Lurking in this post is the interesting observation from Justin Logan about an odd convergence of beliefs between neocons and the far left about how to understand the history of American foreign policymaking. With the difference being, basically, that the neocon right takes what’s a critique in leftist hands and turns it into approbation.
I thought one of the weirdest recent expressions of this was a 2006 Robert Kagan New Republic article which made the case that Bush administration foreign policy was essentially continuous with the genocide of America’s native population and that this somehow constitutes a devastating rebuttal to Bush’s critics. If anything, it just sounds like an unhinged criticism of Bush. Or more to the point, it’s an example of a kind of moral rot inside the neo-imperialist camp where you see a positive embrace of the dark side of western history rather than an effort to identify and emphasize positive elements.