Posted on 05/06/2008 8:59:30 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
Do you know the difference between a conservative and a neoconservative, or neocon?
This is not just a question of semantics. It’s far more important than that. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that the future of our country depends on understanding the crucial differences between the two philosophies – and rejecting the latter.
All of this was brought home to me most forcefully when a longtime friend sent me a copy of the speech he delivered at the Constitution Party’s annual convention in Missouri last week. I’ll tell you more about John F. McManus and the organization he heads in a moment. But first, let me quote extensively from his very thought-provoking remarks. (For ease of reading, I’m going to skip beginning quotes or putting Jack’s remarks in italics. But they start now.)
I congratulate you good Americans for labeling your effort the “Constitution Party.” How sad it would have been had you named your endeavor the “Conservative Party.” The formerly praiseworthy term “conservative” has been stolen. The thieves are the neoconservatives. And it is one of my purposes here to discuss what being a neoconservative means – and who are the neoconservatives.
Let’s first define neoconservatism. For that, we turn to the man who has joyfully accepted the label, “godfather of neoconservatism,” Irving Kristol. In 1995, he wrote Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea. He claimed that the “small but talented group,” of which he was a part, drifted away from liberalism and proceeded toward “a more conservative point of view.” More conservative? Not really. He described the view he had the nerve to call conservative. He said it “accepted the New Deal in principle and had little affection for the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism.”
Ladies and gentlemen, the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt – which Kristol approvingly identified himself with, and thereby identified all his followers with – is socialism, the very antithesis of the Americanism spelled out in the Constitution. And while we’re discussing godfathers, let me point out that socialism’s godfather was Karl Marx. In fact, communists and socialists argue over who is more pure when it comes to following the program attributed to Marx. Recall that it wasn’t the Union of Soviet Communist Republics that murdered millions, enslaved more millions, and destroyed the independence of dozens of countries for decades. It was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
In his definition of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol further stated that neoconservatives rejected “isolationism.” For the ill-informed American public, fastening that term on anyone is the equivalent of saddling him or her with the Black Plague. Whenever I get accused of isolationism, I respond, “I’m not an isolationist. I’m a non-interventionist with your son, your daughter, and your wallet.” That usually stops the name-calling. But when neocons attack “isolationism,” they are providing a good example of the way these people deceive with language. You are supposed to be a bad person, and even a bad American, if you disagree with their program that urges using America’s military might to police the world in undeclared wars.
Neocon Godfather Kristol is also on record advocating a “conservative welfare state.” How’s that for an oxymoron? I wonder if he likes dry water, or bright darkness. He included in his “conservative welfare state” Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, even a cash allowance for unwed mothers. There’s nothing conservative about any of that. Nor is there anything in the Constitution that would authorize it.
It is important to realize that the leading neoconservatives all came out of our nation’s Trotskyite movement. Hardcore leftists all, they claimed to have become disillusioned with the excesses of 1972’s Democratic Presidential candidate George McGovern. They actually labeled McGovern an isolationist – a real stretch if there ever was one. So these future neoconservatives gravitated to the Republican Party and brought their affinity for Trotskyite socialism and internationalism with them.
A neoconservative is someone who likes socialistic big government and meddling militarism. With that in mind, let me read to you the thoughts of a man who could correctly be described as a neoconservative before the term was even coined. Let us go back to 1952 and a magazine article authored by a man you’ve all heard of. I’ll tell you who wrote these words after reading them.
We have got to accept Big Government for the duration – for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged except through the instrumentality of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores. [We must] support large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards, and the attendant centralization of power in Washington.
Did you catch all of that? He’s advocating a totalitarian bureaucracy, large standing armies, war production boards, and the centralization of power in Washington. Ladies and gentleman, that’s neoconservatism in spades.
Who wrote those words in 1952? None other than William F. Buckley, Jr. Was Bill Buckley a neoconservative? Irving Kristol believed he was. And so do I, even though he had me fooled for a while. Also fooled for a time was a man named Medford Evans. He would later state of Buckley, “If he had not done a considerable amount of good, he could never have done so much harm.”
Let me give you an example of the harm he did, and the help he supplied to neoconservatism. Back in 1991, Buckley’s National Review sponsored a three-day meeting for top Republican conservatives. Kristol reported with delight that the result of the gathering was that its attendees arrived as conservatives but left as Republican-first neoconservatives. The alliance between Buckley and a host of neoconservatives grew deeper and deeper.
Neoconservative Charles Krauthammer once urged the formation of a “new universalism [which] would require the conscious depreciation not only of American sovereignty but of the notion of sovereignty in general.” Get rid of national sovereignty? That’s what he said. He even insisted that his willingness to cancel sovereignty wasn’t “as outrageous as it sounds.” Yes, it was.
Another favorite term the neoconservatives use to deceive the unwary is globalism, or getting along in a globalist world. This is really the opposite of independence, and independence is inherently a part of our constitutional system.
To a man, neocons applauded the elder Bush’s call for a New World Order. He always said that new world order included deference to the United Nations. Neocons not only love the idea of “democracy,” they want to “export” it and will do so by force if allowed to.
Kristol would later credit neoconservatism for helping to “modernize” the Republican Party. He heaped praise on Ronald Reagan as the “first Republican President to pay tribute to Franklin D. Roosevelt.” Later Newt Gingrich would shower FDR with similar praise, and he received the thanks of the neoconservatives for doing so.
Over recent years, besides godfather Irving Kristol, prominent neoconservatives have included Norman Podhoretz and his wife Midge Decter, Ben Wattenberg, the late Robert Bartley of the Wall Street Journal, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams and Kristol’s son William. Today’s neocons include the leaders of the Bush administration, who slavishly follow neocon thinking both domestically and in their foreign-policy adventurism.
Let me sum up. Neoconservatism means socialistic big government and internationalism. It dislikes national independence and favors world government under the United Nations. It urges the use of the U.S. armed forces in UN peacekeeping missions, policing the world, and getting bogged down in undeclared wars. It champions NAFTA, CAFTA, the World Trade Organization and the new drive toward a North American Union. It likes socialism at home and internationalism abroad. And it has control of the George W. Bush administration lock, stock and barrel.
If you love America for its history of limited government and strict independence, you have to realize that neoconservatives are your enemy. And you have to realize that the current administration is replete with un-American neoconservatism.
Is there any hope that we can stop the drive toward socialism and world government? Of course there’s hope. The American people don’t want this and there are still tens of millions who can be reached and energized. Add to this the fact that the Constitution still stands. Requiring those who swear a solemn oath to it to obey that oath can be achieved in many areas of this country.
We can begin the taking back of our country through the House of Representatives, the body of government that holds the power of the purse. Article I, Section 7 states, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House….” If 218 members of the House refuse to vote to fund foreign aid, the UN, undeclared wars, education, housing, and so much more, that’s it. There’s nothing the Senate, the President, the Supreme Court, or The New York Times can do about it. The House is where the effort of concerned Americans ought to be directed.
Can it be done? Of course! But keep in mind that success in politics follows successful educational work. Thomas Jefferson knew the value of creating an educated electorate. Hear what he had to say:
I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of the abuses of constitutional power.
Jefferson was correct. We must inform “the people themselves” by education. And from good education will come good politics, good citizens, and good government.
Let’s take our country back!
John F. McManus is the president of one the staunchest (and thus one of the most maligned) educational/activist organizations in the country, the John Birch Society. He is also the publisher of their excellent fortnightly news magazine, The New American. You can get more information about the group’s objectives and activities by going to their website, www.jbs.org.
Thanks, Jack, for giving me permission to reprint part of your speech today.
McGovern's campaign slogan was "come home, America"--about as isolationist a slogan as there ever was.
Wikipedia can be edited...duh.
I have no problem with any of that, as long as they vote for conservatives. They can join up with the Illuminati and the Whataburgers for all I care as long as they vote conservative.
Well. You are holding out this article as some kind of charter document on neoconservatism, and THIS is your idea of a definition? Would you agree that it is rather...subjective?
The author thinks that our presence in the Middle East is "Adventurism".
Just so you don't accuse me of putting words in his mouth, here is the relevant quote: "...the leaders of the Bush administration, who slavishly follow neocon thinking both domestically and in their foreign-policy adventurism..."
This is the flaw. People who are proponenents of this viewpoint, that we should not be in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines or any other country are quick to label as "neocons" anyone who thinks we DO have valid reasons for being there.
A lot of those people applying that intentionally derogatory appellation to people who disagree with them are the same ones who will scream absolutely the loudest when their gasoline gets scarce, or a terrorist attack occurs.
Personally, I have no use for someone who applies this label to anyone who disagrees with them.
Including the author of this screed.
I concur.
Neoconservatism . . . dislikes national independence and favors world government under the United Nations.
JOHN BOLTON, AS AN INTERIM APPOINTEE OF THE CURRENT PRESIDENT BUSH AS AMBASSADOR TO THE UN, MUST THEREFORE BE A “NEOCON,” YET DOES HE FAVOR WORLD GOVERNMENT UNDER THE UN?
But PLEASE let up on the name calling long enough to supply specific instances where the author is in error with any of this!
OK, THAT SOUNDS GREAT.
If you love America for its history of limited government and strict independence, you have to realize that neoconservatives are your enemy. And you have to realize that the current administration is replete with un-American neoconservatism.
THIS IS A QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE. WHO’S DOING THE NAME-CALLING (”UN-AMERICAN”)?
If 218 members of the House refuse to vote to fund foreign aid, the UN, undeclared wars, education, housing, and so much more, that’s it. There’s nothing the Senate, the President, the Supreme Court, or The New York Times can do about it. The House is where the effort of concerned Americans ought to be directed.
THAT’S CORRECT, NEEDLESS TO SAY, ABOUT THE HOUSE’S POWER OF THE PURSE. HOWEVER, IF MCMANUS THINKS THAT THE NEW YORK TIMES - AT LEAST OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS UNDER THE LATEST SULZBERGER (”PINCH”)- IS AN ADVOCATE OF THE “NEOCON AGENDA,” THEN HE IS (TO SAY THE LEAST) VERY OUT OF TOUCH.
The alliance between Buckley and a host of neoconservatives grew deeper and deeper.
IINM, BUCKLEY OPPOSED THE WAR IN IRAQ FROM THE BEGINNING.
Spoken like a true “Hunterite”.
I was once a Bircher myself, but left because the John Birch Society refused to support Ronald Reagan in the mid-1970's. In fact, the Birchers were downright hostile to Reagan, whom the rest of America's conservatives enthusiastically supported.
For some reason, the Birchers were also against Proposition 13, California's ballot initiative seeking to curb property taxes, which the voters passed in 1978--I recall attending a meeting at which Birch spokesman R. D. Patrick Mahoney spoke out against the initiative. once again, the JBS was not on the same page as the rest of the conservative movement.
I thought this had already been decided. Neoconservatives are jewish. Paleoconservatives are nazi’s. At least, that’s what the MSM says.
Both parties are corrupt to the core and will defame and destroy any who attempt to take them down. You see it on this very forum when party stooges come out to label men like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and Allen Keyes as kooks and nutjobs. It is not enough to say they disagree on certain points with these men - no they seek to ridicule, devalue, and destroy them. Don't dare challenge the power elite, don't stand for anything, just fall in line and become another party flunky and stooge is what they are telling us.
So what do patriots do about it? We wait for the opportunity to take back at least part of the nation, and most definitely we don't give comfort to the major parties. And certainly we must pray that there are more of us out there than we know. Maybe the fallout from the coming presidential election will give freedom loving Americans a direction to follow.
Which, according to Ron Paul and some here on FR, includes those who were/are in favor of the Iraq war. :::shrug:::
Interesting approach.
Maintain freedom in the US by conquering and ruling the rest of the world.
Leaving the morality and practicality of such a project aside (the 12M man Red Army might have been a bit of a problem), conquest and empire are by definition incompatible with freedom.
As my tagline says...
Absolutely correct. However, since the House will almost surely have a larger Democratic Party majority next year, this seems pretty unlikely to happen.
The author's problem is that he doesn't seem to realize that he is part of a tiny minority. How are he and his 5% (to be generous) planning to win elections? They spend most of their time insulting those who might potentially be their tactical allies.
Considering Hunter was more Reagan-like than Reagan himself, that is a gross mis-characterization.
The Birchers #1 reason for existence was anti-communism. Who is a more rock ribbed anti-communist, Hunter or Paul?
The Birchers claim to be pro-life. Whose record on pro-life issues has no gaps, Hunter of Paul?
The Birchers now claim that Ronald Reagan was one of the good guys (though their history is bit more shaky on this). Who advocates Reagan level funding of our military, including space based weapon systems? Hunter or Paul?
The CP and the Birchers both claim that our trade policy needs to be retooled to help the US industrial base. Who has fought tooth and nail to do that, as opposed to having the "free trade" with commie nations? Hunter of Paul?
Who is an original co-sponsor of the Fair tax, with the added emphasis of ditching the IRS?
Who called for eliminating the all taxation on US manufacturers?
Who has done more than any other individual since Ike to fight the invasion of illegal aliens?
Who was responsible for rejecting the PC nonsense in the military that prevented chaplains from using Jesus' name in certain prayers?
Who doesn't give a rip what the "world" thinks about the United States? Instead of groveling like McCain, Huckabee, Paul and the rest of the candidates said this in response instead: "I will NEVER apologize for the United States of America".
Who refused to pander for even a split second at the "minorities" debate, unlike Keyes and Paul? And instead brought up the great history that the Republican party has in treating minorities as equals?
Who rejects all calls for socialized medicine, RomneyCare, HillaryCare, etc and instead wanted to rip down the barriers for insurers and doctors to deal directly with the consumers, getting gov't out of the way?
Who wants to allow drilling in ANWR, drill off the coasts, increase coal and shale extraction, build nuke plants, and eliminate the bureaucracy holding up refining permits?
Who has a 7% rating from the League of Conservation voters?
The answer to all of the above is Duncan Hunter. The man who should be president.
Now, of course, the area is filled with former philly residents. A shame.
I always heard of a real kookyness about the Birchers, but, in fact, I never saw it in real life, just reading mostly MSM reports about them, which I see in retrospect, were hatchet jobs portraying them as nuts.
Their two big points at the time were:
1) Get the US out of the UN and the the UN out of the US.
2) Get liberal communist doctrine out of our schools and government.
What Conservative here argues with either of those two points?
You are just a spring chicken
>the entire bill for my birth in 1964 was a grand total of $185 and that included the hospital stay.
and that was just before the first government intrusion into the market freed it from the dynamics and sound principles of the Free Market.
Medicare.
Well this chicken is feeling a little sprung. More some days than others.
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.