{"id":163171,"date":"2025-08-25T16:56:38","date_gmt":"2025-08-26T00:56:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=163171"},"modified":"2025-08-25T23:53:53","modified_gmt":"2025-08-26T07:53:53","slug":"morton-halperin-professional-hysteric-posing-as-ir-wiseman","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=163171","title":{"rendered":"Morton Halperin – Professional Hysteric Posing As IR Wiseman"},"content":{"rendered":"

For more than 20 years, Mark Halperin<\/a> (hat tip to Mickey Kaus) has been my favorite American political journalist. I consistently get more bang for my buck listening to Mark than all of his competitors put together. My esteem for the young Halperin however does not carry over to his father Morton who periodically comes on Mark’s show to impart his special brand of high-brow hysterics about world events. For example, Morton’s current crusade is about stopping Vladimir Putin, who’s playing with such a weak hand, he can’t even take over Ukraine, let alone Poland and other European nations.<\/p>\n

International Relations professor John Mueller wrote in his 2006 book, Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\nIn an article published in the first year of the Kennedy administration, Morton Halperin characterized the response of the Eisenhower administration to the Gaither hysteria as \u201ccomplacency\u201d and called for \u201ca strong, vigorous President\u201d to overcome \u201cbureaucratic and political opposition to the implementation of new, vitally needed programs.\u201d In this instance, complacency proved to be the far more nearly correct response to global military threats and challenges that, as it happened, didn\u2019t exist: no new programs were \u201cvitally needed.\u201d Moreover, complacency would have saved considerable money and might even have kept the United States from wandering into the debacle of Vietnam.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Over the past 40 years, Morton Halperin, who’s simultaneously Jewish and passionately devoted to destroying the Jewish state, has thrown in with the left, including the most significant opponents of Israel such as George Soros and his Open Society Foundation<\/a>, as well as J-Street<\/a>, the leading Jewish organization against Jewish nationalism.<\/p>\n

Wikipedia notes<\/a>: <\/p>\n

According to Caroline Glick, deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, J Street is anything but pro-Israel: “Through their actions, J Street and its allies have made clear that their institutional interests are served by weakening Israel. Their mission is to harm Israel’s standing in Washington and weaken the influence of the mainstream American Jewish community that supports Israel.” Lenny Ben-David, former director of the Israeli branch of AIPAC, said J Street hides “its real anti-Israel face behind a ‘pro-Israel’ mask”.[100] Barry Rubin suggested that J Street is an anti-Israel front for Iranian interests, masquerading as a Zionist organization.[101] Political commentator Alan Dershowitz said, “It is a fraud in advertising to call J Street pro-Israel,” and claimed “J Street has done more damage to Israel than any [other] American organization.” <\/p>\n

In August 2022, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) tweeted that “George Soros has a long history of backing anti-Israel groups…Now he’s giving $1 million to help @jstreetdotorg support anti-Israel candidates and attack pro-Israel Democrats.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

ChatGPT says: <\/p>\n

The Shift<\/strong><\/p>\n

When political actors lose faith that they can steer U.S. grand strategy directly \u2014 or when their earlier prescriptions are discredited \u2014 they often pivot to the moral arena. Instead of trying to balance budgets, alliances, or deterrence, they frame the struggle as one of human rights and global legitimacy. This lets them retain urgency and moral authority, even as they cede hard power debates.<\/p>\n

Mort Halperin\u2019s Case<\/strong><\/p>\n

1961: He demanded a \u201cvigorous president\u201d to escalate spending against phantom Soviet threats. Moderation was condemned as \u201ccomplacency.\u201d<\/p>\n

1990s: He rebranded moderation again, this time insisting America must not act alone. U.S. interventions without UN approval were illegitimate \u2014 in his framing, restraint from UN-centered multilateralism was the new irresponsibility.<\/p>\n

Later career: At Open Society Foundations, J Street, and other platforms, Halperin elevated democracy promotion, rights, and international legitimacy as the organizing principles of U.S. engagement.<\/p>\n

The style is consistent: urgency, framing moderation as reckless, and presenting his own prescription as \u201cvitally needed.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Pattern<\/strong><\/p>\n

Inflated stakes: Whether Soviet missiles, CIA abuses, or Putin\u2019s menace, the stakes are cast as existential.<\/p>\n

Moral urgency: Compromise is recast as dangerous. Eisenhower was \u201ccomplacent,\u201d unilateral U.S. action was \u201creckless,\u201d caution toward Putin is \u201cna\u00efve.\u201d<\/p>\n

Legitimacy transfer: When military panic loses credibility, the same rhetorical engine is harnessed for \u201chuman rights.\u201d The battlefield shifts from tanks and missiles to courts, NGOs, and UN votes \u2014 but the language of emergency stays the same.<\/p>\n

John Mueller\u2019s Critique Applied<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Mueller shows how exaggerated threats waste resources and corrode judgment. The same applies here:<\/p>\n

Human rights as substitute politics becomes a way to feel noble while sidelining democratic debate at home.<\/p>\n

Just as with the \u201cmissile gap,\u201d the alarm outpaces reality. The U.S. cannot save global democracy with Pentagon peacekeeping or by subordinating its sovereignty to the UN, any more than it could prevent Soviet domination by building more missiles.<\/p>\n

The cost is the same: wasted effort, misplaced priorities, and the illusion of control through grand gestures of urgency.<\/p>\n

Bottom Line<\/strong><\/p>\n

A passion for global human rights can be sincere. But in Halperin\u2019s hands, it follows the same script as his Cold War threat inflation \u2014 turn moderation into weakness, cast your own position as the only responsible course, and mobilize moral urgency aka hysteria as a substitute for political realism.<\/p>\n

Pose:<\/strong> Clear-eyed strategist warning of existential dangers.<\/p>\n

Reality:<\/strong> A recurring habit of inflating threats and branding caution as recklessness.<\/p>\n

What he said (1961)<\/h2>\n

In World Politics<\/em>, Halperin attacked Eisenhower\u2019s cool response to Sputnik\/Gaither as \u201ccomplacency,\u201d urging a \u201cstrong, vigorous President\u201d to push through \u201cvitally needed\u201d defense programs: \u201cThe Gaither Committee and the Policy Process\u201d (1961)<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Why that\u2019s wrong (the record)<\/h2>\n