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.

[hinckley buzzard]

Paul invoked the ghost of Robert Taft, the GOP Senate leader who fought entry into NATO.

This tidbit reveals much about Paul's incompetence. The US did not enter NATO. The US forged NATO at the desperate plea of western Europe, who was prostrate and facing millions of Red Amy troops and tanks at their doorstep. And besides, NATO worked. I guess successfully deterring the USSR and later the whole Warsaw Pact and keeping the peace in Europe for forty years sucks if you're a crackpot isolationist.

[pillut48]

Best. Definition. Ever. :-)

[ravingnutter]

The title alone tells me the article is not worth reading, that term is only used by liberals and Ron Paul supporters.

[randog]

What’s a ‘neocon’?

Originally meant liberals that saw the wisdom of Reagan, but lately it's overused to mean anyone to the right of Stalin because "neo-con" sounds like "neo-nazi".

[listenhillary]

Neocon schmeocon

Hang that frickin word up. We’re all Americans, even the ass orifices that want us to lose and submit rather than fight and win.

[Alberta's Child]

The establishment of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security exposed the "war on terror" as a complete fraud -- if not outright hostile to the notion of a free and sovereign United States of America.

This department -- "Homeland Security" -- was deliberately named so as to diminish the notion of national identity, U.S. sovereignty, etc.

Any doubts that anyone had on my statement about a "silly" war on terror should have been confirmed a couple of years ago when the U.S. allowed the Iraqi government to adopt a new constitution in which Islam is enshrined as the official state religion.

"War on terror," my @ss. This government is building an empire, and in the Middle East we've come across the one group of people who are apparently willing to take some very extreme measures to stand in our way.

You might find this thread interesting -- particularly my follow-up in Post #10:

NATO Must Act in Kosovo

[Alberta's Child]

Exceptional post, Irontank. You might want to add the information contained in the thread I linked at #46 to your extensive pile of resources.

[stainlessbanner]

Neocon - strong government intervention, involvement in foreign affairs, foreign policy

Paleocon - less government intervention, less involvement in foreign affairs, decentralized government

[stainlessbanner]

Great post, sir!

[Alberta's Child]

There is a major flaw in your comparisons to those previous "non-isolationist" campaigns by the U.S. government. The vast majority of those campaigns involved military action in support of expanding the sovereign territory of the United States (in other words -- with the intent of adding stars to the U.S. flag).

Tripoli was the lone exception, and I'd make the case that the protection of U.S. shipping from foreign predation on the "high seas" (this term had a strict legal definition that is a very important consideration here) is hardly incompatible with an isolationist philosophy.

[theFIRMbss]

>The Bush administration basically tossed away every shred of credibility it had when it allowed these big-government leftists to play such a key role in shaping our foreign policy and military affairs

This is NOT us now! We're not thirteen 'city-states' along one coastline! "Big government" whines are like complaining about blue skies or wet rain. The US today is a global presence and it will always take lots of guys in suits to manage global affairs, and coast-to-coast stuff. Republicans (and "conservatives") must define ourselves NOT by whines trying to turn back the global clock to a time when "small" government could run a country, but as the SMART PEOPLE who can manage the globe. "Small" government's past, "conservatives" must be folks with the ideas (the smart ideas) for translating our greatness to the global stage.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

"War on terror," my @ss. This government is building an empire, and in the Middle East we've come across the one group of people who are apparently willing to take some very extreme measures to stand in our way.

You really DON'T have a clue, do you?

Empire, my foot. Your whole argument is self-contradictory. If this really were about empire-building, then we wouldn't even have let the Iraqis HAVE a constitution, much less one which "officially enshrines Islam".

And the name "Homeland Security" diminishes US sovereignty and national identity....how? By focusing on, um, the US homeland?

I'll tell you what is outright hostile to the notion of a free and sovereign United States of America. It is collaborators like Ron Paul who want to do nothing until radical Islam gets strong enough to bring the war to Hackensack and Cobb County - i.e. American soil.

[Ohioan]

The title alone tells me the article is not worth reading, that term is only used by liberals and Ron Paul supporters.

Have you been asleep, like Rip Van Winkle? The term is one that a small group of collective minded theorists have adopted to describe their own movement. My article, on them (The Neo-Con Phenomenon) is based on an analysis of an article by Irving Kristol, their self-proclaimed "Godfather." Every word of Kristol's description of the movement is quoted verbatim. Nothing is taken out of context.

The constant wining by their supporters, which suggests that they are being unfairly attacked, is nothing but cheap theatrics.

[Irontank]

It is collaborators like Ron Paul who want to do nothing until radical Islam gets strong enough to bring the war to Hackensack and Cobb County - i.e. American soil.

A couple of things...where did you ever read that Ron Paul does not want to do anything about radical Islam? Second, do you understand that the war in Iraq (to which Ron Paul has been opposed since the beginning) had nothing to do with Al Qaeda originally and has only helped Al Qaeda by validating what AQ says about the US wanting to occupy and dominate the Middle East? That's not Ron Paul saying that...that is the assessment of US intelligence

[stainlessbanner]

Maybe doing nothing would be more effective than current neocon politicians supporting:

• amnesty for illegal immigrants
• awarding US Homeland Security grants to secure mosques
• creating more H1Bs for non-Americans
• supporting foreign control of interstate and port transportation systems

[ex-snook]

A neo-con is a liberal crossdressing as a conservative.

[jpsb]

"What’s a ‘neocon’?"

A big government socailist that doesn't mind sending your kids to war. As opposed to a typical Rat that is a big government socalist that thinks the UN should handle problems. Other then that there is very little difereces between the two main groups of big government socailism.

[Irontank]

Re post #46 and the neocons on Kosovo....I had not seen that before...it is amazing...these guys (and its a fairly small, albeit influential group) have some track record of really screwing things up, don’t they?

[Egon]

I guess it would be a little too much for you to point out that all three sentences you posted can be traced in some fashion back to Woodrow Wilson's grand crusade to 'spread democracy' wouldn't it? Remind me again, what world leader is currently advocating 'spreading democracy'?

Yes, it would be. I just thought of those off the top of my head.

By the way, sometimes the concepts of "making the world safe for...", "stopping the spread of...", and "spreading..." are synonymous. Sometimes they aren't.

Here's a thought for you, since you seem to be interested in history: Was Poland renowned for its interventionism prior to being invaded by Germany?

[kevkrom]

What’s a ‘neocon’?

A word used by an author who has just lost the argument. I think we ought to propose a variant of Godwin's Law, to wit: the first person to accuse someone of being a "neocon" has immediately ceded the argument to the other side.