Why Neo-Conservatives Are not Real Conservatives

self

[VaBthang4]

That's it.

[ex-snook]

Maybe it's about time to simplify things.

--A Republican is for tax cuts first and never criticizes Bush. Lott is a Republican.
--A RINO is for abortion first and never criticizes Kerry. McCain is a RINO.
--A Neo-Con is for Israel first and never criticizes Sharon. Kristol is a Neo-con.
--A Conservative is for America first and criticizes both Bush and Sharon. Buchanan is a Conservative.

[muleboy]

A little too simple and a little too accurate.

[Reagan Man]

While I may not agree with Irving Kristol's conservative philosophy all the time, its better to have him in the conservative camp then attacking the current conservative Republican leadership, holding court in the WH and HoR. I can't say the same for Bill Kristol and his spitball antics. Although, lately BillK has been mild in his public opposition to the Bush agenda. I think Freddy Barnes might be instrumental in keeping BillK in line. If I remember correctly Irving Kristol, his wife Gertrude Himmelfarb and his fellow neocon's, were big supporters of Ronald Reagan and even managed to get one of their own into the Reagan administration. That would be Jeane Kirkpatrick.

[BluesDuke]

Yes, I knew about Burnham. Reagan gave him an award before he passed away.

Specifically, Reagan presented Burnham with the Medal of Freedom. This was a couple of years after the stroke which forced Burnham's retirement. And thanks for the book recommendations, too!

[BluesDuke]

If I remember correctly Irving Kristol, his wife Gertrude Himmelfarb and his fellow neocon's, were big supporters of Ronald Reagan and even managed to get one of their own into the Reagan administration. That would be Jeane Kirkpatrick.

Jeane Kirkpatrick held specific rank in the Reagan Administration, of course, but Reagan, if I recall, was known to call upon Kristol's counsel every so often. Kristol and company had also found sympathetic ears and space at The American Spectator, who frequently published both their works and those of their children (like John Podhoretz and William Kristol). In those years, the American Spectator was one incredibly engaging journal with the kind of wit and thinkability that people associated with the original National Review, but the Spectator was more like National Review's randier cousin.

As for Bill Kristol's spitball antics, I concur. It is quite possible to critique the present Republican leadership without shooting spitballs and trying to pass them off as wit or quickthink. Spitballs belong in baseball games (yes, I favour legalising the pitch - which, contrary to the mythology, is not a dangerous pitch), not political discourse. As for Fred Barnes keeping Bill Kristol in line, well, somebody's got to...

[Reagan Man]

>>>... I love the Gipper... and that's why he's on my profile page.

A fine photo of RR.

[TopQuark]

I know there are a few interpretive definitions of what a neoconservative is. By true definition, the word neoconservative means: "a former liberal espousing political conservatism"

I always thought that "neo-X" meant "new," or "newly arrived to X." The term neo-Natzi is applied, for instance, to those subsribing to the platform and ideology of the Natzis but after the WWII.

Nowhere does the prefix "neo" imply the initial point of the jorney. A neo-conservative could've been previously a liberal, a person entirely indifferent social issues, etc.

[billbears]

8. There is broad intellectual diversity among real conservatives, and they express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Some are Old Rightists, while others are New Rightists. Some are paleo- libertarians who are very anti-statist, while others are less hostile to the state. Some support Israel, while others do not. Some support free trade, while others are protectionist. Some want the IRS abolished entirely, while others favor reform of the IRS.

Great post. While I would fall under the 'Old' Right, as you say, I agree with the 'New' Right that a government that governs best governs least. No group of people of any size is going to agree one hundred percent of the time.

[BluesDuke]

Hitchens, although I'm not fond of his politics, is one heck of a writer.

I've admired Hitchens's writing style for years. As for his politics, well, I haven't any taste for socialism, but this much should be said in fairness: if you can conceive of such an animal, Christopher Hitchens as socialists go is actually a pretty conservative one...which probably drove some of his former employers (like the diapersoakers at The Nation, for example) to the rye bottle...

[inkling]

Maybe it's about time to simplify things.
--A Republican is for tax cuts first and never criticizes Bush. Lott is a Republican.
--A RINO is for abortion first and never criticizes Kerry. McCain is a RINO.
--A Neo-Con is for Israel first and never criticizes Sharon. Kristol is a Neo-con.
--A Conservative is for America first and criticizes both Bush and Sharon. Buchanan is a Conservative.

Okay, so I am beyond labeling. That works for me!

[muleboy]

I have arrived, I finally warranted a 5.

And you spelled all the words correctly. You're improving.

[BluesDuke]

They wouldn't exactly be the only such animals, of course. But the fact that they might see themselves as working for freedom by way of the left makes them somewhere beyond the standard run of the left, who speak of only too many things ahead of freedom and, indeed, speak of freedom often enough as an encumbrance if they think it means an impediment to things like "justice" or "diversity" or "equality" or "economic balance" or pick your favourite leftist buzzwords. Still, I look forward to finding and reading Why Orwell Matters. Even if it turns out only to keep with my policy of knowing what my real or prospective adversary might be thinking.