Posted on 06/14/2004 4:57:30 AM PDT by Theodore R.
There was no Balkan involvement in the Reagan administration, as I recall.
Some of the older "neocons" today had youthful roots back to the communist movement of the 1940s, when the communists quarreled over Stalin and Trotsky.
What I have never understood is why Reagan would have such a radical anti-Semite as Buchanan in his administration. Reagan was very supportive of Israel.
Buchanan was a hanger on from earlier administrations. He hid his true colors for many years. I'm convinced Buchanan is still po-ed over the death of "Der Fuhrer" in 1945 Berlin.
I prefer to believe that he'd have opposed it.
Which ones?
Who are you speaking about?
The strange thing is, most use the term today to mean anyone who supports the Iraq war, and want to label the Bush Administration neocons. Bush is a strong social conservative and has been very aggressive in protecting American Sovereignty in rejecting numerous international treaties. That puts Bush solidly in with conservatives, although his policies on reducing government has been less than stellar. The term neocon though is used way too loosely. The ironic thing is, the same people who call Bush a neocon are usually the ones who also call Bush a far-right Christian funamentalists.
I know one who could be called a neo con...but he is a writer...David Horowitz...He writes from the inside knowledge of the 60s left, the evils of socialism after really studying it,etc. He had a transformation and is hated by the left, now. He calls the left totalitarians.
The term has come to be squishy--and often means what the user wants it to mean.
It is an intellectual movement made up largely of the insular children of the Partisan Review. After I devoted some time in reading the philosophical underpinnings--and got heartily tired of the word "hegemony"--I was off neocons for good. All conservatives should spend some time trying to understand the neocon literati--they are not good news for conservatives.
Abandon these intellectuals and their ideas, and I don't care who calls who "neo"--it'll be as silly as worrying about the paleos.
But these ideas got us into the Balkans. They carry power, clearly.
Compare "Getting Whitey" and "Depraved Generation" (I don't think I have that title right?!) to the ivory-tower, pretentious murk that Kristol writes...
Anyone who hates the left, probably is not a neocon. Anyone who calls a conservative who holds traditional conservatives principles a neocon is misusing the word.
Whatever it means and to whom, it started out as an intellectual movement in the salons of the babes of the Partisan Review, later branching out into other money-losing publications. Sonny-boy does have to work, and shouldn't get his Ivy League hands dirty. How it began, and all the writings associated with it, is as reliable a definition as any.
I wouldn't want to give names, for I might get them wrong, but would be some of the intellectuals attached to publications like Commentary magazine.
If you don't know their names then it sounds like they must be fairly irrevelant to the current political process. find this 'neo-con' label confusing and not particularly relevant to the current political process - unless you can enlighten me how it relates to what's going on now. Thanks.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
"It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government."
- President Ronald Reagan, in his 1st inaugural address.
It really makes me sick seeing political opportunists try to use this man to further their ends before he's even in the ground. They see a lot of media coverage and they just can't wait to bend it to their use. Just sick. And shameless.
But he does raise a good point. Reagan's foreign policy was largely about liberty, and the second generation neocons seem more interested in power. There's no firm, bright line of division between the two alternatives. Neocons assert that their use of power will produce liberty and peace, and they can point to some of Reagan's policies to justify their Iraq venture, like Reagan's strong support for Israel and its intervention in Lebanon, or the way that Reagan's policies may have helped bring peace and freedom, stability and democracy to much of the world.
But Reagan was pulling away from neocon hardliners in his second administration. He was willing to keep the pressure on enemies and be confrontational when it was necessary, but he didn't quite have the appetite for power that his critics did. Perhaps at the back of his mind, there was something of the pacific spirit of Middle Western isolationism. It's hard to put one's finger on it, but there was a difference between Reagan and the more aggressive hawks.
For Reagan and the first generation neocons, the West had to assert itself against a rampant, aggressive Russia in order to survive and to save civilization. For today's second generation neocons, America's dominant position in the world is the most important fact, and that power is to be used here and now to change the world. Reagan still had something of the caution and restraint of someone who knew the limits of power, while the second generation is reluctant to recognize those limits and forever pushes against them. President Bush seems to be more in the Kennedy-Johnson tradition than that of Reagan. It's the natural overconfidence of a country that's won a great victory and thinks has more power over foreign conditions than it in fact has. Reagan came at a more chastened and wary time and acted accordingly.
You could see the strains in our alliances already in Reagan's day, with Europe drawing away from America. To his great credit, Reagan maintained his course and didn't waver. But my perception is that he wouldn't have gotten quite as carried away by the "go it alone" mentality as his successor has, if only because our alliance had been so crucial to holding the line against the Soviets for so much of his life.
A lot of us turned to Reagan in the hope that once the Soviet Union was contained or defeated that things would go back to "normal." That was probably not achievable. There will always be some sort of political conflict in the world, and one can't avoid or escape it. But still, Reagan does seem to have had a more accurate sense of what our power could achieve in the world. He was optimistic and inspiring, but had a realist side as well that hasn't always been in evidence in government since he left office.
Recall France refused Reagan overflight privileges to bomb Ghaddafi...One would think from todays pundits and dems that we had close warm relations with France...ever since De Gaulle kicked our troops out and left NATO in the 60s.
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.