cv? 1 liat is an illegitimate question, and an illegitimaternthought. To the universalist neoeonscrvatives, only culturalrnxenophobes would argue that not everyone needs the welfarernstate, universal suffrage, an imperial executive, civil rights, andrnfixed elections every four years. Just as the universalists expectrnAmericans to give up their cultural identity, so do they wantrnforeign peoples everywhere to sacrifice the same, as they arernmerged into the universal nation.rnThe neonationalist neoeonscrvatives—represented byrnsuch figures as Irving Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and CharlesrnKrauthammer—agreed in principle with most of the universalists’rnposition. But they introduced a caveat. Yes, everyrncountrv^ can and should have social democracy, but there arerntimes when it is not in the American “national interest”rnto send off the armed social workers. They even named theirrnforeign policy journal the National Interest.rnThis view has nothing to do with the Monroe Doctrinernthat many on the Old Right found persuasive. That doctrinernwarned Europe to keep out of this hemisphere, and promisedrnthat we in turn would keep out of Europe. The neonationalistsrnmake no geographic distinctions, hideed, Krauthammerrnhas warned that the dread notion of “spheres of influence” isrnmaking a comeback, thanks to Clinton’s defense of an invasionrnof Haiti on the grounds that it is in our “backyard.”rnTo the neonationalists, having an undemocratic regime inrnour hemisphere is no more or less compelling a reason to intervenernthan if it were overseas. What then is the “nationalrninterest”? This is to be determined by the foreign policy elitesrnunder the ncoeons’ wings and on the basis of a wide numberrnof considerations that cannot be enumerated in advance of arndeclared emergency, such as a threat to the permanent sex partyrnin the palace at Kuwait.rnOn one level, this internal neocon debate seems superficial.rnBoth camps, after all, want a massive military, a giant foreignrnaid budget, a controlled crew of foreign policy experts, an imperialrnpresidency, and a Congress that is too cowardly to exercisernits constitutional war powers. Both sides favored the GulfrnWar, pleaded for intcr’ention in Bosnia, cheered the bombingrnof the alleged plotters of Ceorge Bush’s death, wanted tornannihilate North Korea, and salivated over a second war onrnIraq. And both sides want a gushing foreign aid spigot andrnmassive spy agencies. But they do not agree on all wars. Thernneonationalists split with the universalists on Somalia, Rwanda,rnand Haiti, fearing that intervention in such places wouldrndiscredit militarism itself.rnBut e’en the universalists should have cringed over thernforay into Haiti. Here is a country where voodoo reigns, wherernthe masses are illiterate and violent, where there is nothingrnresembling the rule of law, and where it makes no differencernto American security whether Haiti is ruled by Aristide thernvoodoo priest or one of his zombies. As civilized people, wernwish the people of Haiti well. As citizens and taxpayers, wernsay: our troubles are your ov^’n.rnOur Old Right forebears felt the same in December 1914,rnwhen, as Charles Class recounts in the Spectator, “ThernU.S. Marines were dispatched to Haiti to confiscate $500,000rnin gold from the I laitian treasury and deposit it with the NationalrnCity Bank of New York.” After the full-scale Marinerninvasion of July 1915, the “National City Bank was awardedrnownership of the treasury and forced Haiti to borrow $40 millionrnat higli interest.” American forces then took control of therncustoms houses to insure that the loan was repaid. PresidentrnWilson noting that “control of the customs houses . . . constitutesrnthe essence of this whole affair.”rnThe Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Eranklin D. Roosevelt,rncrowed to the New York Times in 1920: “The facts are that Irnwrote Haiti’s [1918] constitution myself, and if I do say it,rnI think it is a pretty good constitution.” Why? For one thing,rnit changed the basic law of 1804—which had forbiddenrnforeigners from owning any part of Haiti—so Americanrncorporations could confiscate 266,000 acres of the best agriculturalrnland under American military protection. PresidentrnEisenhower also sent the Marines to Haiti, to insure thatrnthe “pro-Western” Papa Doe Duvalier would stay in power.rn”Pro-Western” meant, then as now, wholly owned by the StaternDepartment.rnToday, the best thing we could do for Haiti is to tradernwith its business classes. Instead, the United States imposedrncrushing sanctions, driving an already impoverished peoplerninto ruin. Clinton then promised to shoot the country intornsubmission. Only Jimmy Carter’s hard work and Christianrndecency prevented this, as they prevented another Korean war.rnThe Wall Street journal editorial page, the voice of neonationalistrnneoeonservatism, panned the idea of an invasion forrnweeks. As for the universalist ncoeonservatives, they werernstrangely silent. Here was their theory being tried out, andrnthey were nowhere to be seen. Here was Fossedalism, Muravchikism,rnand Wattenbergism in action. Like the journal’srneditors, they may have feared that an invasion would discreditrnAmerican foreign policy. So they left it to the New YorkrnTimes to defend the Haitian adventure, which looked morernand more like a criminal enterprise every day our troops werernthere.rnAmerican troops paraded all over the country, busting downrnthe doors of private homes and businesses, confiscating privatelyrnowned guns, and then inviting mobs to loot and destroyrnwhat was left. The Pentagon kept telling us it had to disarmrnand jail the members of FRAPH, the attaches, the gunmen,rnthe thugs, etc. They had to shut down radio stations and thernpress. They had to gag and arrest anybody who had a gun orrnwho opposed the United States government. Sounds like whatrnClinton would like to do in America.rn”In a worrisome incident the U.S. military still hasn’t disclosed,”rnreported the journal, “the 25-man Haitian army garrisonrnin the isolated mountain town of Belladere rebelledrnThursday night. Following a confrontation between U.S.rnArmy forces there and the Haitian commander, the Haitianrntroops locked themselves in barracks. After the U.S. forces demandedrnthey come out and blew the locks off their doors, onernsoldier ran out of the building . . . and was [killed]. There werernno U.S. casualties.” The Haitian troops “rebelled”! So werndragged them out of hiding in their own country? Andrnmurdered a man? Somebody explain to me why this is notrnterrorism.rnIn the first speech by the communist cokehead Aristide afterrnhis installation as president by the United States, he urgedrnthe mob to grab people they thought were gunmen, or attaches,rnor FRAPH members, or whatever, and thereby unleashedrna torrent of looting. That was only the beginning. Yetrnwe kept hearing that the Haitian mission was a success. Forrnwhom? The United States got away with an immoral war; thernmobs in Haiti got a pound of light-skinned flesh; and I laiti gotrna voodoo-socialist government, courtesy of the American tax-rnAPRIL 199.5/11rnrnrn