But dreams can come true, Scott. Just keep clicking the heels of those little red shoes.

When veteran Republican senators start to seriously backpedal on Iraq and ME policy – that’s when you’ll know things are breaking apart.

And that may never happen.

I’m not familiar with Ikenberry at all, I only heard Kupchan talk on a couple of occasions, and I probably shouldn’t say anything because I only got a superficial impression, never read anything he wrote. The impression is he sounded very optimistic, with a tendency to gloss over so many problems. It seems to me there’s no real questioning of the nature of that hegemony, only a wish that it could somehow be balanced at international level to bring out the bening aspects of it in a collaborative way… Which is a very nice thing to wish for, but how realistic is it, based on history and current affairs?

Basically, I’m not too convinced of the idea that the neocon project is somehow a radical departure from traditional conservative strategies in terms of foreign policy. Maybe it is, from the point of view of political debate within the US, I don’t know. But it doesn’t look that way if we look at the history of US military hegemony from the point of view of those who, outside of the US, bore the costs of it, rather than the advantages. Especially later in the cold war period.

Actually, I think that was John Bolton writing under a pseudonym, for obvious reasons.

I’m actually not on either side on this. I suppose I’m closer to the Ikenberry types, if only because I do believe in international institutions – but I’m uncomfortable for exactly the reasons that you state with where this kind of alliance between center-left and center-right could end up.

Hm, keep in mind where John Negroponte is now, and where he was a couple of decades ago…

I get the point being made of course, and I guess it’s obvious you’re referring to the benign aspects of those international relationships, but the phrasing itself sounds a bit too generous when one thinks of the history of hegemony-underpinning strategies in Latin America, for instance. And not only there.

Some conservatives are clearly worried that these divisions may help the Democrats take back the White House.

Have 1% of Republican voters heard of Burke? Can more than 5% name one political philosopher? Can Bush? (even as a grad student, I’ve read very few of them).

People voted Republican because they promised to kick ass. The Democrats, rather than argue that no one’s ass need be, or profitably should be, kicked, went along with the pandering, jingoist ride. Saying, “well, yeah, we Dems’ll kick ass too, but just with more allies, or competence/planning/securing libraries n’stuff.”

So they lost.

I think the only conservatives that might be having doubts about current Repub foreign policy are Buchanan/isolationist/nativist types, who’re probably still busy hunting illegal aliens on the Mexican border.

But maybe the Dems can peel that voting block off, along with all the “principled” libertarians around the internet.