Posted on 10/09/2009 7:48:23 PM PDT by Federalist Patriot
Here is a video clip from a speech delivered by outstanding Conservative Charles Krauthammer in which he blasts President Obama for making the choice to reject "American Exceptionalism" in speeches he has made around the world and at the United Nations.
Krauthammer said Obama actually said he believes in American Exceptionalism the same way he is sure the British believe in British Exceptionalism, and the Greeks believe in Greek Exceptionalism. In other words, he does not believe there is anything special or exceptional about the American way of life, our Constitution, or our history. Krauthammer essentially says Obama had chosen a kind a path of mediocrity for the United States that makes us just one of many nations rather than a nation set apart to lead the world.
NOTE: I think Obama's rejection of "American Exceptionalism" is exactly what makes him so appealing to people like the Nobel Prize Committee. . . .(VIDEO)
(Excerpt) Read more at freedomslighthouse.com ...
0bama is an apologist, he could not be president in Kenya. Only in America...
Does this new, humbler America mean that virtually the whole world will no longer be coming to us with their hands out, begging for money?
So you think if nut house McCain was in there everything would be just fine. That RINO is worse than a democrat. At least we expect them to be our enemy but to have one of our own (supposedly) cut our throat is unforgiving.
“outstanding Conservative Charles Krauthammer”
I’m curious as to when Walter Mondale’s speechwriter became “an outstanding conservative”. Was it when he no longer wrote speeches attacking Ronald Reagan?
The headline is wrong. Krauthammer is not a “conservatve.” He is a neoconservative in the tradition of Kristol and Podhoritz. Hence he supports both the welfare state (including welfare for the rich in the form of TARP) and the warfare state.
Krauthammer’s question at the end was pretty profound. How does this new world govern itself? How is this international system to function?
New World Order controlled by whom—A World Ban—filled with crooks and thieves who will collect taxes assessed internationally!
Well put!! I had forgotten that Krauthammer was Mondale’s speechwriter. A strange career for a shrink.
OOps sorry. Ban = Bank
Any RINO is in general worse than an adversary who’s honest about their positions for sure.
On this specific issue, though, at least McCain could admit that the world envies several exceptional aspects of American life that make America exceptional. Among these, culture, economics though not for long, education, medical technology, athletics, and military. Obama is afraid that admitting such exceptional attributes would upset our alleged allies. So he criticizes his own country instead. Then he gets Gibbs to say Republicans side with terrorists for disagreeing with Obama. Oye.
“Politically, (Krauthammer) tells us, he belongs to the Democratic tradition ‘’whose pedigree stretches from Harry Truman through Henry Jackson’’ - and if nowadays that makes him something of a displaced person, in his political essays he remains faithful to a philosophy that combines tough foreign policies and tender domestic ones.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/11/12/books/books-of-the-times-147253.html
All you people are waaay tooo uptight MAN!
What are you afraid of?
BEING FORCED TO DO SOMETHING AGAINST YOUR WILL?
Oh, no worries, FORCED AGAINST YOUR WILL with this administration? NEVER!
I was really not aware that Krauthammer was a speechwriter for Walter Mondale! My only real knowledge of him has been listening to him on Fox News, and he generally sounds very conservative in his views.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Actually, the “Democratic tradition” subscribed to Krauthammer did not start with Truman. It started when Krauthammer’s mentors, Irving Kristol and Podhoritz were Trotskyites and preached the doctrine of “international world revolution” and perpetual war. When they abandoned Marxism and moved into the Democratic party, they did not give on the ideas but only revised them.
This is where I get off the bus with Krauthammer. It's neocon grandiosity to make the jump from saying America has a good way of life and a good Constitution to saying therefore America should "lead the world." I don't like that sort of haughtiness.
Strange isn’t it, thought that The Once, can expound heartedly and hardily about the exceptional contributions of the Muslim culture to no end. How many times have we heard his praise for his Muslim brethern and THEIR exceptionalism.
That’s the reason why he despises Americans thinking of their country as exceptional.
I share your view of the origin of our Trotskyite comrades.
They are certainly survivors in the world of politics, and have a real knack for hitching a ride on whatever wagon suits their purpose at the moment. Frum is a junior member of the class. Watching him change his spots has been a real show.
You know, I could point out that no "neocon" has ever gone as far off the deep end as "paleocon" Pat Buchanan (picking a radical leftist as a Presidential running mate), or proven as politically inept and self-serving as "theocon" Alan Keyes (who cleared the Senate path for Barack Obama), or advanced domestic liberalism as much as "foreign policy realist" Richard Nixon (author of wage and price controls, OSHA, the EPA, etc, etc).
But I don't consider those examples representative. I believe that the conservative movement has been enriched and advanced by all these elements. Neocons, social conservatives, economic conservatives, libertarians, the religious right, free traders, etc, have all played parts in the coalition.
Carping, moaning, narrow factionalists like you guys have not. You talk about "Trotskyites," yet no one here exemplifies the "true believer" splinterism likewise found on the far left so much as you yourselves (even ignoring your wholesale adoption of far left rhetoric concerning supposed "neocon" sins).
I personally don't think the conservative movement is enriched or advancing. I think it's close to dead. Something called the conservative movement is doing ok at the grass roots level--town halls, tea parties, etc. But the ship continues to sail in the other direction, and most conservatives have abandoned the notion of constitutional limits as antequated and inconvenient.
And you can hardly consider me a "factionalist", given that I voted for John McLoser in the general election. I did the dirty deed. Come the general, I pick between the two candidates, and it's beyond a no-brainer. It's a sad truth.
You can't carp and whine about factionalism on the one hand, and then validate it on the other--neocons, social cons, econ-cons. Either the factions exist or they don't. I've heard them referred to as the three legs of the stool.
Well I'll tell you this: given the current state of conservatism, I'd say "stool" is a perfect word for it, if you get my drift.
You do get points for the Life of Brian reference, though :-)
Stultis means “fool” in Latin.
“Carping, moaning, narrow factionalists like you guys have not. You talk about “Trotskyites,” yet no one here exemplifies the “true believer” splinterism likewise found on the far left so much as you yourselves (even ignoring your wholesale adoption of far left rhetoric concerning supposed “neocon” sins)”
Yep, you have us pegged. We are True Believer Splinterists Adopting Far Left Rhetoric. And our secret leader was none other than Irving Kristol.
“From Memoirs of a Trotskyist by Irving Kristol
I was graduated from City College in the spring of 194O, and the honor I most prized was the fact that I was a member in good standing of the Young People’s Socialist League (Fourth International). This organization was commonly; and correctly, designated as Trotskyist (not “Trotskiyite,” which was a term used only by the official Communists, or “Stalinists” as we called them, of the day). I have not set foot on the City College campus since my commencement. The present president of the college, Robert Marshak, has amiably urged me to come and see the place again – it is very different but still recognizable, he says. I have promised to go, but somehow I think I may never find the time...”
http://www.pbs.org/arguing/nyintellectuals_krystol_2.html
“The Neoconservative Persuasion
From the August 25, 2003 issue: What it was, and what it is.
by Irving Kristol
08/25/2003, Volume 008, Issue 47
WHAT EXACTLY IS NEOCONSERVATISM? Journalists, and now even presidential candidates, speak with an enviable confidence on who or what is “neoconservative,” and seem to assume the meaning is fully revealed in the name. Those of us who are designated as “neocons” are amused, flattered, or dismissive, depending on the context. It is reasonable to wonder: Is there any “there” there?
Even I, frequently referred to as the “godfather” of all those neocons, have had my moments of wonderment. A few years ago I said (and, alas, wrote) that neoconservatism had had its own distinctive qualities in its early years, but by now had been absorbed into the mainstream of American conservatism. I was wrong, and the reason I was wrong is that, ever since its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s, what we call neoconservatism has been one of those intellectual undercurrents that surface only intermittently. It is not a “movement,” as the conspiratorial critics would have it. Neoconservatism is what the late historian of Jacksonian America, Marvin Meyers, called a “persuasion,” one that manifests itself over time, but erratically, and one whose meaning we clearly glimpse only in retrospect...”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3000&R=785F27881
Good research!
Wow, gee.. let me stop dragging my knuckles for a minute and think about that! McCain worse than Obama. Hmmm.... (ponder, ponder). Geeee... Obama the better choice than McCain. I'm stumped...
NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! McCain is not a communist, friend. The executive branch would not be crawling with communists and communist Obama would not be making THREE Supreme Court appointments. Does that focus it for you, friend?
Well he is the Secret Leader of all of us carping, moaning, narrow factionalists, after all.
It is interesting whom someone attacks versus whom they choose to promote. Take two speechwriters from the 1980s for instance, both working for Presidential candidates. One worked for President Reagan, one worked for Walter Mondale. The first is Pat Buchanan, the second is Charles Krauthammer. One is despised by the neocon faction, the other is beloved by them.
Now perhaps it is a symptom of my carping, moaning factionalist imagination, but it seems to me that the neocon big Tent has a welcome mat at its left door and barbed wire on its right. Neocons as a group were latecomers to the conservative nation, but once here they don’t mind instructing us about who ought to be kicked out. Which makes their own complaints about being picked on ring rather hollow.
I’ll have to give the neocons credit for sheer gall. They fail repeatedly but keep on coming like the living dead.
I wouldn’t exactly characterize neoconservatives as having failed. I’d say that they have done a remarkable job of establishing themselves in the major conservative foundations, magazines, and media outlets, and in the GOP. They have done a very good job at reshaping the conservative movement to their own satisfaction.
What may keep coming back like the living dead is an older conservatism, one that isn’t socially liberal and intends to remain that way. One that doesn’t like the myriad of government programs that have been entangling American culture since the Great Society. One that isn’t enamored with big government, even when Republicans are running it. I’d say that Palin taps into that older vein of conservatism, which is one reason that she is regarded as an outsider and a threat to some of the powers that be in “official” conservatism with its neoconservative flavor.
Huh?
If you date the modern conservative "movement" to Goldwater's candidacy in '64, then the neocons came on board only a little more than a decade later.
The main movement of neocons was in response to Jimmah Cahtah's weak foreign and national security policy, and probably had passed it's peak by the time Ronald Reagan ran for reelection. I.e. it occurred 1976-1984. And keep in mind, even if they weren't called by the name, some individuals followed the "neocon" pattern -- moving to the right for the same reasons -- even earlier. Ronald Reagan, for instance, a "New Deal" Democrat, converted to conservative Republican in the early 1960's.
But, in any case, I'll ignore Reagan and others and use 1976-1984 for neocons as "latecomers".
Compare this to the "religious right". For more than a century prior to the modern era, theologically conservative Christians had been far less likely than the general population to participate in politics and elections. This demographic tendency changed dramatically when Jimmy Carter ran for the Presidency. I.e. the "religious right" began to emerged historically at the same time as neoconservatism! And what's more, most of them supported Carter and voted for him. At least the whole point of the "neoconservative" movement was to oppose Carter.
Granted that initially some of the neoconservatives wanted to support Carter, if they could influence him to toughen up his spine on national security issues, but that very quickly became an obviously lost cause. Most neocons supported Reagan by 1980 and '84.
The religious right also got over it's Carter support, and indeed a new wave of religious voters joined the conservative movement after Pat Robertson ran for the Republican nomination in 1988. So for the the religious right we have the dates of 1976-1988.
So, if we dismiss and excoriate neocons as "latecomers," shouldn't we do exactly the same with the religious right, who were at best equally late, and some more late, than the neocons?
So there goes the neocons AND the religious right. Is there any other large, loyal, energetic and vital contingency of the conservative movement you wish to throw under your bus? (Or maybe the "true conservatives" can fit in a "smart car"?)
Funny, then, that one of Palin's strongest supporters, and indeed the man who personally recommended her to McCain as a running mate, was the leading neocon Bill Kristol.
In fact, I'm not saying there isn't or wasn't, but off the top of my head I can't think of any leading neocons who opposed or attacked Palin.
Throwing under the bus? All that I did was cite past actions of the heroic neocons. Maybe being reminded of their own behaviour constitutes throwing them under the bus.
All the same I’ll leave the throwing under the bus stuff to your side. Neocons have shown themselves to be highly skilled at the practice going back to the character assassination of the fine conservative scholar Mel Bradford in order to secure a nomination for the meagerly qualified Democrat Bill Bennett. Not to mention the serial bashing that has been a feature of David Frum’s illustrious career, beginning with his American Spectator hatchet job on Buchanan, through his ‘Unpatriotic Conservatives’ phase up to his current purging of various figures on the right. Is it Glenn Beck today? I don’t know, I can’t keep up.
I’ll go for dating the modern conservative movement to the Goldwater candidacy. Some of the National Review group were heavily involved in the Goldwater campaign and it also featured “The Speech”, Ronald Reagan’s speech to the Republican National Convention that marked his emergence as a political figure.
During the 60s those who would become neocons were happy members of the Democratic Party of Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey, a party that combined a muscular foreign policy with a meddling do-gooder domestic policy. The liberal social policies of the era are still venerated by neocondom. Where Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the neocon worldview champions it as a great advance in American law.
Was Goldwater a racist? Of course not. But unlike liberals, and their neocon offspring, Goldwater didn’t believe it was the right of politicians and the national government to insert itself in the beliefs of private citizens, no matter how odious it thought their beliefs to be. Freedom included the right of Americans to be jerks. But jerkhood is something verbotten by the thought police and eternal busybodies of the liberal religion, and so ever since 1964 the door has been opened for the national government to closely monitor the behaviour of individual Americans, their businesses, and their private associations. So the next time the Boy Scouts get beat up because they offend atheists, or the military is forced to change in order to become gay -friendly, or some college dumps its mascot because it offends some protected group, remember where the government largely got the ability to do this stuff.
In 1968 there were no neocons because they still were happy members of the Democratic Party. Its liberal big government domestic policies suited them and there was still a muscular foreign policy with Hubert Humphrey heading the ticket. There was the beginning of trouble with the rise of the antiwar faction under Bobby Kennedy and then Eugene McCarthy. But the big split was yet to come.
The real impetus for neocons to consider leaving the Democratic Party wasn’t Jimmy Carter in 1976, it was the takeover of the Party by the antiwar McGovern faction in 1972. Had Scoop Jackson or Edmund Muskie taken control after the McGovern debacle then maybe the exodus wouldn’t have happened, but they didn’t. Carter was just the last straw. His incompetence and perceived weakness by the Soviet Union worried anyone who saw the world as a dangerous place. Democrats like Jeanne Kirkpatrick began to consider working with Republicans like Ronald Reagan.
And so the exodus began. Soon we found ourselves in the predicament described by Clyde Wilson:
“First of all we simply have been crowded out by overwhelming numbers. The offensives of radicalism have driven vast herds of liberals across the border into our territories. These refugees now speak in our name, but the language they speak is the same one they always spoke. Our estate was taken over by an imposter just as we were about to inherit.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.