So glad an historian writes this article, as your garden variety political theorist would weave non sequiturs of Strauss and Aristotle into ad hominems of whichever politico draws less favor (pick a side: Neo cons or Am First/Trump. All tiresome).
The Des Moines speech is often maligned like it was the keynote for Triumph of the Wills, but it was an articulate and well argued speech (another urge for actually studying the primary sources, budding historians...) that was overwhelmed by World War II events and the aftermath. A useful cudgel to salt the fields for any interest in retreating from Europe (American First Delenda Est), plus we have markets to fill, as WA Williams would later argue.
The qui bono would be helpful to understand the motivations of this next phase: if you live in the DMV, working for government or the infamous MIC, Laissez les bons temps rouler! If your town/family has filled a few holes in section 60, however, the Wilsonian ideals of fighting for intangibles ("Democracy abroad!" or "American Values!") does not particularly create the same level of enthusiasm. Your life is different than your livelihood...
Much easier to denounce Lindbergh as an anti-semite! Just write that he was for the Holocaust and google for a Tocqueville quote to splash in your prose. Much easier than arguing against people who are simply tired of providing their children for infinite wars for decreasing marginal returns.
So interested to see this. I have been arguing since the start of the Russo-Ukraine war that the American anti-intervention players on the right were "neo-Lindberghian." As your piece more than implies, this is not an new feature of American politics, even if it seemed to go away in the years since Pearl Harbor. The endless American wars of the 21st century has revived it. Perhaps at exactly the wrong time.
So glad an historian writes this article, as your garden variety political theorist would weave non sequiturs of Strauss and Aristotle into ad hominems of whichever politico draws less favor (pick a side: Neo cons or Am First/Trump. All tiresome).
The Des Moines speech is often maligned like it was the keynote for Triumph of the Wills, but it was an articulate and well argued speech (another urge for actually studying the primary sources, budding historians...) that was overwhelmed by World War II events and the aftermath. A useful cudgel to salt the fields for any interest in retreating from Europe (American First Delenda Est), plus we have markets to fill, as WA Williams would later argue.
The qui bono would be helpful to understand the motivations of this next phase: if you live in the DMV, working for government or the infamous MIC, Laissez les bons temps rouler! If your town/family has filled a few holes in section 60, however, the Wilsonian ideals of fighting for intangibles ("Democracy abroad!" or "American Values!") does not particularly create the same level of enthusiasm. Your life is different than your livelihood...
Much easier to denounce Lindbergh as an anti-semite! Just write that he was for the Holocaust and google for a Tocqueville quote to splash in your prose. Much easier than arguing against people who are simply tired of providing their children for infinite wars for decreasing marginal returns.
So interested to see this. I have been arguing since the start of the Russo-Ukraine war that the American anti-intervention players on the right were "neo-Lindberghian." As your piece more than implies, this is not an new feature of American politics, even if it seemed to go away in the years since Pearl Harbor. The endless American wars of the 21st century has revived it. Perhaps at exactly the wrong time.