Historically, the Wall Street Journal has been the house organ for Hamiltonians, i.e. mercantile foreign policy optimistic realists. Is there a buck to be made from attacking Syria? Are there no downside risks to trade from such an attack?
When did the WSJ become the mouthpiece of “National Greatness” interventionists? You know, the people who never met a military intervention they didn’t like. Is it all about defense spending?
From a quick google, I see Lew Rockwell made a similar complaint in 1999 about the “War Street Journal” being the most aggressively pro-war voice on military action in Yugoslavia. He thinks its about defense spending. The WSJ sounds Wilsonian, or perhaps unilateral Wilsonian, to me.
Hmmm. Wonder if the ownership changed in the last few years? That aside, they have always seemed pretty pro-war. The neocon element has had them sewn up for a while, along with the Washington Post.
Steve
@steve, my googling was intended to ascertain whether this can be ascribed to a change in ownership. But if they were pro-war on Kosovo, I would bet they’ve been pro-war on every war in living memory.
PD- Cant find anything on Somalia, but I believe Boot was writing for them then, and he is always pro-war, especially if we can kill Muslims in the process. But, I do think we need to keep this in context. Up until the Iraq debacle, how many papers were actually anti-war? I think pro-war is the norm in America.
Steve
Max Boot might be the simplest answer. (Looks like he wrote for the WSJ from 1994 to 2002)
I think the issue might be tone. Some editorial voices are simply deferential to power and contacts. Others are presumptive of their own world views and contemptuous of the rest.
I think that non-intervention is the norm for most Americans and pro-intervention is the norm for American elites.
“pro-intervention is the norm for American elites.”
“It ain’t me…It ain’t me….I ain’t no Senators son….no, y’all…”