How Bill Kristol ditched conservatism. Great Escape

The New Republic ^ | 5/28/2001 | Franklin Foer

[UnBlinkingEye]

Deterence works on a nation to nation basis. If we need to stop criminals police work should suffice. Terrorists can be destroyed by removing their causes and international support for their destruction.

[GopherIt]

As you describe it, sounds like a David Gergan redux, but a bit more in the cold.

[okie01]

"If you read through this article, you get a picture of Bill Kristol's behavior through the last few years, and it is obvious that as I have often pointed out, he chooses positions and personalities which are detrimental to the Republican party. He isn't a conservative at all.

"He is a mole."

Mole? Or opportunist?

It strikes me that, at every turn, Kristol has adapted or created his "ideas" and chosen his standard-bearer so as to attract the most attention for himself and his "ideas".

In this sense, Kristol isn't a mole. He's a parasite.

Buchanan has the nasty habit of calling everybody who doesn't agree with him a "neocon". This creates the misconception that neocons are legion. In turn, Kristol dubs all those at odds with him as "paleocons". Thus, the forces of the paleos are enormously magnified.

So we have two fringes -- one actually Populist, the other some kind of "Manifest Destiny", both irrelevant -- whose inner linings define the outer limits of conservatism.

[weikel]

How about the Supreme Court Declares it and all other entitlements unconstitutional. Sigh neither will actually happen till everything really goes to h***.

[beckett]

Kristol is a red-diaper baby with a twist (his parents abandoned the left before he was in diapers!). Brooks --- much as I like the guy (great writer with a wicked and supersmart wit) --- is the son of two well respected and very liberal college professors. Neither guy is a conservative. Both have been too long marinated in an academic stew, and Strauss alone does not a conservative make. Brooks can barely find the gumption to challenge bleeding heart Mark Shields most of the time during their Friday segment on the PBS Newshour. And Kristol is, well, Kristol. He doesn't wear well --- much too whiny.

As for a Bull Moose party, it would be a disaster for the Republican Party, which is why it appeals to Benedict Arnold "War Hero" McCain. Two years out from the presidential election, it looks like Bush has the political skills to ward off any such eventuality, however.

[weikel]

A supporter of McCain cannot call himself conservative I believe McCain to be a closet communist who was brainwashed by the Vietnamese.

[John Lenin]

I agree, Kristol wouldn't recognize a Ronald Reagan republican if he bumped into one. Kristol is a wimp and I do not support his idea of republicanism. If being a republican means acting like Kristol, I'll pass.

[weikel]

Its not going to happen until things start getting really really bad.

[wardaddy]

LOL....I just hit you with a kathy ireland pick.....

I too wonder about McCain...down here we'd call him "peculiar"

[m1911]

Post 30: We should be an example for the world, not a policeman.

Post 41: If we need to stop criminals police work should suffice.

[weikel]

Megabump

[logician2u]

You've made some good points, x.

Fractionalizing of various elements has resulted in a power vaccuum, only now filled by such as Rumsfeld and Bush, to a lesser extent Cheney.

There may be a number of academics who could fill the role as spokesman for a conservative "mainstream," but they are routinely bypassed in favor of media-savvy personalities such as Kristol, Will and even William Bennett, who may be one of those "national greatness" fans for all I know. His presence on the tube disgusts me.

I'm convinced that the media turns a blind eye to anyone who can speak with authority with regard to the nation's past and present. They are looking for sound bites only, not anything in depth. It's not even a left-right dichotomy we have to concern ourselves with, as some think. When did you ever see Noam Chomsky on ABC World News, for example? PBS, maybe, but I never watch that propaganda.

Libertarians are just about totally excluded from the major media, with the single exception of Milton Friedman. He gets a pass as a Nobel Laureate and an all-around nice guy, in a non-threatening way. If he wants to repeal Social Security and abolish the Fed, the typical media reporter isn't going to call him on it.

We have to somehow separate the conservatives in government (the few that remain, that is), who are only too well aware of their limitations, from those in academia who are actively formulating plans to roll back federal programs, in anticipation of a new generation of legislators. The former can't really do much because they don't have the votes; the latter can do plenty by educating constituents through on-line journals, newsletters, publications from Heritage and CEI, etc.

The power-brokers like Kristol would never consider going the long route through private citizens (who fall asleep in the middle of their lectures anyway) when they have entree to Capitol offices. They don't really need the media exposure except as it serves as a two-edged sword, keeping others out as they increase their own visibility among the establishment in Washington.

[weikel]

If I had a family I might risk what( assuming uncivilized commie nazi islamic enemies here) they would do to me during capture but otherwise speaking as a civilian( meaining no disrespect to any veterans) I don't think I'd let myself be taken prisoner if they torture and brainwash the real you dies just as surely as if you went down fighting.

[UnBlinkingEye]

Post 30: We should be an example for the world, not a policeman.

Post 41: If we need to stop criminals police work should suffice.

Police work in the U.S. outside our borders is not work for our police. We have no police that work on a federal level much less with an international scope.

Nations have their own rules for policing.

[weikel]

Many hard right culture warriors like myself feel the same way

I associate "hard right"( I definitely consider myself hard right but not a culture warrior) culture warriors with people like Currybot and hold them beneath contempt. You seem like a nice affable guy not some mindless robot spouting off slogans which bash libertarians more than rats.

[wardaddy]

McCain has always been since he was a child a bit coarse...he even admits this. He's a bit of an egomaniac and acts like he's the "lone wolf". How he behaved in Hanoi is between he and G-d. I wasn't there and the stories are conflicting to say the least but I do think it's conceded that he refused to leave when offered for whatever reason.

He's just not my cup of "conservative" tea.

[weikel]

The non initation of force principle is the dumb part of the libertarian plank it should be replaced with the leave people the h*ll alone principle.

With terrorist( and commies etc) you have to do unto others before they do unto you.

[dark_lord]

[Kirk] declared that religion, family, and private property and its yield, as well as law and order, were the foundations of a conservative society ... 'My kind of Republican Party is committed to a free state, limited central power, a reduction in bureaucracy, and a balanced budget'" Goldwater

But is this what everyone thinks conservatives are about? For example there are WOD conservatives on this forum who are not for limiting central power or reducing bureaucracy if it means that individual states will decriminalize marijuana. Most Republicans elected don't appear too interested in reducing bureaucracy or balancing the budget.

My observation is a lot of conservatives want to capture the Federal government so they can implement their way of thinking. Now I personally think having the Republicans controlling both houses of Congress and the Presidency is a good idea so we can get the backlog of judges filled with conservative, non-judicial activist type judges, which means they don't make it up as they go along. But I suspect there are conservatives who do want judges to make it up as they go along - just the "conservative" way - whatever way that is.

As for Kirk's definition - I agree with it completely. But there are plenty of Democrats who would also agree with it. No, not the gay rights, feminazi, race-baiting, "progressive" socialists. But while they make all the noise, they are not the whole Democratic party, either. There's lots of conservative, Catholic, blue collar, Reagan democrats out there still.

So...in what way are FReepers "conservative"? And how many different definitions do we have? And why have we failed to pull in the Reagan democrats? (And we have failed - or the government wouldn't be so closely split.)

[wardaddy]

I'm a culture warrior about most issues. I'm soft on pot though, even though I haven't smoked it for 2 decades plus.

My own personal views on abortion have been more of a watershed of my swing from moderate left to hard right over the past 22 years than anything else.

Being Southern, I was already strong RKBA even though a lefty.

I'm a bit of an Imperialist too so the Buchanan crowd might label me a neocon....lol...labels are funny things.

Aside from a few things, I miss the old morality of my youth.....maybe decency is a better word.

I do indeed have big issues with "self-derived" morality and objectivism but I don't go looking for fights here. In fact, it's been awhile.

[weikel]

I lean very heavily towards objectivism politically though I disagree with them on some philosophical grounds.