The Neocon Moment is Over

Star-Ledger ^ | May 23, 2007 | Paul Mulshine

[Irontank]

So-called "neo" conservatism has its roots in a Marxist view of the world. So it is not surprising that the neocons are trying to silence their most prominent conservative critic.

That would be Texas Rep. Ron Paul. He outraged the neocons during the Republican presidential debate last week by advocating that the GOP return to the traditional conservative stance of noninterventionism. Paul invoked the ghost of Robert Taft, the GOP Senate leader who fought entry into NATO. And he also pointed out that messing around in the Mideast creates risks here at home.

That prompted Rudy Giuliani to interrupt Paul and demand that he retract his remarks. Paul not only refused to bow to Il Duce, but after the debate, Paul told the TV audience that the self-appointed saint of 9/11 might consider reading the report of the 9/11 commission, which makes the same point in some detail.

....

I put in a call to Andy Napolitano, the Fox News legal analyst and my brother's old buddy at Notre Dame Law School. In addition to appearing on TV, Andy co-hosts a talk show called "Brian and the Judge" on Fox radio.

"Our calls have been going 10 to one in favor of Ron Paul," said Napolitano, a former Superior Court judge in New Jersey who supports Paul's libertarian views.

....

Clearly, the doctor had hit a nerve. The neocons are fond of arguing that we can't simply retreat into "fortress America," as they call it. But the impulse to do so is deeply ingrained in the American psyche. If you doubt that, look at the polls on immigration. The neocon in chief is an open-borders guy, but that view has no support in the base of the GOP.

[Brimack34]

It is a term for a Jewish Conservative. Much like Uncle Tom is to a Conservative Black.

[Ohioan]

How can you type such nonsense, when the group define themselves in a way that is specifically not Conservative, yet insist on describing themselves as new Conservatives? (The "Neocon" label is the one they adopted. Read my linked analysis, which quotes Kristol on the subject.)

That some of them are descended from Jewish families is hardly relevant to what they stand for. Trotsky, himself, had Jewish lineage. That hardly made the vicious Communist a spokesman for Jews. Nor is there anything anti-Jewish, in denouncing that Communist or his latter day admirers today. You are seeking to divert attention from what the group stands for, by injecting a total "red herring." Why do you want to divert attention from the actual issues?

[unspun]

Very, very few people have decided to call themselves "neoconservative," compared to those who are call that by liberals and isolationist libertarians.

[longtermmemmory]

the more i hear about ron paul the more he appears as the republican kucinich, perenial kook kandidate.

This article hardly has any credibility. It seems more an attack piece to create a foil to make Guiliani look (pseudo) “moderate”

[Irontank]

the more i hear about ron paul the more he appears as the republican kucinich, perenial kook kandidate

What positions of Ron Paul's do you think make him sound like a kook?

[Ohioan]

Very, very few people have decided to call themselves "neoconservative," compared to those who are call that by liberals and isolationist libertarians.

There is a lot of confusion, implicit as well as explicit in your statement.

How you claim to have an accurate picture of the numbers, who actually embrace a label, that those who have defined a complex of policies have adopted, I can only wonder at. But what is the point? The attack is on a complex of beliefs; and what is relevant is to understand those beliefs, and determine whether or not they represent something that may be rationally maintained or not--and, of course, whether they are something the rest of us want to support. Counting noses as to a label is an exercise in absolute folly, in my opinion.

But where you really go out on a limb, is to gratuitously insult those who disagree with the "Neocon" position. If you think you can defend it, be my guest. But do not suggest that the opposition, from those of us who support traditional American Conservative and Libertarian values, is isolationist, etc.. That is not true now, and never was true. I would suggest that you read Washington's Farewell Address; that you read some of Jefferson's writings on foreign policy, and our relations to other nations. You will soon realize that isolation was the furthest thing in the world from their intentions.

For more, see An American Foreign Policy. Or check out the little debate we "arranged," George Washington Debates George W. Bush.

William Flax

[unspun]

1. I’ve sees virtually no one using the term “neoconservative” for himself in years.

2. Think of George Washington waking up today and finding that the Atlantic Ocean is now just a river that one can throw a coin across.

[The_Eaglet]

The more I hear about Ron Paul the more I think about how conservatives could feel good about voting a Republican into the White House again.

[Ohioan]

Since they have been intellectually discredited with most thinking Americans, of all shades of public opinion, it is not surprising if the "Neocons," are much less inclined to call attention to themselves, as an ideological group. But the lower profile is probably only about a year old. But just what is the point? That they are less obstreperous adds nothing to the credibility of their arguments.

As for George Washington, you show your lack of awareness of his position. What has the Atlantic's width to do with a policy, basically conceived in what both works best in the human experience, and what is most in accordance with honor and fairness? Again, the Founding Fathers were never isolationists--never! They sought trade and good relations with all mankind. But that does not mean they wanted to become part of some World Government.

As for our Defense needs? Washington favored the Swiss system, which would have made virtually every able bodied man a potential soldier in the field. And, let us face it. However wide you consider the Atlantic, most of the encroachment of America today, is over a fairly narrow river, or open desert. No one has yet swum the Atlantic.

[oblomov]

I consider myself a libertarian, or a small-government conservative, and I fully oppose amnesty and illegal immigration in general.

To make a long story short, libertarians are not of a single mind about this issue.

The vast majority of libertarians are not anarcho-capitalists, but are minarchists.

An anarcho-capitalist would argue for no government- that roads, police protection, and even the punishment of crimes and settlement of legal disputes should be privatized. This was the position of Murray Rothbard, and the leading advocates of this view today are Lew Rockwell and David Friedman. An anarcho-capitalist would be in favor of open borders by necessity.

Minarchists are split into several camps. Minarchy was defined by Robert Nozick as a “night watchman state” - that the government should provide for public order, but little else. Nozick’s book, _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_, attempted to prove that the anarcho-capitalist system of private law enforcement and arbitration would eventually settle out as a minarchic society.

And, surely border enforcement is a part of maintaining public order, and would be part of this minarchy?

Many libertarians, like Ron Paul, view border enforcement and structured immigration policy as one of the few legitimate functions of government. Paul has roughly the same position on this issue as Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter.

[SoCal Pubbie]

You did, in your post no. 50.