Replies

He has always been strong on foreign policy...even back in the early 80s at TNR. Guess he just got his neo-nose under the door.

I think Krauthammer's a good guy, with a huge blind spot.
I don't, however, find the "neo" and "neoconservative" appellations helpful here. They're too often bandied about in a way that gives the impression of sinister machinations and suspicions.
"Jewish conservatives" works well enough, though we can debate Krauthammer's gun-control positions on less high-charged threads at another time.
I'm not slamming you personally, but the rhetoric is getting intense. Sometimes necessarily so, but at other times more than is necessary.

Here is a bit from Andrew Sullivan's blog:

"THANK GOD FOR KRAUTHAMMER: Charles Krauthammer has never written a dumb column, to my knowledge. Even on emotional subjects such as civil marriage, he brings to the debate a calm reasoning that wins the respect of his opponents as well as his supporters. And that is also why his searing criticism of Mel Gibson's inflammatory and idiosyncratic version of the Passion is so helpful. I'm tired of people believing that Gibson is representing Catholicism. He isn't. He is a rebel against Catholicism, specifically the reformed, open, repentant Catholicism of the Second Vatican Council. Gibson doesn't recognize the authority of the current Pope; he doesn't recognize the current mass - the central ritual of Catholics across the world. People are mistaken in believing that he merely prefers the Latin mass; he doesn't. He favors the Tridentine mass, a relic. He believes that all non-Catholics are going to hell, another heresy. He is clearly and palpably anti-Semitic. His movie is an act of aggression against Jews, and, as such, is an act of aggression against Catholicism and the current Pope's heroic efforts to confront the shameful history of the Church with regard to the Jewish people. Charles notes how Satan walks and lives and breathes among the Jews in the movie. He doesn't mention that young Jewish children actually turn into demons at one point in the movie, a device that only students of medieval anti-Semitism would notice. In fact, one reason that today's viewers do not notice the hatred of Jews in the movie is because, mercifuly, they are not familiar with the medieval tropes that signal evil and that Gibson trafficks in. Gibson knows. And he knows how his movie will play in those parts of the world where anti-Semitic tropes are still recognized. Notice I am not accusing people of good faith who have found inspiration in the story portraayed in this movie of being anti-Semitic. I'm sure that many if not almost all of that devition is genuine and not motivated by anything but spiritual hope and reflection. But that cannot disguise the malice that lies beneath. And that Gibson would use the message of Christ to advance it is what makes it doubly unforgivable."

I had not thought of the "neo-nose"=Jewish thing until you brought it up.

I happen to like aquiline noses. Folks think I'm nutty cause I think Sofia Coppola is cute.

I like Chuck's hawkishness but culturally he is out to lunch...just my two cents. He is not as far removed from Marty Peretz as I had hoped.

I find myself a mix of Neo (since that means hawk) and Paleo (since that infers social righty)....

You must admit though that there are a number of Neos who speak well about war but have no clue about the war being waged right here. Some are Jewish some are not.

This whole thing is a bit charged anyhow since media pundits are disproportionately Jewish anyhow....which only has to do with Jews being drawn to that sort of occupation I guess.

I have complained about Chuck's gun stance here for years but nobody except my bang-list compadres seem to listen.