How Bill Kristol Closed the Conservative Mind

THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE ^ | 12/18/2018 | Jack Hunter

[Forgotten Amendments]

“Kristol was trying to remake the Republican Party,” Carlson says.

A significant part of Kristol’s GOP makeover project was portraying antiwar conservatives as heretics.

Carlson recounts, “Years later, writer Philip Weiss described a conversation he had with Kristol in which this [remaking the GOP] became explicit. There are Republicans, Kristol told Weiss, ‘of whom I disapprove so much that I won’t appear with them. That I’ve encouraged that they be expelled or not welcomed into the Republican Party.’”

“’I’d be happy if Ron Paul left and ran as a third party candidate. I was very happy when Pat Buchanan was allowed to go off and run as a third party candidate,’” Carlson recalls Weiss saying of his conversation with Kristol.

This is no secret. The most high-profile conservative proponents of a more restrained foreign policy over the last two decades—Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and Rand Paul—were constant targets of Kristol long before the rise of Donald Trump.

[ClearCase_guy]

The Globalists base their whole strategy on creating a world of constant Debt and constant War. In that situation, they can thrive.

A true Nationalist will seek to minimize Dept and minimize War. Because both are manifestly harmful to the Nation.

[BobL]

“Don’t celebrate. These commies ruined the GOP (& FR) a decade ago. They won.”

I agree with GOP, but SPEAK FOR YOURSELF on Free Republic. From what I see here, just about everyone loves Trump - try bashing FR on other forums, not here.

[Sir_Humphrey]

Not to bash the FR- after all I just celebrated 20 years as a Freeper, but you can"t deny that those of us who opposed going into Iraq and Afghanistan weren't called every name in the book. Some had their accounts suspended or had their comments deleted for merely suggesting that a war would not be in the country's interest and would be too expensive as there would not be any exit strategy. We have been there 17 years and I do not see us coming home soon. The cost has been 3-4 trillion and rising.

2002-2004 saw me avoid this forum. I am very glad I came back but those who I agreed with seemed to have disappeared. I was tired of being personally insulted and having my patriotism questioned. Fortunately, cooler heads have prevailed. I look back at that era as one of having a political disagreement with brethren conservatives. It was NEVER personal with me but it sure as hell was for a lot of people. But what frosts me to this day are those who were banging the war drums the loudest, have tried to reinvent themselves as a war opponent and now self righteously rail against globalism or what ever. (Shades of Vietnam circa 1970s)

[stockpirate]

I was anti-Bush when anti-Bush wasn’t cool, I pointed out his globalist agenda and socialist policies.

[HighSierra5]

Kristol and others like Max Boot ought to start a new magazine. Soldiers of Misfortune.

[miss marmelstein]

Thanks for posting. I read Tucker’s chapter on Kristol and it was eye-opening. Check out his comment on “peasants” (us!) and the video of him expressing visible disgust at working class people (You Tube). The only problem with expressing any kind of disdain for him is that you see anti-semitic stuff popping up in the comments section. Not here, of course.

[bert]

You are still not cool in spite of wanting to be

[Old Teufel Hunden]

I know I'm going to get slammed in this thread but someone has to defend some of the uneducated things said in this thread so far. First off, I suppose I'll be called a hawk, a neocon etc, a warmonger etc. As someone who spent 22 years in the Marine Corps and went to combat three times I have no desire to see anyone have to go to combat again. It is and should always be the last resort in the use of all of our national instruments of power (DIME, Diplomacy, Informational, Military and Economic).

I never liked Bill Kristol or any of the other 'neocons' attitudes concerning some type of conservative purity test that if you weren't for war 'A' or war 'B' then you weren't really a conservative. Similarly, now the opposite is happening. If you believe in war 'A' or war 'B' was needed and in our national interests, you are now a neocon, a war monger-er, a heretic to conservatism.

Our national security strategy was undergoing a huge revision after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. For many years our military concentrated on our two main threats to our allies and our National Interests, the Soviets overrunning western Europe and North Korea overrunning South Korea. We trained towards large set battle pieces. The same type our forefathers fought in WWII and the Korean War. As a Marine it was a little different because we were the countries expeditionary force. September 11th, 2001 changed all of that.

Out of all of the many changes after 9/11, the main thing that changed in our National Security Strategy is the consideration of preemption. We now have many areas in the world that are not true nation/states in the sense of the idea we have. These areas have either no recognized national government or a weak/almost non existent national government. The question our leaders as well us ourselves have to ask ourselves, can we let a lawless ungoverned area be a place where an Islamic Fascist group can incubate and thrive and plan it's attacks on us and our allies.

"Enjoy sending your children to die in Somalia/Syria, etc."

Forgotten Amendments, perhaps you have forgotten the pre-amble to the Constitution. The part where it talks about the Federal government providing for our common defense. It's one of the five items that we the people have specifically charged the Federal Government with doing. Many of our forefathers, including the author of the Constitution were wary of large standing Armies and therefore advocated an almost non existent Army after the Revolution. The War of 1812 almost proved that policy to be disastrous. And many of those same founders realized that and implemented a standing Army.

If in your above statement you are talking about Somalia as in Operation Restore Hope from 1992 - 1993 I would agree with you. We should have never gone in there because simply it was not about feeding starving people. We can feed all of the starving people in the world if all it was about is delivering food. Unfortunately, there are many that it is to their benefit to have starving people. It's where they derive their power. People in America don't understand this, but in many parts of the world food is power and that was so in Somalia in 1992.

However, if it is about the Somalia and Syria of today then you are dead wrong. It is in our National Interests to go into lawless areas to kill and destroy these Islamo Fascists (Boko Haram and ISIS) so that they don't come over to blow people up in Kansas City or St. Louis or Minnesota, preemption.

"17 years of making war against a country that didn’t attack us is pretty much the definition of “unrestrained”."

thoughtomator, the country harbored and protected an Islamo Fascist group that did attack us. We can't think in 20th century terms. We have groups out there now that are as powerful or more powerful than traditional nation states. Afghanistan was a lawless area, I won't even call it a country (then or now) because the state government does not control all areas. They had a chance to give us Bin Laden and they didn't for a number of reasons. That is why we went in there, to wipe out the people who did attack us and the people who were harboring him. And also to prevent it from happening again.

[bert]

Amen.....preach it brother

Many here would bunch together on the Arena floor and pray while being eaten by the lions

[norwaypinesavage]

There are thousands of issues in the world of politics. Topics range from war, to religion, to fiscal policy, to science, to health, and even to mathematics. They range from critically important, like war, to trivial, like spitting on the sidewalk. No two individuals could possibly totally agree on every detail of every one of the issues.

So then, what effort should be made to exclude those you mostly agree with, but not totally? The Kristol approach was to focus on exclusion. Instead of joyful appreciation of those with whom he mostly agreed, he turned nothing but scorn on those whom he could find differences. He and his top employees are hate filled men.

Good riddance.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"The Globalists base their whole strategy on creating a world of constant Debt and constant War. In that situation, they can thrive.

A true Nationalist will seek to minimize Dept and minimize War. Because both are manifestly harmful to the Nation."

I agree with this completely. We as a nation along with our leaders must find a way to minimize/eliminate the hovering threat of Islamo Fascism while not being in a constant state of war. This is a generational conflict not unlike the Cold War and we must use all of our national instruments of power (Diplomacy, Informational, Military and Economics) to accomplish this. I am also in favor of shrinking our active duty military and increasing our Guard/Reserves. I like the model we are moving towards. I think it fits the situation we find ourselves in now. Having a large, fully trained reserve force that is capable of doing as good a job as their active duty counterparts will save us money while keeping our commitments.

[stockpirate]

And you’re a globalist pos but you already know that.....

Go visit your hero McCains grave and cry and whine.

I’ve always been cool.

[bert]

Cool? The last post is not cool, just ignorance

[norwaypinesavage]

Well spoken!

[bmwcyle]

The only problem with what you say is we must first stop the Americans and members our government that funds the terrorist to create the need to kill them.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"The only problem with what you say is we must first stop the Americans and members our government that funds the terrorist to create the need to kill them."

Who do you speak of? Who in our government is out there funding the Islamo Fascists?

[Socon-Econ]

Foreign policy is an area where it is easy to go to the extremes of: (1) pacifism or isolationism; or (2) trying to be the world’s policeman. Nobody should be banished because they all have some great ideas in other areas.

[Bookshelf]

You state: “If in your above statement you are talking about Somalia as in Operation Restore Hope from 1992 - 1993 I would agree with you. We should have never gone in there because simply it was not about feeding starving people. We can feed all of the starving people in the world if all it was about is delivering food. Unfortunately, there are many that it is to their benefit to have starving people. It’s where they derive their power. People in America don’t understand this, but in many parts of the world food is power and that was so in Somalia in 1992.”

Let’s be clear, Operation Restore Hope initiated by Bush in Summer 1992 succeeded in its intent by January 1993. Widespread famine was averted. It was the administration of Bill Clinton (he, a captive of UN-think) that retained military in Somalia. The Marines sent under Bush had left, and it was the Clinton regime that attempted a fruitless nation-building that has continued from that day to this. It is also accountable for that latrine we call Minneapolis.

[DungeonMaster]

I’ve really learned to dislike Kristol/Kristool/Krostroll.

[Olog-hai]

In that case, the rules of engagement hamper the foreign policy, which has declared no place for terrorism IIRC and that would necessarily include utterly destroying the Taliban and finally dealing with the ideology that spawned it.

Also, Obama’s sobriquet “War of Necessity” comes to mind. Not to mention, after Bin Laden was dealt with, travesties such as trading five Taliban terrorists for Bowe Bergdahl among other travesties too many to list.

When the author in the OP cites someone who counts Don Black among his friends as someone we must listen to, that destroys his credibility as much as Bill Kristol destroyed his own with his overt liberalism.