Posted on 03/22/2014 11:42:15 AM PDT by Kaslin
In spite of the ease with which the word “conservatism” is thrown about these days, most people who associate with the “conservative” movement are not really conservative at all. In reality, the so-called “conservative” movement is a predominantly (though not exclusively) neoconservative movement.
Contrary to what some neoconservatives would have us think, “neoconservatism” is not an insult, much less an “anti-Semitic” slur. The word, rather, refers to a distinct intellectual tradition—a point for which some neoconservatives, like its famed “godfather,” Irving Kristol, have argued at length.
In The Neoconservative Persuasion, Kristol argues for another claim: neoconservatism and traditional or classical conservatism are very different from one another. “Neocons,” he states, “feel at home in today’s America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not.” Unlike conservatism, neoconservatism is “in the American grain.” And this is because it is “hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic.” Furthermore: “Its twentieth-century heroes tend to be TR [Teddy Roosevelt], FDR [Franklin Delano Roosevelt], and Ronald Reagan,” while “Republican and conservative worthies” like “Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked.”
Neocons view the United States as “a creedal nation” with a “‘civilizing mission’” to promote “American values” throughout the world, to see to it “that other governments respect our conception of individual rights as the foundation of a just regime and a good society.” Kristol is unambiguous in his profession of the American faith: the United States, given its status as a “great power” and its “ideological” nature, does indeed have a responsibility “in those places and at those times where conditions permit” it “to flourish,” to “‘make the world safe for democracy.”
Here, Kristol articulates the foreign policy vision—“Democratic Realism” is what Charles Krauthammer calls it—for which neoconservatism is known. Yet to Kristol’s great credit, he readily concedes what most neoconservatives readily deny: Big Government abroad is, ultimately, inseparable from Big Government right here at home.
Kristol is refreshingly, almost shockingly honest: Neoconservatism, he informs us, endorses “the welfare state.” Its adherents support “social security, unemployment insurance, some form of national health insurance, some kind of family assistance plan, etc.” and will not hesitate “to interfere with the market for overriding social purposes”—even if this requires “‘rigging’” it instead of imposing upon it “direct bureaucratic controls” (emphases added).
As Kristol says, neoconservatives are “always interested in proposing alternate reforms, alternate legislation, [to the Great Society] that would achieve the desired aims”—the eradication of poverty—“more securely, and without the downside effects.” Neoconservatives don’t want to “destroy the welfare state, but…rather reconstruct it along more economical and humane lines.”
In vain will we search the air waves of “conservative” talk radio, Fox News, National Review, Commentary, The Weekly Standard, or any other number of mainstream “conservative” publications for a negative syllable regarding Irving Kristol. Though Kristol, like his son, Bill, is commonly referred to as a “conservative,” he himself not only explicitly embraced neoconservatism as his “persuasion” of choice; Kristol happily embraced the distinction of being “the godfather” of this persuasion.
In other words, if anyone can be said to be the intellectual standard bearer of neoconservatism, it is Irving Kristol.
And yet here he is unabashedly conceding what some of us have long noted and for which we’ve been ridiculed: neoconservatism is every bit as wedded to Big Government as other species of leftism—even if its proponents want to use it in other ways and for other purposes.
Because Obamacare is woefully unpopular, neoconservative Republicans, both in politics and the “conservative” media, have nothing to lose and everything to gain from trashing it. But at this time leading up to the midterm elections, more traditional conservatives would be well served to bear in mind that, in principle, neoconservatives do not object to “some form of national health insurance,” as Kristol tells us.
For all of their talk of “limited government,” traditional conservative voters should remember that, as Kristol states, neoconservatives “endorse the welfare state” and only seek to “reconstruct it along more economical and humane lines.”
For all of their talk of “capitalism” and the free enterprise system, conservative voters should also recall that, as Kristol remarks, neoconservatives will not hesitate to “interfere with the market for overriding social purposes.”
More recently, Douglas Murray, in his, Neoconservatism: Why We Need It, seconds Kristol in admitting that, “socially, economically, and philosophically,” neoconservatism differs in kind from traditional conservatism. In fact, such is the vastness of their differences that he refers to neoconservatism as “revolutionary conservatism.”
If “the conservative movement” is to have a future, it must first be honest about its present identity.
And Neoconservatives love wide open borders, mass immigration and amnesty.
They can be a bigger threat than our open enemies on the left. Because when the GOPe is in power they will try to ram through rotten policies that the Democrats can’t even manage to pass.
“It has been reported, on fairly credible authority, that George W. Bush’s Second Inaugural Address was actually scripted by a Neocon writer.”
It was a steaming pile of crackpot utopian drivel. I’d be curious who the Neocon writer was; I’ve always suspected Michael Medved had a hand in it.
I reject BOTH neocon foreign policy AND the Ron Paul kissing the asses of our enemies foreign policy.
“A former moderate liberal who likes to use american power, especially the military to push american style democracy across the globe... They joined the republican party because the democrats hate the military...”
Close, but they weren’t exactly moderates. The older ones admit to having been fans of Trotsky in their youth.
Sometimes neocons remind me of "Christian Socialism" (except that ta good number seem to be Jews) as originally championed by Pope Pius IX. IOW, "give the people everything they want, but keep them from going revolutionary ... or communist.
Ping
Great post, Kaslin.
Concurring Bump.
How about we hire Americans, at American companies, which make things for sale in America?As long as a profit can be made from doing that, sure. No profit, no incentive to do so.
I do think ethically minded capitalism can reduce poverty.I think so too. But I also think a lot of people aren't terribly ethically-minded on capitalism. Short-sighted vs long-sighted is the issue there.
I have railed to no great end on FR about the golden conservative unicorns that supposedly ride in vast herds throughout the American electorate.Much as I hate it, you're right there. The supposedly vast conservative mass that doesn't vote and doesn't speak are non-existent. The cities are liberal, the country is conservative, and the demographics speak for themselves. Still, we must do the best that we can to promote conservative ideas.
These guys are both from Robert Kagan's Project for a New Amercian Century which has since been rebranded to the Foreign Policy Institute. The more things change, the more they stay the same.That's the truth! It's the PNAC people who are responsible for the mess we got in under Bush, Jr. Those people literally thought all the Muslims would just throw flowers at us when we "liberated" them. Just more pollyanna crap.
>>The “One Note Charley” clan.<<
LOL
I appreciate the detail and substance of your response.
I must admit I still disagree.
I still think there is a dimension to what I would term incremental conservatism that is not being properly thought out and defended here at FR.
I love President Bush. That is not to say I cannot imagine disagreements.
But frankly, I can think of more disagreements I actually had with Reagan.
We should be able to point to and affirm conservative things that I have happened in the past and say YES!
Those things should constitute an empirical basis for attracting people to current politics.
For example:
1. Government shutdown in the 1990s actually did work. It hurt Clinton— helped Gingrich and the Republicans. The Media of course lied about this. But there is no changing the 1995 SOTU by Clinton said “The era of big government is over” He got stopped cold by a thunderous standing ovation in the chamber while conservatives basically gave each other high fives for crushing hillary care and stopping the Clinton spending spree with the shutdown.
2. Republican senates have helped America as they did in the late 1990s. Republicans did bring down the deficit and poverty. Poverty went from 15% to 11% after Republicans CUT WELFARE. Conservatvies forced Clinton to sign welfare reform.
3. Bush did win three good wars against: the Taliban, Saddam, and Charles Taylor. He did serious damage to the Vietnam ethos that still controls our foreign policy. The surge in 2007 was successful. Pretending it was not only emboldens Obama and the other anti-american reactionaries that dominate foreign policy. And yes, ugly as it sounds— the Paulites ride along. Refusing to see the victories in our wars hurts our soldiers the most. We are not scoring political points when we sell them out and agree Bush was bad. Obama is giving all of this away— but we ought to acknowledge what we had and accomplished so our criticism can be meaningful.
If people disagree with particular policies then they should simply say so. I detest that people on FR HATE president Bush. I honestly don’t think people should hate each other at all but that is probably a bridge too far here.
The hate the person model discards all the good conservative accomplishments that people make. If we defend the conservative actions that did work then people will be attracted. That is always how it has worked.
The media and intellectual elite lie but the public can make its own counter arguments.
A former moderate liberal who likes to use american power, especially the military to push american style democracy across the globe...
Neocon = globalist, anti-constitutionalist that wants to use military force to remake the world to their liking. Big government and big spending are fine with neocons. UnConstitutional laws are fine with neocons. See Bush 1, Bush 2 and McCain for examples of neocons.
There is very little difference between a Rat and a neocon.
There is nothing utopian about advocating that one nation impose its social priorities on another. And, as observed, the President misused the word "freedom," in at least six conflicting senses. (George Washington vs. George W. Bush.)
William Flax
Frankly, in my opinion, the most common trait, is a completely unsupportable acceptance of the idea that people are far more plastic than they are. Thus, those who have a utilitarian rather than a moral perspective on human societies, are sold the idea that Government should control the social environment--including the economic--in order to remake people in a collectivist/egalitarian direction.
With a hopelessly flawed premise coupled with an abandonment of the moral (as opposed to the utilitarian view of a human society), these movements are alike in being incapable of achieving anything both lasting & worthwhile.
William Flax
To me, the critical difference between the Left and the Right is their views of culture and human nature. The Left believes that you can socially engineer away all of the supposed "flaws" in human nature (or in ingrained culture/religion) to create a Utopia. Rightwingers are much more realistic - they recognize that leopards don't change their spots and work within those parameters, and therefore oppose naive nation-building and "democratization" abroad for the same reasons they oppose the welfare state at home.
In their universalism and childish belief that western-style institutions can be exported to the Third World, or that Third World immigrants will seemlessly integrate into western societies, Neoconservatives are solidly on the side of the Leftist utopians rather than conservative realism.
“In their universalism and childish belief that western-style institutions can be exported to the Third World, or that Third World immigrants will seemlessly integrate into western societies, Neoconservatives are solidly on the side of the Leftist utopians rather than conservative realism. “
Second that.
What Neocons & others, who share the Dean Rusk foreign policy, which was revived by Clinton & Bush II, have in common is a Compulsion For Uniformity, a trait they share with the Bolsheviks who nearly destroyed Russia & the Nazis that nearly destroyed Germany.
Tragically, in promoting an insane foreign policy, they are helping the still further to the Left ideologues divert attention away from the fundamental fallacies, which underlie all collectivist/egalitarian movements.
William Flax
People, whether within an established society or as members of another distinct society, both as individuals and as members of their respective societies, need to take a constructive pride in whom they are; to develop the talents that they have; and to avoid the false counsel of those who try to corrupt them by making them envious & resentful of the success of others--or, conversely, feeling guilty over their own success.
The idea of being lumped together in an undifferentiated humanity, is the ultimate insult to every segment of that humanity. (And, for instance of the absurdity, see Footnote On Egalitarian Compulsion.)
And while on the subject, please do not overlook the disastrous effect of the make-believe world that these ideological crack-pots are promoting on the social cohesion of once happier peoples, across the globe.
William Flax
A book that needs to be reissued:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Coercive-Utopians-Deception-Americas/dp/0895266180
The Coercive Utopians: Social Deception by America’s Power Players
Actually, I grew up next door to a man who had quit his business to work full time to expose the involvement of so many of the clergy in mainline American Protestant Church denominations, with Communist & Communist Front causes--and this was back in the 1950s. He once wrote a letter to our then Conservative morning paper, in which he compared many of the corrupted clergy to barnyard chickens who gobbled up the feed thrown in front of them, without bothering to notice, whether they were being fed by the farmer, his wife, son, daughter, or some mischievous trespasser.
Sounds a bit like a description of the mental acumen of an Obama voter, calling for "change," in a stadium rally.
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.