U.S. Versus Them: How a Half-Century of Conservatism Has Undermined America's Security

by J. Peter Scoblic

For nearly eight years, the American people have struggled to understand George W. Bush’s approach to the world. Many analysts, lacking a frame of reference, have simply dubbed it revolutionary. But in U.S. Vs. Them, J. Peter Scoblic provocatively argues that the best way to understand Bush’s foreign policy is to recognize that it is not radical, but rather the most recent expression of conservatism, an often misunderstood ideology whose national security instincts are rooted in America’s eighteenth-century view of itself and whose modern form has percolated for more than a half century, reaching full strength in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Scoblic persuasively shows that the foreign policy of the American Right has been stuck for decades on a binary setting that allows it to see the world only in terms of us versus them or good versus evil. During the Cold War, that approach fostered an unwillingness to negotiate with the Soviet Union, a distrust of apolitical intelligence, and an insistence on military dominance— even as the advent of nuclear weapons rendered the traditional notion of victory in war obsolete. Today, what conservatives often present as moral clarity is in fact nothing more than a continued failure to recognize that American security depends on our ability to think outside our borders—to stop seeing the United States in unavoidable opposition to the rest of the world.

Tracing the history of Cold War conservatism from its development by William F. Buckley to its manifestation in Barry Goldwater through its implementation by Ronald Reagan and its culmination in the Bush administration, Scoblic weaves an intellectual history that reveals how the Right’s belligerence, intransigence, and disinclination for diplomacy not only brought us to the brink of nuclear war with the Soviet Union, but also failed to meet the grave post-9/11 challenges posed by Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and especially by the most serious danger that looms before us: that of nuclear terrorism. What’s more, although the Bush administration is nearing its end, conservatism is certainly not, as this year’s Republican presidential candidates clearly demonstrated.

U.S. Vs. Them is a revealing and sometimes alarming analysis, but in diagnosing the origins of Bush’s foreign policy, it illuminates the path to renewed American leadership in the twenty-first century.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History

368 pages, Hardcover

First published April 17, 2008

Reviews

[Tripp · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am currently reading J. Peter Scoblic's Us Vs. Them: How a Half-Century of Conservatism Has Undermined America's Security, and I'm surprised I have not heard more about it. It one of the most readable, while at the same time intelligent books on modern American foreign policy I have read in quite some time. Even more impressively I think he does a better job of fairly critiquing policy than Richard Rhodes did in his similar recent book Arsenals of Folly.

Scoblic goes back into the Cold War to argue that Bush's foreign policy is not something new under the sun, but is actually the full fruition of a movement that previously had been checked by other foreign policy viewpoints. He argues that Bill Buckley and other writers of the 50s laid the groundwork for a full throated rollback position in the Cold War that sought to defeat communism using military means and believed that nuclear weapons were war fighting rather than political weapons. This viewpoint grew in power when it merged with the neocon stream that believed that US power should be used to spread democracy via violent means.

The title of the book makes it sound both more partisan and less analytically nuanced than it is. Scoblic, who is left in orientation, is fair to many on the right, having many kinds words for Presidents Reagan and Nixon. He also notes that many people that the average reader would consider conservative, including people as diverse as Pat Buchanan and George Schulz adamantly opposed the trends he calls conservative. I wish he had found a term to better differentiate. One of his points is that the neocons didn't so much hijack policy as ally with other flavors of cons, but there are still other flavors that didn't want to play ball.

Still, the book is a pleasure to read and will appeal to those looking for a survey of Cold War policy debates on the right as well as another analysis of the Bush administration foibles. Scoblic's background is arms control, so there is predominance of arms control and other nuclear issues and less about Iraq and Vietnam.

[J Roberts · Rating 4 out of 5]

First off, start by reading the 1 star reviews on Amazon. You should spend some time looking at them.

After reading them, you'll have a clue what this book is about. The conservative movement, as described by this book, is one where the only choices are black or white, hot or cold, up or down, us vs them. This is the underlying problem with the ideology. There is no in between. And since there is no in between, facts must either fit into the world view, or facts must be discarded when they do not fit. In addition, since the desired outcome is already known, facts may not even be needed. Sure, that may be fine if you are the guy who shopped at Costo, picked up the book, flipped to the middle, read one page, and then decided to post a one star review of the book here. Unfortunately it is not fine if you are in a position on world leadership. Ignorance never is.

The negative reviews from this book are actually a bit startling. They are basically attacks at on any opposing view. The book, however, is fairly straight forward. It rarely attacks the conservative mindset itself. Quite often, it rationalized the behavior and applied praise for a necessary political voice. I found myself a bit more open and understanding as to the how's and why's of the mindset. I read portions to my more conservative friends, and they agreed with much of the author's points. This is a book that conservatives should read. It gives understanding and insight, without the typical drama seen in right wing vs left wing literature.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

listened the the author on Fresh Air with Terry Gross and dicided that had to be the next book I read.

[Reanne · Rating 3 out of 5]

Never actually finished. I think the argument the author is making is interesting, but after almost 6 months of trying to read this I'm giving up.