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.

[jpsb]

once must be somewhat pragmatic from time to time, NATO was a very good idea. Taft was worng on that score, on the other hand the UN has not worked out all the well. The idea should be to take each on it's merits and not hide behind dogma. Real leaders face hard choices. Princibles would guide not dictate.

One should think long and hard before letting lose the dogs of war "for no one knows where they will run."

[Egon]

Wow. That's quite the synopsis of several like-minded sources you've come up with.

So, taken from this context, am I to assume that you'd rather just let the world get shaped by whatever forces happen to be stronger and better organized, and wait until we're overmatched and attacked to defend ourselves?

Are you one of those neighbors that never waves at anyone, refuses to become part of neighborhood watch, and people just comment after reading your obituary, "Oh! That's who lived there!"

[ex-snook]

Thanks for that pre2001 listing of the New American Century leading warmongers for peace.

Morton I. Abramowitz
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Richard Burt
Frank Carlucci
Bob Dole
Philip Kaiser
Max M. Kampelman
Jeane Kirkpatrick
Peter Kovler
William Kristol
Mel Levine
William E. Odoom
Wayne Owens
Richard Perle
Eugene Rostow
Stephen Solarz
Helmut Sommenfeldt
William Howard Taft IV
Vin Weber
Caspar Weinberger
R. James Woolsey

[billbears]

Was Poland renowned for its interventionism prior to being invaded by Germany?

Well not in the last 400 years or so at least. But as Poland is not a member of this union of states I don't care what their foreign policy was. As long as it did not threaten our borders they could attack every one of their neighbors. Course they may get their asses handed to them but that's Europe's business.

That being said, considering Wilson was partially to blame for the rise of Hitler, it could be argued positively that we needed to correct the situation in Europe.

[Irontank]

So, taken from this context, am I to assume that you'd rather just let the world get shaped by whatever forces happen to be stronger and better organized, and wait until we're overmatched and attacked to defend ourselves?

I'd rather the US government not undertake counterproductive policies. I've cited some US intelligence that opines that the war in Iraq has strengthened the jihadist movement...do you have any objective sources that say otherwise? (not to say there are not...if there are I would be interested in reading them...I've just not seen any)

Here is another study (from another like-minded source?)...from the Department of Defense itself

As part of its global power position, the United States is called upon frequently to respond to international causes and deploy forces around the world. America's position in the world invites attack simply because of its presence. Historical data show a strong correlation between US involvement in international situations and increase in terrorist attacks against the United States.
--October, 1997 Summer Study Task Force on Department of Defense Responses to Transnational Threats

1997 Study Task Force on Department of Defense Responses to Transnational Threats

[X-Ecutioner]

Was Robert Taft the same guy Zora Neal Heston advocated blacks to vote for??

[okie01]

The Neocon Moment is Over

Does this mean that Mulshine believes that Ron Paul's moment is just beginning...???

[arasina]

Thank you for all that information!

My own simple definition of Neocons: globalist puppetmasters.

[Ohioan]

Mr. Egon:

I do not mean to be disrespectful, but you simply do not seem to grasp what the traditional American Foreign Policy, which Ron Paul advocates, is, nor how it actually functions. Please feel free to visit my web site, if you want further analysis, but the following are some basic concepts:

We are not isolationists. We never were. We simply avoid entangling alliances, other than for ad hoc purposes, which are in our own interest in dealing with problems of a moment in time. (See Washington's Farewell Address.)

We treat others with respect. We do not meddle in their affairs. We do not permit them to meddle in ours. We recognize the fundamental principle of the Law of Nations, that each Nation must be the judge of its own internal affairs. On the other hand, as Jefferson advised Washington--as our first Secretary of State--you must punish the First Insult.

Nothing in this policy prevents our defending ourselves. We are not meddlers. But we are not pacifists.

When you are attacked, not by a Nation but by a band of lawless internationalists--such as the Anarchists of yesterday, or Al Qaida, today--you take appropriate and necessary action. Dr. Paul's original proposal to issue letters of Marque & Reprisal, was a reasonable response to the attack, which might have avoided the trap which we have fallen into, whereby we have over-dramatized the ongoing threat, and actually helped our enemies to recruit many, many new terrorists.

It is also basic to our Constitutional system, that any use of the military must be directed to the Common Defense of these United States. Our military is not the personal play thing of the Government in Washington; and the Government in Washington have a solemn duty, not to misuse the American military for purposes not directly related to the Common Defense of the United States.

The traditional American policy, also called for calm assessment of any situation. There was little place for the "Drama Queens" of modern politics.

The Founding Fathers were steeped in human history. Their approach to dealing with others were derived from a study of the entirety of human experience, and shaped by a value system that is still sacred to American Conservatives.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[arasina]

"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.

I agree, AC.

[Irontank]

Brilliantly stated...thanks

[MEGoody]

So-called "neo" conservatism has its roots in a Marxist view of the world.

I wonder if the writer could define what 'neo' conservatism is and specifically what about it shows that it has roots in a 'Marxist view of the world.'

[Irontank]

I wonder if the writer could define what 'neo' conservatism is and specifically what about it shows that it has roots in a 'Marxist view of the world.'

Neocons have never been shy about defining themselves...read post #40

[MEGoody]

So basically what you're saying is, if one can't pretend that what goes on in the world doesn't affect him/her or at least refuse to take action even if it does affect him/her, then one cannot be a conservative.

In that case, I wouldn't WANT to be what you consider to be a conservative (i.e. and ostrich with head firmly in sand).

[Ohioan]

I wonder if the writer could define what 'neo' conservatism is and specifically what about it shows that it has roots in a 'Marxist view of the world.'

Please just take a few minutes to read how they describe themselves. And then remember, that from Magna Carta until the 20th Century, the types of English speaking peoples who settled America believed that liberty was held against Government; that it was served by limiting not extending Government.

As to "Neo-cons": The Neo-Con Phenomenon.

[x]

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.

But then, denying that there are neocons looks a lot like a way of saying that one doesn't have an argument.

"Neocon" has become a way of saying "Middle East war hawk." It may not be the best, most exact, and most descriptive term, but to dismiss an argument because one's opponents terminology isn't pleasing or isn't the best, is to duck a controversy.

If you're on the inside of some tendency you can deny all terms to categorize your position. It's just common sense, what anybody would believe. But people who disagree are going to try to find a way to categorize your position. For them it isn't common sense or the unavoidable conclusion of all rational people. If their terms aren't the best, it doesn't follow that you've won.

[MEGoody]

If the writer himself is not a neo-con, then how they describe themselves doesn't address what I was wondering.

Also, I was very unimpressed by the link you provided me. It comes across as just another screed from another nutjob.

If this is the kind of opinion that comes from the "Ron Paul" base, I can see I have even more reasons NOT to support him.

[MEGoody]

Neocons have never been shy about defining themselves

I didn't ask how they define themselves.

[kevkrom]

The problem is, whatever the term may have meant once upon a time, it is now used as a general pejorative for anyone whom the author disagrees with (as long as the target is even marginally perceived as a conservative and/or a Republican). Since the term has really lost its meaning through corruption in common usage, I have no problem discarding it.

Going back to Godwin’s law, it does not deny that Hitler or the Nazis exist, it’s just recognizes the cheap and lazy tactic of calling your opponent a “Nazi” or comparing them to Hitler, especially when there are better comparisons to use.

[x]

Was Robert Taft the same guy Zora Neal Heston advocated blacks to vote for??

Apparently (See Zora Neale Hurston, “A Negro Voter Sizes Up Taft,” Saturday Evening Post, December 8, 1951), though it's strange if that's how he's going to be remembered from now on.