Posted on 09/18/2009 1:13:45 PM PDT by EveningStar
Irving Kristol, 89, a forceful essayist, editor and university professor who became the leading architect of neoconservatism, which he called a political and intellectual movement for disaffected ex-liberals like himself who had been "mugged by reality," died Friday at the Capital Hospice in Arlington.
He spent much of his career in New York but had for the last two decades lived at the Watergate apartments in the District. He died of complications from lung cancer, said his son, William Kristol, the founder and editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
He was my professor at NYU when aI was at the CUNY Grad center. We had an exchange program with NYU and ended up taking his course on the ideas and influence of 19th century romanticism in modern politics. I got an A in that course. He was a great lecturer and made ideas and concepts simple to understand. I will miss him.
When did it mean pro-war liberals? And not non-isolationist conservatives?
First generation neocons were Depression kids who grew up before most of us were born. They didn't much like the hippies, who together with the New Left played a major role in driving them right.
Whatever neoconservatism means now, in the eighties it pretty much was Reaganism, though you had to make an exception for people like Daniel Moynihan, who had been a part of it in the beginning, but went on to support whatever the Democratic party wanted.
And believe me in the UK I'm waaaaay off the political spectrum.
But the journey had to start somewhere and for me it was most certainly with the neo-cons - and they sounded pretty radical to European ears. Yet they were only a station on the way. Once you get freedom between your teeth you have to take it to the wire.
I know know how socialistic the UK is and I feel disenfranchised. UKIP is our only hope... our conservative party would be in your democratic party.
Respect and regards
If you don't agree with David Brooks, or Bill Kristol, more power to you.
But in the real world of politics, this "true, real, old right conservatives" are sort of like unicorns.
When Ronald Reagan needed to get things done, he didn't turn away those first generation neocons.
It was a mistake to give the second generation so much power, but any party or leader who is at all serious, recognizes that you can't just rely on purist hardliners.
Paleocons make an ideological mantra out of “avoid foreign entanglements.” Neocons read it in context and in the context of the times in which it was said: avoid foreign entanglements that would interfere with commerce and keep our new nation from becoming prosperous.
From http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/backpage/article_83a873f4-1658-5c4d-9d0b-94320014aee7.html
“More than anyone alive, perhaps, Irving Kristol can take the credit for reversing the direction of American political culture,” liberal commentator Eric Alterman wrote in 1999.
A Trotskyist in the 1930s, Kristol would soon sour on socialism, break from liberalism after the rise of the New Left in the 1960s and in the 1970s commit the unthinkable —— support the Republican Party...
And just when did the Republican Party start going blind?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
All this bickering on this thread is a waste of time and BS. In the meantime the REAL enemy is assiduously turning this country into a Gulag. Prof. Kristol was a heck of a lot better a persona than any cretin on the democratic side today. We need to keep our focus and our heads straight. At least neocons are not out there to take your property, convert you to islam, blow up our cities, give us euthanasia, open our borders to invasion etc. etc.. Let the man rest in peace and let’s move forward on neutering that idiot in the white house so we can limit the damage he is doing to this nation and the world. I think Irving would have agreed with that.
It sure is. Next thing you know, A+bert will be shoiwng up :)
I’ll give him and the early neos credit for being intellectually honest and having the guts to oppose the USSR when it wasn’t cool in intellectual circles. In fact, I still really like Ben Wattenburg. At least they didn’t pretend to be conservatives or talk about “the movement”.
It’s the second generation that is sickening. A bunch of beltway, chickenhawk, Machiavellians who destroyed the GOP, talk radio, and once great conservative foundations (follow the money) and publications. Think I exaggerate? Does anyone still read the weenies in National Review? Is there still a paper version of it? Compare it to 15+ years ago and weep.
As for the ethnic baiting, the first neocon to make me puke was Catholic Bill Bennett.
R.I.P.
McCain is a Neoconservative.
http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/EntityDisplay.php?Entity=KristolI
CFR, AEI/Brookings.
No thanks. Too many current Obama tards in that bunch.
These people ARE the reason we’re in the shitter.
Kristol, David Horowitz, Whittaker Chambers — often, when a hard-line communist becomes disillusioned, he goes all the way to the other side.
Never heard of him. ;/
“McCain is a Neoconservative.”
Clearly. The defining point of neoconservatism is internationalism. Interventionsim. Can’t get much more interventionist than the McCainiac. Driven by the desire to spread liberty around the globe...while destroying it here. Holding to the belief that if only given the opportunity, Muslims in the middle east, and people everywhere will embrace a free democratic society...which is naive to say the least. And if it takes perpetual war to accomplish this, so be it.
To this, other things are added. Neoconservatives have no problem with warantless searches and seizures, for example, if it’s for “America’s Security”...why, you don’t have anything to hide, do you? The neocon congressman has no desire to ever repeal anything. No desire to really restore previous liberty. “Go with the flow conservatives”. When the Democrats introduce some socialist program, is there massive resistance based on principle? Do they say it’s unconstitutional? Rarely. No, they say it costs too much, and their version of the same thing cost less...that’s being “conservative”.
They’re often quite irreligious, and have no love for “the religious right” (again, look at McCain), nor are they really concerned with conservative social issues...though they love to pay lip service to the religious right in order to gain their votes. In fact, they seem to have a fairly solid grip upon the religious right. Most social conservatives have been conditioned so that they now often hold to neoconservative internationalism. They feel that we MUST exert our influence around the globe, such has been the influence of neocon politicians, commentators, and writers. In fact, the doctrine of internationalism is now so strong among social conservatives, that they see anyone who says or thinks otherwise a traitor, lefty, lib, etc.
As to domestic issues, the neoconservative seems to only be concerned with money. Making money, keeping money, tax cuts. That’s all well and good, but listening to the neoconservative commentators on television (or some posters on Freerepublic...) would lead one to believe that money is the be-all and end-all of their existence. There is more to life, and more to Liberty than money.
It seems I’m one of the few who remain who would prefer poverty with Liberty to gilded chains and sordid affluence.
These positions that neoconservatives hold I disagree with most strongly. I believe that these political philosophies have been more destructive to America than outright leftism. It’s more insidious.
And by the way, I’m not an anti-semite. In fact, I might even be considered a “Zionist”!
Really, though, all this is just an intellectual exercise. Doesn’t matter much anymore. True conservatives gave up many decades ago. More importantly, Christians gave up their responsibilities long ago, allowing our descent to happen...even helping to hasten it along. I believe this country is well beyond the point of no return, and it’s pretty much every man for himself now.
Sorry, I get carried away. No more long diatribes from me.
Reagan was never a liberal. He was a Democrat, but he opposed the socialism coming from FDR and later LBJ. He was pro-union for a long time though, of course serving as head of the SAG,
Wow... where to begin on that one? You’re like a walking talking point, aren’t ya?
Appeasement: Unlike the Dems and Repubs who either bribe (North Korea), obliterate (Iraq, Kosovo) or adopt a policy of isolation (Cuba), libertarians believe in commerce with all nations. It is illogical to get involved in interventionism when it’s failed so many times in the past.
Crime: Gotta be more specific here. I’ve never met serious libertarians who are pro-crime. Those are called anarchists.
Drug Abuse: Since the War on Drugs (mmm, love me some big government there) has been a total failure and waste of taxpayer money, and considering how marijuana was made illegal in the first place (by the pulp and paper industry via the Democrats) and how we treat similar products such as alcohol and tobacco, does it not make sense to classify marijuana in the same category? Again, I’ve yet to meet serious small l libertarians who advocate actual drugs be made available on the street. But maybe you know some that think you should be able to buy bags of heroin at Wal-Mart.
Juvenile Delinquency: I don’t even know what you’re talking about her. Perhaps because we are in favor of private schools and home schooling instead of the failed public education system?
Family Breakdown: Again, I don’t know what you’re referring to.
And again, you’ve failed miserably to understand the libertarian philosophy. We don’t view simply the state as bad and the corporation good. Both usually suck. It’s centralized power that is the enemy. Fascism and socialism both lead to the same endgame: totalitarianism. That’s what people are waking up to.
“When did it mean pro-war liberals? And not non-isolationist conservatives?”
When those militant liberals still advocated for the nanny state.
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.