Against Neoconservatism (It's the new Jacobinism, says Claes G. Ryn.)

Lew Rockwell.com ^ | 5 May 04 | Claes G. Ryn

[SquirrelKing]

...Jacobin squirrels.

Oops, sorry I was dense - just got in from a week's camping and the bug spray had dulled my senses.

I get it now!

[Zionist Conspirator]

Christians and Jews await the only Messiah.

That is true.

If you indeed believe in objective Truth rather than subjective "blood and soil" derived "truths" then there is not as great a gulf between us as I feared.

The sooner G-d's Holy Temple has been rebuilt and the Kohen HaGadol in his holy garments performs the `Avodah the safer the world will be.

We need more Jewish farmers and shepherds. Someone has to provide the offerings!!!

[x]

I was very impressed by paleoconservative arguments and criticisms the first time I came upon them. But after a while it came to look to me like they just wanted to bemoan the state of the world and feel superior to it. It may well be that the world is going to hell in a handbasket and will either break down completely or face a crisis and recover, but there doesn't seem to be much point in hearing about it over and over again. Clearly we aren't the people our forefathers were, but the question is what are we to do here and now with what we have and what we are.

Ryn is better than some others in the faction. But for Tom Fleming and some other paleocons, what's most important seems to be standing aside and telling others what's wrong with the world. Is that enough? Is it useful? Or enjoyable? After a while you have to decide if you're going to be completely passive or "do something." And doing things usually means cooperating with people whose views one might otherwise deride. It means adapting more to the world as it is and people as they are in the hope that one can keep things from getting worse.

[mrsmith]

"How would Jefferson be a neocon by today's definition? Hamilton, Clay, and their political lineage I can easily see but Jefferson? "

Barbary war, giving foreign aid to the Haitian rebels, and preventing France from retaking their rich Haitian sugar plantations unless they gave us Louisiana.

In sum: Using aggressive foreign war and foreign aid to expand the American 'empire'.
His Secretary of State, James Madison, had a big hand in all of this of course.

Frankly, the common "paleocon" position seems to me to be a creation of the pre-WW1 era.
We've always been aggressive in our foreign affairs.

[mrsmith]

"Jefferson a neocon-- yeah, I caught that too, but I didn't feel like getting into a seventh grade American History lesson. *sigh*"

Well, when you've gotten pass seventh grade and feel ready to learn a little adult history...

[billbears]

Not the same. The instances involved post WWI, except for having to clean up the mess WWI created in WWII, have for the most part been situations that our nation of states has had no major interest. Iraq presented no clear and present threat and all that's been done is to create yet another nation state to suck the taxpayers dry

[Paulus Invictus]

Terminal asininity from a leftist idiot.

[ovrtaxt]

Again, my focus is on the domestic side. (No problems with the war here...)

Jefferson HATED big government, and the expansion of Federal influence over the American people and the states, as did Madison. That's the whole point of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, we had to fight our bloodiest war to do away with the tenth amendment. Others were taken care of in various ways. The first was relatively easy, what with McCain/Feingold.

How many people will notice when the second is emasculated even more than it already is?

Neocons love big government. I don't. I place myself squarely in the conservative/libertarian camp with Jefferson. (Yes, I know, the Libertarian Party is run by idiots. I vote Rep. out of necessity)

[mrsmith]

"has had no major interest"

I believe that if the numbers were looked at, the Persian Gulf would be about as important to our economy today as the Mississippi was in Jefferson's day, and more important than our trade through the Mediterranean that Jefferson went to war over.

We could have lived without the Mississippi of course (and the coast along the Floridas and the West Indies, and the Mediterranean trade)- just as we could get by without the Persian Gulf today- if we were/are willing to make the sacrifices neccessary.

Jefferson (or any Founder) wasn't - 'Paleocons' today seem to be.

Times do change, maybe the 'paleocon' foreign policy will soon replace our traditional aggressively growth-oriented one with a "go along to get along" or "live and let live" one. The planet is getting awful crowded and growth and freedom may suffer from it.

[mrsmith]

Jefferson was always for a limited federal government, and his actions showed that as much as his words.
Foreign affairs was mostly what the federal government was invented to do though.

I don't think of 'neocons' as especial proponents of the liberal interpretation of the "general welfare" clause. That sounds more like a "moderate", or "maverick" or any other media synonym for "liberal".

'Neocons' accept what has been accepted by the populace in the use of the liberal "general welfare" clause, isn't that right? That's pragmatic, no one can take the 'free' government goodies voters are used to away from them- absent a miracle.

[billbears]

just as we could get by without the Persian Gulf today- if we were/are willing to make the sacrifices neccessary.

You mean drill on land that is actually in the union? The natural resources are already on our land. More than enough to replace the supply we receive from the Middle East (which is less than 20% of the total supply). So not exactly the 'vital' resource the Mississippi River was to the growth of this nation of states. Must be some other reason we're over there. Since it's not to find WMDs, which didn't exist at the levels originally 'thought', and the latest excuse is to 'spread democracy' sure sounds like the regular neocon cock and bull line to me. Something Jefferson would have disagreed with.

[billbears]

'Neocons' accept what has been accepted by the populace in the use of the liberal "general welfare" clause, isn't that right? That's pragmatic, no one can take the 'free' government goodies voters are used to away from them- absent a miracle.

Well at least you admit it. You're not a conservative. You're a FDR populist. 'Well it's there, no use in trying to stop it. Hey we'll make sure the next big thing (healthcare) isn't as big as it possibly could be. That's sort of conservative isn't it?'

[mrsmith]

So fighting a proxy war in the foreign land of Haiti to force France to grant Louisiana so America could expand it's empire was a 'paleoconservative' thing to do.

And those who advocated building canals and roads in America to connect the interior of the country with the coast- instead of getting involved in foreign wars- were what? 'Neocons'?

Fascinatingly agile words 'paleocon' and 'neocon'. No wonder they attract simple-minded ideologues and their ignorant sheep like a flame does moths!

As an aside, if America had given up our claims to traffic on the Mississppi, as we almost did during the war, the plans to build canals from the Ohio River through Virginia would quite likely have succeeded.

That would have made quite a difference in the War Between the States.
Instead of siding with the Northern states they had developed commercial ties with because of the Erie Canal, the western states would have developed those ties with the South instead.

[mrsmith]

I admit what?

Well at least you don't back up anything, that shows some sense.

[billbears]

And those who advocated building canals and roads in America to connect the interior of the country with the coast- instead of getting involved in foreign wars- were what? 'Neocons'?

If you so choose to use that word, it fits better than conservative.

Fascinatingly agile words 'paleocon' and 'neocon'. No wonder they attract simple-minded ideologues and their ignorant sheep like a flame does moths

Compared to 'realists' who have no ideals other than remaining in control for as long as possible. Willing to sell anything, up to and including their political soul, for power

As an aside, if America had given up our claims to traffic on the Mississppi, as we almost did during the war, the plans to build canals from the Ohio River through Virginia would quite likely have succeeded.

Would be quite hard to do considering that many of the states had refuted Clay's 'American System' by passing laws contrary to the improvements called for by same scheme

[billbears]

'Neocons' accept what has been accepted by the populace in the use of the liberal "general welfare" clause, isn't that right? That's pragmatic, no one can take the 'free' government goodies voters are used to away from them- absent a miracle.

You admit by this statement you have no care for rolling back the size of government, reducing years of government largesse. Rather you call for limiting what happens moving forward. However the same voters you don't have the stomach to take things away from aren't going to stop asking the government to take care of them. And of course as an realist 'conservative', you have no plan other than to keep voting in the same groups that have given us the behemoth we currently have. How absolutely brilliant...

[mrsmith]

Such agile words certainly take the burden of thinking away.

And now you claim Virginia wouldn't have allowed the private companies it had licensed to build canals to do so because it had refuted the "American System".

That is so perverted it is impressive.

[mrsmith]

So my not calling for a new deal, but only for the same old deal, makes me like FDR because he called for a new deal of federal government powers?

This is as silly and facetious an 'argument' as paleo/con labelling.
Those who don't want to stop or slow the growth of federal power claim they are "better conservatives" because they want only to reverse the growth LOL!