(via LGF)  Our buddy Victor Davis Hanson provides his latest written screed on The End of An Era -- The Bankruptcy of the Anti-Americans.   Hanson examines the curious reversal of the Far Left in matters of foreign policy over the past 40 years:

The dream of 1960s radicals was supposedly that someday the United States might use its vast cultural influence and military power to be on the "right side of history."  ... Few then lectured that the Nicaraguans should be left to handle their own dictators or that we had no right to tell the Spanish what to do with Franco. Instead, support for revolutionary movements was voiced and action demanded.

Unfortunately, the Far Left today seems to prefer the stasis of 3rd world dictators & is more likely to be lining up for a photo-op with Qadafi, a press conference in Baghdad, or an anti-war/Pro-Palestine march:

So we have at last arrived at Cloudcuckooland: A hierarchal United States military is more tolerant of liberals in its ranks than liberal universities are of their critics on campus. Republicans support dangerous interventions abroad to remove dictators and free oppressed peoples, as leftist dissidents agitate for hands-off mass murderers and medieval theocrats. A democratic Israel is slandered as imperialistic and fascistic while an authoritarian Palestinian regime is given a pass for theft, murder, and torture. And liberals, women, and homosexuals are saved in Afghanistan thanks to the work of Air Force pilots and special forces, as reactionary fundamentalists and thugs seek to hold onto their autocracy in part by finding solace with anti-American leftists. Who would have ever thought that democratic Iraqis would seek our military's help, while agents of Saddam Hussein would line up to find solidarity with those now marching?

As Hanson points out, there's a fascinating political thought evolution we're witnessing here.   However, I don't think he goes back far enough in matching revolving labels to stances.   If we watch the label "Liberal" over the past 400 yrs:

• The Classical Liberal of the 1600s/1700s is now the Libertarian/Conservative position in the 1900s/2000s.   These folks believe in a government that maximized Freedom over Virtue/Equality domestically.
• In Foreign policy, the Modern Liberal of the 1960s is now the interventionalist Conservative of the 2000s - those dreaded neocons. These folks believe in an idealist, Universalist recognition of human rights / morality across the globe and will assert it via Intervention.   In many cases this is pursued independently of the Kissinger-esque, Realist motivation of strict National Interest (for ex., think of interventionalist conservative support of Bosnian and Somalian interdiction).
• And finally, the isolationist Conservative's Foreign Policy of the 1800s/pre-Wilson 1900s have been resurrected as the PostModern Liberal of the 2000s.  These individuals want to divest the application of American Power from the globe as much as possible regardless of Moral imperatives.  Perhaps more accurately, for both today's Isolationist Conservative and the PostModern Liberal, the sheer absence of American/Western power abroad is regarded as its own Morality. 

Although both advocate a type of isolationism, the underlying motivations between PoMo Liberals and Iso-Conservatives couldn't be any different.  The Iso-Conservative (for ex., Pat Buchanan) thinks "we're above intervention" in the follies of lesser folks.   By contrast, self-loathing PoMo-Liberal thinks "we're below intervention" because WE are the root of what's bad, that we have no way to judge what's good and certainly no means for proselytizing what's good for other people.