One man’s neocon is another’s anti-globalist: Get ready for the great alt-right/neocon (re)convergence

It hasn’t been a secret that the alt-right has been posturing as antiwar for a while now. Now we learn that the isolationist anti-establishment rebel Donald Trump is appointing John “Bomb Iran” Bolton to be his National Security Advisor. As it turns out, at least one prominent alt-right personality is framing this in “owning the libs” terms:

Now, this may seem odd to people who have gotten into politics only in the past five years. But those of us who have paid attention to right-wing rhetoric under George W. Bush will no doubt remember that it was considered “manly”–or “alpha” as the kids these days call it–for the US to wage war unilaterally (as well as break international law and torure people). I mean, who needs those effette Europeans and their Axis of Weasel? And what a bunch of soy boy snowflake beta cucks all those antiwar protesters were, right?

There was once a time in the 1990s when “globalism” kind-of sort-of meant something, since it was criticized mostly from the left. Today it’s just another right-wing rage word, like “ACORN” and “Alinsky” used to be when Obama was in office. But here’s the thing: when people say John Bolton is “anti-globalist” they aren’t entirely wrong. John Bolton believes in unchallenged US dominance of the globe with little input from the rest of the world, be it traditional US allies in Western Europe or the UN. He also doesn’t see much need to legitimize US power plays through international law or appeals to human rights and democracy. By overtly rejecting the idea that the rest of the world should have a say in how the US projects itself, he is rejecting a key aspect of globalism.

Now, I’m sure Ron Paul and Alex Jones-types would object to this as a perversion of the concept. To them, “Americanism” is best defined by non-interventionism. But the fact of the matter is that their terminology was always incoherent at the root. The US, being a settler state founded on genocide and slavery, is itself the product of a violent foreign intervention and has historically enrichest itself on the backs of the world’s poor and non-white. The entire system of neoliberal globalization is itself a US-led project, which is why the right’s appropriation of much of the left’s critique’s of it is so perverse. If the US is itself a nobel and pure enterprise defined by non-interventionism, then its constant warmongering can safely be blamed on “alien” (or “(((alien)))”) influences.

In short, the adoption of the “anti-globalist” posture by US militarists and neocons is a logical conclusion to paleocon/alt-right thought.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s