- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Towards the end of the interview, Bernard-Henry Levy seems to have swapped his moral compass with a bucket-load of guilibility when he professes a preference for the idealism of the neocons to isolationism of those like Buchanan. However odious one considers Buchanan's views to be, and however idealistic the neocons beliefs in democracy are, a quick look at Iraq with its daily slayings should put the consequences of later into perspective. Buchanan is in a minority with hardly any influence, whereas the neocons belong to a minority with real influence over the foreign policy of the world's most powerful country. Levy feels that this "naive" idealism, with its purity of motives, can somehow mitigate the predictably horrific outcomes. Outcomes from ends being pushed through by any means, no matter how unethical. Idealism is morally right but practically wrong.
What is even worse about Levy's treatment of the neocons is his indirect attenuation of their culpability, his implications of idealism, naiveness, and high-minded beliefs in democracy, when none of these descriptions have any truth in them. What! Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, and the whole gang from the Iran Contra scandal idealistic and naive? What planet does BHL belong to? As for the rest of them, including Kristol, one need only to refer to the PNAC.
