Robert Kagan, along with his seemingly hydra headed family, is one of the biggest cheerleaders for war, any war, that
Kagan’s book, based on this and other reviews, argues that
Americawas a place of "ugliness" that provided "fortunes for a few and misery for many...[and] treated men as things" until "laws and institutions modeled after 's" made it livable. England
Kagan deconstructs American history's protagonists as representatives of impersonal forces and presents them without regard for their own understanding of what they were doing.
He argues that the Founders understood it to mean that they had the right and duty to deprive other peoples of their independence and liberty as they might understand it.
Robert Kagan writes that "despite four hundred years of steady expansion and ever deepening involvement in world affairs, and despite numerous wars, interventions, and prolonged occupations of foreign lands... Americans still believe their nation's natural tendencies are toward passivity, indifference and insularity."
Take out the obvious normative differences (Zinn: Intervention all over the place is bad, Kagan: No, you knave, it is good!) and you basically have the same story. This of course, is an insight into why Zinn and Kagan are both wrong. While it may be fun to look at
Remember, just because Zinn and his lot were right about
Of course, there is a similar, and related, historical convergence on the Civil War, with Marxist Perry Anderson and most paleocons on one side vs Henry Jaffa types. It goes basically like this. “
UPDATE: Blogfather Larison chimes in, and contra Sullivan, informs us that:
Angelo Codevilla is wildly, intensely hawkish and hegemonist; he is one of those people who will bear the label imperialist as a badge of honour. No one who has any sense of the various factions and arguments on the American right would ever confuse a Codevilla piece with anything related to paleos.
Of course, I'll trust that Larison knows more than me (ed - you're damn right you will) on who is and isn't paleo. I think most of my analysis holds up (ed - with all the standard caveats: you have no qualifications, you don't really know what you're talking about etc) Which is odd, of course, because your standard Struassian loves to gloat about how only he knows the true, esoteric nature of America and, if you're at Claremont, how Abraham Lincoln was totally sweet and truly American is his habeas stripping, pseudo authoritarian ass kicking of the South; (I don't necessarily disagree with this, but the Civil War is for another day) basically, I'd expect them to agree with Kagan's analysis, but then again, I'm capable of being suprised. Of course, you have famed Straussian Harvey Mansfield revealing to us that Machiaveli is really the hidden founding father equal to Jefferson or Hamilton and how an executive above the law is the sweetest thing ever. So you can never really be sure what these Struassian neocons are up to.