Trump Just Reminded Me of Why I’m Still a Neocon

Opinion|Trump Just Reminded Me of Why I’m Still a Neocon

Although the term “neoconservative” has fallen into disuse — except as an occasional slur used by the MAGA right, the progressive left and social-media antisemites who really mean to say “Jew” — I’ve never been shy about describing myself as one. In Donald Trump’s whipsawing performances with Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday and Volodymyr Zelensky and his European allies in Washington on Monday, I’m reminded of why.

Neoconservatism emerged in the early 1970s as a loosely coherent movement of disenchanted liberals who were critical of the welfare state and turned off by the anti-Americanism of parts of the antiwar left. But the movement also took a dim view of the Nixon administration, particularly in its pursuit of arms control with the Soviet Union, its relative indifference to human rights issues behind the Iron Curtain, and its realpolitik approach to foreign policy in general.

I learned this the hard way 14 years ago, when Henry Kissinger nearly kicked me out of his Park Avenue office for having the ill grace to ask him about China’s brutal treatment of Liu Xiaobo, the imprisoned dissident. The former secretary of state, then 88, was still too concerned with currying influence in Beijing to say anything nice about his fellow Nobel Peace laureate.

Little wonder, then, that many of Trump’s most ardent conservative opponents in recent years are, or were, old-school neocons. Like President Richard Nixon’s, Trump’s politics are a mix of statist economic impulses, populist grievances, the conceit of being above the law and a transactional approach to foreign policy that discounts the moral force of American ideals. What Trump lacks in his predecessor’s intellectual sophistication, he makes up for with his gifts for crude showmanship.

What would a traditional neocon say about Trump’s latest diplomatic efforts between Russia and Ukraine? A few points.

First, we’d note that dictators who are contemptuous of the rights of their own people tend to be equally contemptuous of the rights of other countries. That’s why some of us were ringing alarms about the global threat from Putin when many liberals still thought he was negotiable. By retreating from his threat to sanction Russia if it didn’t agree to a cease-fire, Trump has simply ratified Putin’s strategy of contempt.

Second, dictators who do not abide by the rule of law at home will not honor international agreements, either. The Soviet Union violated virtually every arms control agreement it signed. Putin’s Russia has followed suit with violations of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the 1994 Budapest memorandum supposedly guaranteeing Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the Minsk agreements that were supposed to end the fighting between Ukraine and Russia in 2015. Whatever deal Putin may yet sign will simply be another paper promise he’ll inevitably break.

Third, Putin does not see Trump’s chummy manner, his effort to forge personal ties, as an invitation to be reasonable. He sees it as vanity and therefore weakness: The perennial hankering of Western politicians for a deal, a win, a Nobel Prize. Even worse is Trump’s constant blaming of Joe Biden for the war, which would make the United States responsible for the war Putin started — exactly the anti-American narrative Putin wishes to advance.

Fourth, neocons subscribe to a “broken windows” theory of international order: If disorder goes unchecked, or if aggression is rewarded, in one part of the world, it will encourage disorder and aggression in other parts. Some in this administration, particularly the Pentagon’s Elbridge Colby, seem to think that settling the war in Ukraine will allow the United States to concentrate its efforts on containing China. In fact, nothing will do more to encourage Chinese adventurism against Taiwan or in the South China Sea than to see Putin rewarded in Ukraine.

Fifth, neocons believe that American ideals do not undermine American power; rather, they march hand in hand. When the United States lent destroyers to the United Kingdom in 1940, we created the conditions that allowed us to prevail in World War II. When we stood up for West Berlin in the face of Soviet threats, we secured an oasis of freedom that would eventually lead to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Soviet Union. By putting the interests of what Trump calls “peace” ahead of the interests of freedom, we are all but guaranteeing that Ukraine will lose both.

Sixth, international guarantees are mostly worthless unless backed by credible and overwhelming power. If Putin has reason to doubt America’s commitment to Ukraine’s independence — and Trump has done nothing but give him reasons — he or his successors will seek ways to violate it.

Seventh, the only way to guarantee an end to this conflict is steadfast opposition to Putin through sanctions, ostracism and military and economic support for Ukraine and every other country Russia threatens. Trump aims to do the opposite.

Neocons may have long ago fallen out of fashion. To watch Trump in recent days is to be reminded that some old fashions deserve to be made new again.