Critics complained that the motto of the United States had become oderint dum metuant—Let them hate as long as they fear. September 11 explains why foreign policy became the consuming passion of Bush’s presidency. Once commercial jetliners plowed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it is unimaginable that foreign policy wouldn’t have become the overriding priority of any American president. Still, the terrorist attacks by themselves don’t explain why Bush chose to respond as he did. Few Americans and even fewer foreigners thought in the fall of 2001 that attacks organized by Islamic extremists seeking to restore the caliphate would culminate in a war to overthrow the secular tyrant Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Yet the path from the smoking ruins in New York City and Northern Virginia to the battle of Baghdad was not the case of a White House cynically manipulating a historic catastrophe to carry out a pre-planned agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservative Movement
    Conservative Movement How did the conservative movement, routed in Barry Goldwater's catastrophic defeat to Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 presidential campaign, return to elect its champion Ronald Reagan just 16 years later? What at first looks like the political comeback of the century becomes, on closer examination, the product of a particular political moment that united an unstable coalition. In the liberal press, conservatives are often portrayed as a monolithic Right Wing. Close up, conservatives are as varied as their counterparts on the Left. Indeed, the circumstances of the late 1980s -- the demise of the Soviet Union, Reagan's legacy, the George H. W. Bush administration -- frayed the coalition of traditional conservatives, libertarian advocates of laissez-faire economics, and Cold War anti- communists first knitted together in the 1950s by William F. Buckley Jr. and the staff of the National Review. The Reagan coalition added to the conservative mix two rather incongruous groups: the religious right, primarily provincial white Protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals from the Sunbelt (defecting from the Democrats since the George Wallace's 1968 presidential campaign); and the neoconservatives, centered in New York and led predominantly by cosmopolitan, secular Jewish intellectuals. Goldwater's campaign in 1964 brought conservatives together for their first national electoral effort since Taft lost the Republican nomination to Eisenhower in 1952. Conservatives shared a distaste for Eisenhower's "modern Republicanism" that largely accepted the welfare state developed by Roosevelt's New Deal and Truman's Fair Deal. Undeterred by Goldwater's defeat, conservative activists regrouped and began developing institutions for the long haul.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Role in the World: Background and Issues for Congress
    U.S. Role in the World: Background and Issues for Congress Updated April 6, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R44891 U.S. Role in the World: Background and Issues for Congress Summary The U.S. role in the world refers to the overall character, purpose, or direction of U.S. participation in international affairs and the country’s overall relationship to the rest of the world. The U.S. role in the world can be viewed as establishing the overall context or framework for U.S. policymakers for developing, implementing, and measuring the success of U.S. policies and actions on specific international issues, and for foreign countries or other observers for interpreting and understanding U.S. actions on the world stage. While descriptions of the U.S. role in the world since the end of World War II vary in their specifics, it can be described in general terms as consisting of four key elements: global leadership; defense and promotion of the liberal international order; defense and promotion of freedom, democracy, and human rights; and prevention of the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia. The issue for Congress is whether the U.S. role in the world is changing, and if so, what implications this might have for the United States and the world. A change in the U.S. role could have significant and even profound effects on U.S. security, freedom, and prosperity. It could significantly affect U.S. policy in areas such as relations with allies and other countries, defense plans and programs, trade and international finance, foreign assistance, and human rights.
    [Show full text]