Under President George W. Bush the "other people" in the foreign policy establishment are guided by globalism's twin brotherby the neoconservative ideology that seeks and justifies unabashed American hegemony. Both strains strikingly analogous to their doctrinaire Marxist roots, and both are deeply inimical to the traditions and values of the American Republic. Their relentless pursuit of an American Empire overseas is coupled by their deliberate domestic transformation of the United States' federal government into a Leviathan unbound by constitutional restraints.
This is an example of the kind of feverish writing that turns people off "paleoconservatism." The habit of calling everyone who disagrees with oneself "Marxist" is a sign that one doesn't have very strong arguments. As with leftists calling people fascist, the effect is to wear out the meaning of the word. When people indulge in this "everybody is a Marxist but us" it's a sign that they've stopped thinking and making distinctions in favor of just emoting.
It may be that the traditions of the Republic have been lost or are being lost. But I don't trust Chronicles to really tell me what those traditions are. Washington crushed the Whiskey rebellion. Adams fought a "Quasi-War" with France and brought the war home with the Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson struck at the Barbary Pirates without a declaration of war, and strangled our own shipping with the Embargo. Madison went to war with Britain, in part because the "War Hawks" wanted Canada. Monroe cast two continents under our imperial "protection." I'm not saying that we should be ashamed of our history. And I'm not saying that nothing has changed over two centuries, or that we should fight this war. I'm just saying that "Chronicles" has a simplistic and distorted view of history and of the realities of international relations. It's emotionally satisfying, but disproven by historical experience.
This is a less-than-cheap critique. I wonder why you chose to distill a long, melancholy, well-written article into a tiny feverish red cape to wave before the inevitable charging bulls on this forum?
Are you contending that the root of the neo-conservatism is NOT marxism?
And then--even cheaper than the cheapest bargain-basement shot--you ream the source of the article. Aren't you the least bit concerned that a fine, entirely admissable argument like this finds no other outlet in they-hate-us-because-we-are-so-free America than The Chronicles?