How to treat our neocons

Yglesias offer up a defense of neocon-bashing:

It’s actually true that neocon bashing is a bit on the tiresome side. That said, I think it really has to be understood as a vital social necessity. Adherents of a deranged and sociopoathic “neocon” conception of America’s role in the world continue to be tremendously influential in our society. They have columns at The Washington Post and dominate the foreign policy coverage on Fox News. They have The Weekly Standard and Commentary and a healthy slice of The New Republic. And most important, as best as anyone can tell their ideas remain utterly dominant in the Republican Party. Their intra-party critics like Colin Powell, rather than winning intra-party arguments seem to be simply drifting out of the GOP coalition.

This is a dangerous situation. In the United States, the opposition party is always one ill-timed recession or political scandal from taking power. So a set of ideas that dominates one such party is something you need to keep a watchful eye on, no matter how marginalized that party may seem at any particular moment.

This is quite right. Neocons - or fascists, imperialists, and right-wing nationalists, as they have been variously known throughout history - are one of the biggest political dangers any country faces. They can twist patriotism, generally a positive force that helps in building institutions and providing public goods, into a negative aggressive militarism that generally leaves a country in ruins (see WW2 Japan/Germany). It is always necessary to be vigilant against this evil.

However, that still leaves open the question of how we should treat particular neoconservatives. Should we blackbal them for life, or should we try to steer them back toward the sensible path?

As an example, take Robert Kaplan, who was an advocate of the Iraq war, and imperialistic U.S. foreign policy in general. Maybe the Iraq debacle changed his mind, or maybe he's just cynically reinvented himself, but in the past few years he's reemerged as a consummate realist with a deep respect for alliances, international norms, etc. His latest column is a good and sobering exploration of the limits of counterinsurgency.

Should we take this man seriously? Should we excuse his empire-fever as a case of a man being caught up in the faux-idealistic "democracy promotion" bullshit of Bush's disingenuous march to war? Should we therefore continue to link to his columns wen he says sensible things, and take his arguments at face value? Or should we view him as a neocon snake-in-the-grass, laying low and mouthing realist bromides while he waits for another opportunity to urge the U.S. toward reckless aggression? Keep in mind that Kaplan is hardy unique; I could ask a similar question about Niall Ferguson, Thomas Friedman, Francis Fukuyama, and the two Cohens (Roger at the NYT and Richard at the WaPo). There is a clear divergence beteen these men and hardened scum like Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Michael Gerson, Robert Kagan, and Max Boot.

Should we bash the sin but not the (reformed) sinner?