Posted on 08/16/2006 8:36:15 PM PDT by n-tres-ted
Neoconservatism is hard to pin down as discrete political theory; Mr. Podhoretz [prefers] "tendency." In any case, as a practical matter, it denotes the mentality of those who moved from somewhere on the political left to somewhere on the right, primarily during the late '70s. It had "two ruling passions," according to Mr. Podhoretz. On the one hand, the neocons were repulsed by the countercultural '60s radicalism that came to dominate the American liberal establishment. On the other, they argued for a more assertive, muscular foreign policy (at the time in response to Soviet expansionism). ...
The "war on terror," he argues, ought to be rightly understood as "World War IV," demanding a new set of policies and ideas that will allow the U.S. to cope under drastically altered conditions.
The point of his voluminous WWIV essays ... is to limn the ways in which George Bush has done precisely that. "The military face of the strategy is pre-emption and the political face is democratization," he says. "The stakes are nothing less than the survival of Western civilization, to the extent that Western civilization still exists, because half of it seems to be committing suicide." ...
Does the president understand? ... Hasn't the administration, on the more intractable questions of Syria and Iran, shown by and large the same weakening of resolve? Mr. Podhoretz winces. The question seems to set his teeth on edge. "There are people who ask George Bush to do everything at once," he declares, "instead of picking his shots and moving at a politically viable pace. It's nice as an intellectual exercise, but what is the point of demanding things that no democratic political leader, not even George Bush, could conceivably do at this time? To my mind it's a kind of right-wing utopianism."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I am not sure there are any paleo con successes.
The neocon failures seem to be unresolved questions-- which again I don't have anything specific on.
If you're talking about neo-conservatism as an idea, I would disagree, but if you mean it as a MOVEMENT, I know exactly what you mean.
No. It was a self-designation by Cold War Democrats who left that party when the McGovernites gained control. Irving Kristol, father of the Weekly Standard's William Kristol, calls himself the 'godfather' of neoconservatism. On domestic issues neoconservatives retain plenty of their Great Society liberalism.
Actually, the vast majority of them are Iranian. It's hard to get an accurate estimation of their ethnic backgrounds, though, because it's such a mismash of Islamic people (there are even Turks and Czechs in the mix).
Think about tax's, national debt, border security, real wages, actual U.S. job growth, etc.........
11. Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
Both countries were not just doing this prior to WOT-- they were doing it much more. In fact, we were funding it ourselves as a strategy. As a comparative matter, the situation is better under neo con policy.
12. India/ China
I would choose India over China any day. They are and will be a great ally. Their economy will surpass China. They are the new super democracy of the 21st century. They have our back by getting China's back.
Iran and Syria
More neocon brilliance here. We have these great base locations for attacking them at any time. The names of these bases are Afghanistan and Iraq. Take a look at a map. It looks much better now than it ever did. We are battle tested and actively deployed. There will be no warm up-- just instant gratification whenever we want to deliver it.
China is horrible but I think capitalism and christianity will continue to unravel them. India is a solid counterweight. North Korea blew it for China by virtually assuring Japanese re-armament which throws another massive counterweight against China. South Korea grows increasingly conservative as well.
Another neo con achievement of Bush is the building of foreign military forces to assist our future coalitions. Canada is one such example.
I'm not sure, but I think you might be mixing up the father (Norman Podhoretz) with the son (John). The former is no dope.
The US economic position has never been stronger. Realize that I tend to view things from a macro perspective of our GDP which means I tend to ignore "biggest ever . . ." arguments.
I need to see percentages of GDP in order to see negative trends and frankly I don't see it.
We have a 13 trillion dollar economy today-- it will be 20 trillion by 2020. We are economically on fire.
Neo-conservative = ex-democrat i.e. RINO.. Republican in drag...
Your youth excuses your misunderstanding of the subject. Google "Paul Gottfried Irving Kristol" and see what you find.
The problem with the term neoconservative is that it is a term that has been usurped by the left and used as a synonym for Jews. Whenever a leftist rants about "neocons" they generally mean "Jews", such as the way the word "cosmopolitans" was also used to mean Jews.
I have no real problem with the term or the political philosophy, or discussing it with sincerity. But when these wild eyes lefties use it, they mean Jew as in "Jews control the government" etc...
Well said. I see you're no stranger to the subject.
Could be. This excerpt of the article refers only to a "Mr. Podhoretz," and I can't read the rest of it because I don't have a WSJ Online subscription. I just assumed it was John, but it could very well be Norman.
A good observation. 'Social democrats' is often applied to them, and 'Jacobins' as well.
Or, maybe you were about to do that.
The early neocons, of whom Podhoritz is one of, were former TROTSKYITES and most of them, such as Kristol ( Bill's father ) were well into adulthood, if not middle age, in the '60s and early '70s.
Most people tell me I'm wise beyond my years.
Google "Paul Gottfried Irving Kristol" and see what you find.
I know who Kristol is, but I'm really not concerned with things like that. There's no solid truth on how man and his thinking have evolved over the years, only people perceptions and theories of them.
The true neocon, I think, is typified by Norman Podhoretz and David Horowitz. They were not just previously on the left in their thinking - they were leftist radicals. But in Vietnam and its aftermath, they saw that their leftist comrades were lying about major things (such as the bloodbath following our bailing out on South Vietnam after the Dems cut off funds) to keep their ideology together. Once they committed themselves to recognizing the truth, they had to abandon the left. But they brought with them a very vigorous thought process that has reinvigorated conservatism and made us stronger and more thoughtful. As Norman P. says, ideas matter.
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.