Posted on 05/06/2008 8:59:30 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
Do you know the difference between a conservative and a neoconservative, or neocon?
This is not just a question of semantics. It’s far more important than that. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that the future of our country depends on understanding the crucial differences between the two philosophies – and rejecting the latter.
All of this was brought home to me most forcefully when a longtime friend sent me a copy of the speech he delivered at the Constitution Party’s annual convention in Missouri last week. I’ll tell you more about John F. McManus and the organization he heads in a moment. But first, let me quote extensively from his very thought-provoking remarks. (For ease of reading, I’m going to skip beginning quotes or putting Jack’s remarks in italics. But they start now.)
I congratulate you good Americans for labeling your effort the “Constitution Party.” How sad it would have been had you named your endeavor the “Conservative Party.” The formerly praiseworthy term “conservative” has been stolen. The thieves are the neoconservatives. And it is one of my purposes here to discuss what being a neoconservative means – and who are the neoconservatives.
Let’s first define neoconservatism. For that, we turn to the man who has joyfully accepted the label, “godfather of neoconservatism,” Irving Kristol. In 1995, he wrote Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea. He claimed that the “small but talented group,” of which he was a part, drifted away from liberalism and proceeded toward “a more conservative point of view.” More conservative? Not really. He described the view he had the nerve to call conservative. He said it “accepted the New Deal in principle and had little affection for the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism.”
Ladies and gentlemen, the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt – which Kristol approvingly identified himself with, and thereby identified all his followers with – is socialism, the very antithesis of the Americanism spelled out in the Constitution. And while we’re discussing godfathers, let me point out that socialism’s godfather was Karl Marx. In fact, communists and socialists argue over who is more pure when it comes to following the program attributed to Marx. Recall that it wasn’t the Union of Soviet Communist Republics that murdered millions, enslaved more millions, and destroyed the independence of dozens of countries for decades. It was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
In his definition of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol further stated that neoconservatives rejected “isolationism.” For the ill-informed American public, fastening that term on anyone is the equivalent of saddling him or her with the Black Plague. Whenever I get accused of isolationism, I respond, “I’m not an isolationist. I’m a non-interventionist with your son, your daughter, and your wallet.” That usually stops the name-calling. But when neocons attack “isolationism,” they are providing a good example of the way these people deceive with language. You are supposed to be a bad person, and even a bad American, if you disagree with their program that urges using America’s military might to police the world in undeclared wars.
Neocon Godfather Kristol is also on record advocating a “conservative welfare state.” How’s that for an oxymoron? I wonder if he likes dry water, or bright darkness. He included in his “conservative welfare state” Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, even a cash allowance for unwed mothers. There’s nothing conservative about any of that. Nor is there anything in the Constitution that would authorize it.
It is important to realize that the leading neoconservatives all came out of our nation’s Trotskyite movement. Hardcore leftists all, they claimed to have become disillusioned with the excesses of 1972’s Democratic Presidential candidate George McGovern. They actually labeled McGovern an isolationist – a real stretch if there ever was one. So these future neoconservatives gravitated to the Republican Party and brought their affinity for Trotskyite socialism and internationalism with them.
A neoconservative is someone who likes socialistic big government and meddling militarism. With that in mind, let me read to you the thoughts of a man who could correctly be described as a neoconservative before the term was even coined. Let us go back to 1952 and a magazine article authored by a man you’ve all heard of. I’ll tell you who wrote these words after reading them.
We have got to accept Big Government for the duration – for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged except through the instrumentality of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores. [We must] support large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards, and the attendant centralization of power in Washington.
Did you catch all of that? He’s advocating a totalitarian bureaucracy, large standing armies, war production boards, and the centralization of power in Washington. Ladies and gentleman, that’s neoconservatism in spades.
Who wrote those words in 1952? None other than William F. Buckley, Jr. Was Bill Buckley a neoconservative? Irving Kristol believed he was. And so do I, even though he had me fooled for a while. Also fooled for a time was a man named Medford Evans. He would later state of Buckley, “If he had not done a considerable amount of good, he could never have done so much harm.”
Let me give you an example of the harm he did, and the help he supplied to neoconservatism. Back in 1991, Buckley’s National Review sponsored a three-day meeting for top Republican conservatives. Kristol reported with delight that the result of the gathering was that its attendees arrived as conservatives but left as Republican-first neoconservatives. The alliance between Buckley and a host of neoconservatives grew deeper and deeper.
Neoconservative Charles Krauthammer once urged the formation of a “new universalism [which] would require the conscious depreciation not only of American sovereignty but of the notion of sovereignty in general.” Get rid of national sovereignty? That’s what he said. He even insisted that his willingness to cancel sovereignty wasn’t “as outrageous as it sounds.” Yes, it was.
Another favorite term the neoconservatives use to deceive the unwary is globalism, or getting along in a globalist world. This is really the opposite of independence, and independence is inherently a part of our constitutional system.
To a man, neocons applauded the elder Bush’s call for a New World Order. He always said that new world order included deference to the United Nations. Neocons not only love the idea of “democracy,” they want to “export” it and will do so by force if allowed to.
Kristol would later credit neoconservatism for helping to “modernize” the Republican Party. He heaped praise on Ronald Reagan as the “first Republican President to pay tribute to Franklin D. Roosevelt.” Later Newt Gingrich would shower FDR with similar praise, and he received the thanks of the neoconservatives for doing so.
Over recent years, besides godfather Irving Kristol, prominent neoconservatives have included Norman Podhoretz and his wife Midge Decter, Ben Wattenberg, the late Robert Bartley of the Wall Street Journal, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams and Kristol’s son William. Today’s neocons include the leaders of the Bush administration, who slavishly follow neocon thinking both domestically and in their foreign-policy adventurism.
Let me sum up. Neoconservatism means socialistic big government and internationalism. It dislikes national independence and favors world government under the United Nations. It urges the use of the U.S. armed forces in UN peacekeeping missions, policing the world, and getting bogged down in undeclared wars. It champions NAFTA, CAFTA, the World Trade Organization and the new drive toward a North American Union. It likes socialism at home and internationalism abroad. And it has control of the George W. Bush administration lock, stock and barrel.
If you love America for its history of limited government and strict independence, you have to realize that neoconservatives are your enemy. And you have to realize that the current administration is replete with un-American neoconservatism.
Is there any hope that we can stop the drive toward socialism and world government? Of course there’s hope. The American people don’t want this and there are still tens of millions who can be reached and energized. Add to this the fact that the Constitution still stands. Requiring those who swear a solemn oath to it to obey that oath can be achieved in many areas of this country.
We can begin the taking back of our country through the House of Representatives, the body of government that holds the power of the purse. Article I, Section 7 states, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House….” If 218 members of the House refuse to vote to fund foreign aid, the UN, undeclared wars, education, housing, and so much more, that’s it. There’s nothing the Senate, the President, the Supreme Court, or The New York Times can do about it. The House is where the effort of concerned Americans ought to be directed.
Can it be done? Of course! But keep in mind that success in politics follows successful educational work. Thomas Jefferson knew the value of creating an educated electorate. Hear what he had to say:
I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of the abuses of constitutional power.
Jefferson was correct. We must inform “the people themselves” by education. And from good education will come good politics, good citizens, and good government.
Let’s take our country back!
John F. McManus is the president of one the staunchest (and thus one of the most maligned) educational/activist organizations in the country, the John Birch Society. He is also the publisher of their excellent fortnightly news magazine, The New American. You can get more information about the group’s objectives and activities by going to their website, www.jbs.org.
Thanks, Jack, for giving me permission to reprint part of your speech today.
But PLEASE let up on the name calling long enough to supply specific instances where the author is in error with any of this!
One of the reasons why the Birchers have always been and will always be considered a lunatic fringe group.
Yup, the Neocons are the trojan horses of the GOP.
To name a few:
Fred Barnes
Bill Kristol
Even though there isn’t a practicing jew among the herd of neos, their shills will soon be screaming “anti-semite.”
Political correctness is part of the neos playbook.
Charles Krauthammer a neoconservative? Not that I’ve ever observed. Unless he is refering to another columnist that I am unaware of.
GIVE US SPECIFICS RE. ERRORS IN HIS REMARKS!!
Name calling won’t get it this time.
I am the granfather of 6 kids who will live as serfs to the state.
There is far too much at stake
I see conservatism as something that I’ve made completely my own. I’m a creationist/evolutionist, wishy washy on the death penalty, strong opponent of abortion, favor developing our own oil fields and alternative fuels (minus subsidies), want real results from schools before giving them money, oppose runaway outsourcing of jobs, and am vehemently opposed to illegal immigration.
Bogus argument. There is no solid definition of a neocon. Sometimes its the joooooos (Kristol, Pearl) who promoted war against the arabs, sometimes it’s Bush his blueblood old republican lineage. Sometimes its Cheney and Rummy, who have been center-right republicans since time began, sometimes its the young whipper-snappers like Rich Lowery and Laura Ingraham who grew up as Reagan brats. It’s whatever fits the author’s attempt to demonize who they don’t like.
BTW, I suspect you will have trouble finding those “errors.”
The speed with which you responded would almost certainly indicate that you DID NOT READ THE SPEECH!
Clever boy, you imported it into Word and searched for “Birch,” didn’t you. And that’s ALL you had to see.
THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY
(Michael Brown)
Oh we’re meeting at the courthouse at eight o’clock tonight.
You just come in the door and take the first turn to the right.
Be careful when you get there, we’d hate to be bereft,
But we’re taking down the names of everybody turning left.
‘Cause we’re the John Birch Society, the John Birch Society,
Here to save this country from a communistic plot.
We’re the John Birch Society, help us swell the ranks.
To get this movement started, we need lots of tools and cranks.
Now there’s no one that’s certain that the Kremlin doesn’t touch.
We think that Westbrook Pegler doth protest a bit too much.
We only hail the hero from whom we got our name.
We’re not sure what he did, but he’s our hero all the same.
Oh, we’re the John Birch Society, the John Birch Society
Socialism is the “ism” dismalist of all.
Join the John Birch Society, there’s so much to do,
Have you heard they’re serving vodka at the W.C.T.U.
Well you’ve heard about the agents that we’ve already named,
Well M.C.A. has agents that are flatly unashamed,
We’re after Rosie Clooney, we’ve gotten Pinky Lee,
And the day we get Red Skelton won’t that be a victory!
For we’re the John Birch Society, the John Birch Society,
Norman Vincent Peale may think he’s kidding us along,
But the John Birch Society knows he spilled the beans:
He keeps on preaching “brotherhood,” but we know what he means!
We’ll teach you how to spot ‘em in the city or the sticks,
‘Cause even Jasper Junction is just full of Bolsheviks.
The CIA’s subversive, and so’s the FCC.
There’s no one left but thee and we, and we’re not sure of thee.
Oh we’re the John Birch Society, the John Birch Society
Here to save our country from a Communistic plot.
Join the John Birch Society, holding off the Reds.
We’ll use our hands and hearts, and if we must, we’ll use our heads.
Friends, do you want Justice Warren to be your Commissar?
Do you want Mrs. Khrushchev in there with the DAR?
You cannot trust your neighbors, or even next-of-kin
If mommy is a Commie then you gotta turn her in.
Oh, we’re the John Birch Society, the John Birch Society
Fighting for the right to fight the right fight for the right
Join the John Birch Society, as we’re marching on,
We’ll all be glad to see you when we’re meeting in the John,
In the John, In the John Birch Society!
The Chad Mitchell Trio, Kapp Records #457, 1962
Hard to argue with his description of the origins of Neo-Conservatism. We are now into the second generation of Neo-Conservative leaders. Irving’s son, William, is among the leaders. He is editor of the Weekly Standard, which can sort of be thought of as the official journal of Neo-Conservatism.
I think defining Neo-Conservatism as “New Deal + Aggresive Militarism” is pretty realistic.
The problem is that the Socialists have won. The Constitution Party won’t win 1% of the vote. The only candidate who clearly wasn’t a neo-conservative in this election (on the R side) was Ron Paul.
Ron Paul was widely ridiculed by not just the leftist press, but the so called Conservative New Media (Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt) for his traditional conservative views such as a non-interventionist foreign policy, dislike of the inflationary Federal Reserve system, and desire to end popular social programs and replace them with capitalism.
A real conservative can not be elected in the USA today. So we will continue to get various versions of leftism on both sides: Democratic Socialist vs. Compassionate Conservative (Socialist) Radical Redistributionist Socialist vs. Neo-Conservative (Socialist), Racial Justice Socialist vs. Center Right Democratic Socialist “Maverick” (Socialist).
Gee, THAT was brilliant.
If you can unplug your Ipod and switch off American Idol long enough, do try to conjure an ORIGINAL THOUGHT just this once.
There’s a nation at stake here, funny man.
CITE SPECIFIC ERRORS IN THE SPEECH!
Start with line one, and work your way to the end. that about covers it.
Tancredo and Hunter both support our “foreign adventurism” against the terrorists and they are more conservative then the entire membership of the John Birch Society combined, and not “neo” in any way, shape or form.
Militant socialists is all they are.
As I explained in my previous posting NeoCon is no longer a little side movement of Conservatism, it's the main stream. The old-school Conservatives are the odd remnant, and not taken seriously.
No one except you brought up "the Jews". It is a silly attempt to attach a bogus charge of anti-semitism to those of us who are critical of aspects of neo-conservatism. Many prominant critics of Neo-Conservatism are also Jews.
Stop stirring the pot to create confusion and address the article, please.
He's not giving us facts.
He is giving us a list of highly-tendentious suppositions about people based on unsourced snippets of quotes.
Name calling won’t get it this time.
The article you posted is essentially one long exercise in name-calling: "Everyone who does not tow the Bircher/CP line is a socialist!"
I am the granfather of 6 kids who will live as serfs to the state.
Good thing your grandkids are not drama queens like yourself.
There is far too much at stake
To be led down conspiracy-mongering rabbit holes by Birchers? Absolutely.
While there is a sad truth in your observation, I’d remind you and those reading this thread that a “communist” is simply a “socialist” who owns and enjoys using a firearm — on other human beings.
Think for a moment about your remarks in the context of where we go once these elitists have taken away OUR weapons — and/or neutralized our abilty to resist them with them — and the state has the only weapons.
Ask the Jews of Europe — or the Ukranians under Stalin — or...
You get the idea.
All of that begs the question “DARE WE STOP RESISTING THEM?”
SPECIFICS instead of NAME CALLING!
More brilliance from wideawake.
Suggest you change your screen name to “fastasleep.”
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Any strategy that requires changing the views of a majority of Americans towards real conservatism will fail. You grandkids are going to live in a very different world, a very different USA than you did.
A former great freeper once said it all:
“Conservatism isn’t dead. It’s pissed off right now -— and that might be a good thing. “
Again, when no actual facts are presented, there can be no errors.
The entire piece consists of McManus' opinions on what he believes to be the private motivations of people he dislikes.
The speed with which you responded would almost certainly indicate that you DID NOT READ THE SPEECH!
If I was unable to read that article in 8 minutes, I would be embarrassed of myself.
Clever boy, you imported it into Word and searched for “Birch,” didn’t you. And that’s ALL you had to see.
Is it a "fact" that I imported it into Word? Or is it just an unsupported supposition about someone else that you can't prove?
(1) His bio at the end of the article clearly states that he's a Bircher.
(2) If you really wanted to search the article, you could just search it in IE - you wouldn't need to import it into Word to search it.
Look, where we failed was to “nationalize” the whole world when we had the opportunity, strength, and the b@!!$ to do it, just like Patton wanted to.
There is no doubt that open market, free societies are the most productive, primarily the most peaceful and most happy societies, yet, with those freedoms come great responsibilities. We are attacked daily by envious people that have to cheat, steal, and murder to match our military and economic might (and the reasons we let them will probably be the end of the country).
I don't disagree with some of the instances the author speaks of, but I find extremely hard to not pursue the filth that is jihad to the ends of the earth to eradicate such a disgusting political project (which the same argument can be made that it is neoconservative for its exportation of “death”). Has the US overstepped some of its bounds at times, oh, no doubt about it. Has it done such for the name of “national security.” Absolutely. Empire of Democracy and Debt is our current state, but we missed the boat as it set sail 50 years ago. Should have made the whole globe the Sovereign USA, and things might be a lot less complicated. So do I believe in globalism, sure, from the stand point of “Every person is endowed with certain inalieanable rights, something the speach and author fail to point out and something our country fails to understand in terms of history and conquests and empires. Once you're the biggest fish in the pond, you end up with parasites and other infections that not only bleed you from the inside, but the outside. Pleanty of solutions that have to take into account that we're not the only fish in the pond and each and every person in the world is in deed, linked together in some geopolitical economic way. That's realism, not isolationism.”
Dick, your gift for originality is unbounded.
Now, we've nominated McCain as our standard bearer! McCain who supports open borders and ongoing war in Iraq. McCain wants to cut "fraud, waste and abuse" but doesn't have a plan for Social Security, and certainly not a Conservative plan, such as abolishment.
So, I'm not giving up but I'm lowering my expectations. I don't think America can be turned from Socialism. America is being continuously invaded by immigrants who are CLUELESS about what the USA was founded to be.
My belief is a few states are the most we can hope to reclaim, and that's where my thinking is right now. At some point, maybe that's not even possible.
For guns to have any political meaning they need to be weilded by large bodies of like-minded men. We are not a nation of such, and we are certainly not growing a generation of them. The only stern minded patriots I know are 40+, mostly vets.
Yeah, Eisenhower was a Russian spy!
So was Roosevelt, Lincoln, and that Jefferson guy!
Lighten up, skippy, I did not call anyone a name until just now.
It’s bogus.
...exceeded only by YOURS.
I will say it here and herby throw down the gauntlet to any potential flamers: the best Americans are critically-thinking Americans who carefully, objectively and deliberately assess ALL of the factors relevant to any issue.
I know nothing of John F. McManus. I will neither agree nor disagree with his personal ideals for that reason. But I have always firmly believed that the diligent and conscientious American is morally and ethically constrained to consider all shades of opinion and all sources of data in order to form the most informed conclusion.
That requires effort. The average American hates that word these days. See what we conservatives are up against?
Finally, Dick's preparation for the inevitable haranguing by people who vehemently disagree with his opinion underscores a very sad point: As a general rule, people who abandon reasoned debate and resort to slander and name-calling have usually failed to think critically about an issue and in the end practice the same tactics that the liberals do: name-calling and insults. Such a practice is unbecoming of a true conservative- whose vales speak for themselves.
Except NONE of the people accused of being neocons ‘follow’ it’s founders’ path. Each mentioned in the article and each mentioned in previous neocon rants is a hodgepodge of conservative (and some liberal) strains.
As if the birchers never bring up the jews and their connection to “neoconservatism”.
On the one hand I’m amused by the frail links this author uses to paint todays republicans as followers of the Irving Kristol, yet has no problem having both feet firmly planted under the tutelage of Robert Welch. ROFL
That’s REALLY the best you can offer???
Gunner, you — and one or two others — have partly restored my faith in those who frequent FR.
Thanks. This asbestos suit is HEAVY and hot.
Great stuff, Dick.
Here are the sad facts of life:
(1) The Great War Against Communism - which lasted from 1917-1991 - is over.
The John Birch Society did nothing of any value during that war, despite its professed purpose of fighting Communism.
(2) The current enemy trying to bring down the West is militant Islam.
The John Birch Society is doing nothing of any value to fight it, and is actually trying to undermine the war against militant Islam.
It seems the only purpose of the John Birch Society is to defame the character and distort the thinking of the people who want to win.
(3) The John Birch Society and the Constitution Party are nothing but ideological talkshops for tiny groups of people who never accomplish any corporate actions.
What's most amusing about the JBS is that they accuse others of Trotskyism when they are a perfect mirror image of the Trotskyites: a small cabal of whiners bypassed by historical events that spend most of their time arguing over who has the most absolutely pure form of their ideology.
I stumbled onto this thread thinking it might be of interest. Oh well. If this is what you truly believe, your whole group can hold your collective breaths and become smurfs waiting on my answer, because there is no intelligent answer when the question stems from a paranoid delusion.
McGovern's campaign slogan was "come home, America"--about as isolationist a slogan as there ever was.
Wikipedia can be edited...duh.
I have no problem with any of that, as long as they vote for conservatives. They can join up with the Illuminati and the Whataburgers for all I care as long as they vote conservative.
Well. You are holding out this article as some kind of charter document on neoconservatism, and THIS is your idea of a definition? Would you agree that it is rather...subjective?
The author thinks that our presence in the Middle East is "Adventurism".
Just so you don't accuse me of putting words in his mouth, here is the relevant quote: "...the leaders of the Bush administration, who slavishly follow neocon thinking both domestically and in their foreign-policy adventurism..."
This is the flaw. People who are proponenents of this viewpoint, that we should not be in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines or any other country are quick to label as "neocons" anyone who thinks we DO have valid reasons for being there.
A lot of those people applying that intentionally derogatory appellation to people who disagree with them are the same ones who will scream absolutely the loudest when their gasoline gets scarce, or a terrorist attack occurs.
Personally, I have no use for someone who applies this label to anyone who disagrees with them.
Including the author of this screed.
I concur.
Neoconservatism . . . dislikes national independence and favors world government under the United Nations.
JOHN BOLTON, AS AN INTERIM APPOINTEE OF THE CURRENT PRESIDENT BUSH AS AMBASSADOR TO THE UN, MUST THEREFORE BE A “NEOCON,” YET DOES HE FAVOR WORLD GOVERNMENT UNDER THE UN?
But PLEASE let up on the name calling long enough to supply specific instances where the author is in error with any of this!
OK, THAT SOUNDS GREAT.
If you love America for its history of limited government and strict independence, you have to realize that neoconservatives are your enemy. And you have to realize that the current administration is replete with un-American neoconservatism.
THIS IS A QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE. WHO’S DOING THE NAME-CALLING (”UN-AMERICAN”)?
If 218 members of the House refuse to vote to fund foreign aid, the UN, undeclared wars, education, housing, and so much more, that’s it. There’s nothing the Senate, the President, the Supreme Court, or The New York Times can do about it. The House is where the effort of concerned Americans ought to be directed.
THAT’S CORRECT, NEEDLESS TO SAY, ABOUT THE HOUSE’S POWER OF THE PURSE. HOWEVER, IF MCMANUS THINKS THAT THE NEW YORK TIMES - AT LEAST OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS UNDER THE LATEST SULZBERGER (”PINCH”)- IS AN ADVOCATE OF THE “NEOCON AGENDA,” THEN HE IS (TO SAY THE LEAST) VERY OUT OF TOUCH.
The alliance between Buckley and a host of neoconservatives grew deeper and deeper.
IINM, BUCKLEY OPPOSED THE WAR IN IRAQ FROM THE BEGINNING.
Spoken like a true “Hunterite”.
I was once a Bircher myself, but left because the John Birch Society refused to support Ronald Reagan in the mid-1970's. In fact, the Birchers were downright hostile to Reagan, whom the rest of America's conservatives enthusiastically supported.
For some reason, the Birchers were also against Proposition 13, California's ballot initiative seeking to curb property taxes, which the voters passed in 1978--I recall attending a meeting at which Birch spokesman R. D. Patrick Mahoney spoke out against the initiative. once again, the JBS was not on the same page as the rest of the conservative movement.
I thought this had already been decided. Neoconservatives are jewish. Paleoconservatives are nazi’s. At least, that’s what the MSM says.
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.