What the Heck Is a 'Neocon'?

Opinion Journal ^ | 12/30/2002 | Max Boot

[Pokey78]

Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.

I have been called many names in my career--few of them printable--but the most mystifying has to be "neocon." I suppose I get labeled thus because I am associated, in a small way, with the Weekly Standard, which is known as a redoubt of "neoconservatism."

[Pelham]

He was long an editor for National Review. Regarding your charge of anti-semitism, I think Sobran writes that it used to be that an anti-semite was someone who hated Jews, whereas in his experience an anti-semite appears to be someone whom some Jews hate. From what I've seen of the debate, neither side is blameless. Sobran likes to provoke his detractors, but his detractors also seem to play fast and loose with character assassination.

[Cincinatus]

since you hate everyone else of that group, I must have assumed it.

"Hate" is a very strong word and perhaps you can point out to me the "hate" in what I previously wrote. Apparently, anybody who disagrees with paleocons is a "hater", yet one more thing (in addition to many beliefs) that you guys have in common with extreme liberals.

[rmlew]

He was long an editor for National Review.
True. And Bill Buckley asked him to leave because Sobran was a rascist.

. Regarding your charge of anti-semitism, I think Sobran writes that it used to be that an anti-semite was someone who hated Jews, whereas in his experience an anti-semite appears to be someone whom some Jews hate.

Of course he would. He is trying to belittle the charge.

From what I've seen of the debate, neither side is blameless. Sobran likes to provoke his detractors, but his detractors also seem to play fast and loose with character assassination.
Not in this case.
1. Sobran speaks at Holocaust Revisionist Events with deniers.
2. He slanders all Jew by calling us commubnists and blaming us for the crimes of the communists. In so doing, he is picking up a line of the Russian, Ukranian, and Polish Communist parties who scapegoated Jews as an official policy.

3. SObran has lied about Jewish law adn ritual practices and has recycled old anti-Semetic charges about the Talmud. (Some of this goeas back to the Middle Ages).
4. Sobran supports all western countries and nationalisms except Israel and Zionism.

If he is not an anti-Semite, who the hell is?

[Pelham]

I didn't realize that when you call people racist it's done out of affection. Must be a neocon thing.

[Cincinatus]

It's not a statement of affection -- it's a statement of fact. In any event, it's not "hate" -- you guys really are just like liberals -- no whine before its time.

[hchutch]

Maybe it's time to think about declaring Sobran's stuff not welcome, here Jim. If rmlew's reports are correct...

[Mark Bahner]

I wrote, "It's a shame neoconservatives don't support a federal government limited to the size authorized by the Constitution."

rmlew replied, "Neither do many other types of conservatives."

Yes, that's my primary complaint about conservatives. (It goes without saying that my complaint in that regard holds even more strongly for faux "liberals.")

[Mark Bahner]

"If he is not an anti-Semite, who the hell is?"

Ummm...Osama bin Laden? ;-)

Seriously, I don't know very much about Joe Sobran. Most things I've read--by him, not about him--I've like. But he throws around "Zionist" too much, in my opinion. (The "Wall Street Journal?")

Here is an opinion piece that he wrote about his presentation to a "Holocaust Revisionist" group:

http://www.ihr.org/conference/14thconf/sobranconf.html

The opinion piece seems gennnnnerally reasonable to me.

1) I particularly agree that Israel has been a "costly" ally. (Though I'm not sure I would go all the way to "treacherous."

2) The "Dual loyalty would be an improvement!" is over the top...at least based on the Jews I know personally.

Overall, I think he makes many good points...some of which are obscured by his rhetoric.

[Mark Bahner]

It always saddens me when citizens of the United States rationalize that it's OK for their government to violate The Law (the Constitution). It's particularly depressing to read those of "Free Republic" doing the rationalizing.

"Congressman" Billybob notes that the Constitution gives Congress the power:

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and to make Rules on Capture on Land and Water;"

He then points out that there are no precise words in the Constitution for how to do each of those things.

That true. But common sense would ensist that there would be some mention of "war." I don't think it's unreasonable to have something like what was done in WWII:

"Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United states of America:

"Therefore be it "Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United states and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby
authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and to bring the conflict to a
successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United states."

Since Congress might want to grant the President the power to wage war in Iraq well in advance of the President's actually waging of the war, something like:

"Should the President determine that the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein fail to meet its commitments under blah, blah, a state of war will exist with the U.S. government."

Another VERY IMPORTANT thing in ANY "declaration" of war would be that it would come BEFORE the President actually starts to wage the war. Otherwise, common sense dictates that Congress is merely ACKNOWLEGING that the war exists, rather than declaring it.

"While Congress did not use the same language in declaring war on the Barbary Pirates,"

First of all, Congress did NOT "declare war" on Tripoli (let alone the "Barbary Pirates")...in that the Congress did NOT first declare war, after which Jefferson waged that war.

The "war" on the "Barbary Pirates" was the first case of a President violating the Constitution, regarding the military. (Just like the Louisiana Purchase was the first example of a President violating the Constitution regarding federal purchase of land.)

The Bey (leader) of Tripoli declared war on the United States. The statist Alexander Hamilton then wrote that it could be ASSUMED that the U.S. was "at war" with the Bey of Tripoli...but, of course, Alexander Hamilton never much cared what the Constitution said, anyway.

Billybob continues, "There are two reasons for mentioning Congress' authority given to President Jefferson against the Barabary Pirates."

The main reason why it's good to mention that is because the "authority given" was given EX POST FACTO. And was therefore not in accordance with the Constitution. Once again, this was the first example of a President violating the Constitution, rather than first getting a Congressional declaration of "war."

Billybob continues, "On 19 September, 2002, I had an article published on UPI entitled, "Commentary: Are we at war?" That article lays out chapter and verse of why we are at war, NOW, and how the requirements of the Constitution have been fully met, NOW."

Well, why don't you post the entire article, "chapter and verse," and I'd be happy to show, by "chapter and verse," why it's a complete crock.

"The argument that "we are not at war" keeps rearing its ugly head on these threads."

Yes, Billybob, the TRUTH has a way of rearing its "ugly head."

I absolutely challenge anyone who says that a "war on terrorism" is legal under the Constitution to bet me whether ANY president will EVER declare the war to be over. I absolutely guarantee that NO President and NO Congress will EVER declare that we are no longer at war with terrorism.

And once again, the Founding Fathers would NEVER be so stupid as to authorize a never-ending war...with an unnamed enemy!

[Mark Bahner]

Oh, I forgot to include this website:

http://www.pccua.edu/keough/Thomas%20Jefferson%20and%20the%20Barbary%20Pirates.htm

From the website:

"If only the Bey of Tripoli had declared war, Dale was to blockade Tripoli's port. If any other of the Barbary states had declared war, then Dale was to deploy his troops as he saw fit in order to "protect our commerce and chastise their insolence-by sinking, burning or destroying their ships and Vessels wherever (he should) find them."(19) This order by President Jefferson authorized actions that clearly were beyond the line of "defensive" actions authorized by the Constitution."

Jefferson violated the Constitution regarding the Bey of Tripoli (aka, the "Barbary Pirates"). So use of the history of the "Barbary Pirates" IS useful...in showing that G.W. Bush is currently violating the Constitution.

No surprise there, since the Constitution was also violated in Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Panama, Somalia, Yugoslavia, etc. ad nauseum.

[rmlew]

Seriously, I don't know very much about Joe Sobran. Most things I've read--by him, not about him--I've like. But he throws around "Zionist" too much, in my opinion. (The "Wall Street Journal?")

Sobran seems to like all Nationalists but Zionists.

1) I particularly agree that Israel has been a "costly" ally. (Though I'm not sure I would go all the way to "treacherous."
Every ally is costly. The US has been a costly ally to Israel. Israel was prevented from winning in 1956 1967 and 1973 by the US.

2) The "Dual loyalty would be an improvement!" is over the top...at least based on the Jews I know personally.
Sobran is an extremist who sees no distinction between groups of Jews, except those he can use as a wedge.

Sobran has some good points about certain Jews overplaying the anti-Semitism card. However, Sobran uses this to discredit the entire idea.

Overall, I think he makes many good points...some of which are obscured by his rhetoric.
Hitler was correct about the Versaille Treaty.

[Mark Bahner]

"Every ally is costly. The US has been a costly ally to Israel. Israel was prevented from winning in 1956 1967 and 1973 by the US."

Well, we should get unentangled from that alliance, then. Certainly, alliance with Israel is not "necessary and proper" for the "common defence" of the U.S.

[Congressman Billybob]

Please, please, please, do your homework before you post on this subject again.

First, my UPI article "Are we at war?" WAS posted on FR and had a substantial discussion. Apparently you missed it. You should find it and read it. It quotes and compares seven different declarations of war in US history.

The word "war" does not have to be used. When Congress authorizes unlimited use of the "United States military" by the President, what do you think they are to be used for? Our military exists for the purpose of fighting and winning WAR. As Lt. Lionel Mandrake said to Col. Bat Guano in Dr. Strangelove, "Shoot the lock off with your gun. That's what the bullets are for, you twit."

Congress DID declare war on the Barbary Pirates. I quote that declaration in my UPI article, and that thread also contains links to the complete text of that and other declarations of war. READ THAT DECLARATION. Then you will know that it exists.

You seem to think that a declaration of war is defective if the war has already begun. Therefore you reject the declaration of war against the Barbary Pirates. Are you aware that Germany declared war on the US before the US declared war on Germany? Did that make our declaration somehow invalid? That's absurd.

The phrase "ex post facto" appears twice in the Constitution. It has to do with the passage of criminal laws by Congress or by state legislatures. It has diddly-squat to do with any declaration of war. Apparently you don't know what the phrase means.

And in your repeated assertion that "the Framers would never approve a declaration of war" that did not name a nation as the enemy (Barbary Pirates, then -- Terrorists, now) you totally ignored that some of the Framers were ALIVE AND WELL and serving in Congress and VOTED FOR the Barbary Pirate declaration. I'd say the fact that Framers voted for that declaration is a pretty good indication that they approved it, and that your assertion is flat-out false.

As for your attack on "unlimited war," Congress has NEVER included in any declaration of war the date on which the war will end. That assertion by you is so absurd that it almost defies verbal comment. Do you think that Congress consists of 535 Nostradamuses?

Every declared war has ended with Congress declaring the end of it. Contrary to what you say, a President has no more independent power to declare the end of a war than he has to declare the beginning of one.

READ THE DOCUMENTS. READ THE HISTORIES. You will benefit yourself, and you will quit giving false information to FReepers.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest column, "Three Anti-Endorsements." Not yet up on FR, or UPI.

Click for "to Restore Trust in America." As the politician formerly known as Al Gore said, "Buy my book."

[rmlew]

Alexander Hamilton, who wrote Washington's Farewell Address, included teh section on "entangling alliances" witha specific reference to France.
The Democrat-Republicans (Jeffersonians) wished to go to war against England on behalf of revolutionary France.
Hamilton actually supported England over the Jacobins and proposed military action in 1794.
This never got traction, so Hamilton Adams and Washington agreed to support neutrality.
The point was not to reject treaties in principle, only to point out that we were not bound to a treaty to a country that no longer existed (Kingdom of France) and that our national interest had changed. However, there is nothing that says taht the Us can't make alliances when it is in our interests.

[Mark Bahner]

rmlew writes, "Alexander Hamilton, who wrote Washington's Farewell Address,..."

:-) Better not let Washington see that! It's true that Alexander Hamilton significantly HELPED Washington write Washington's Farewell Address (as did James Madison). But the sentiments in the address were Washington's, and Washington's alone.

See this website for details:

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/farewell/index.html

"Throughout the preparation Washington's ideas or "sentiments," as he liked to call them, were preserved. Hamilton knew, as Madison had before him, that whatever he might do in reshaping, rewriting, or forming anew a draft, the results should be "predicated upon the Sentiments" which Washington had indicated. This central fact was adhered to."

rmlew continues, "...included the section on "entangling alliances" with a specific reference to France."

Well, Washington's final version was much broader:

"'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances,[note] with any portion of the foreign World--..."

"Any portion of the foreign world!" That covers pretty much everyone!

rmlew continues, "The point was not to reject treaties in principle,..."

I would say, in fact, that it WAS a point to "reject treaties in principle." Once again, "'Tis our true policy to stear clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world..." That is most clearly and emphatically rejecting, "treaties in principle."

And there's another fact you've missed. Up until 1949(!) the U.S. NEVER had a treaty of alliance with a foreign country! See this U.S. State Department site for details:

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm

"Not until 1949, in fact, would the United States again sign a treaty of alliance with a foreign nation."

Since the U.S. never had a treaty of alliance with a foreign nation until 1949, it seems like the true "conservative" position would be not to have an alliance with Israel.

Or South Korea.

Or Taiwan.

Or Germany.

Or Great Britain.

Or anyone else.

The U.S. should return to the wisdom of G.W. (and I don't mean G.W. Bush). The same wisdom that was followed by all U.S. governments, right up to 1949: "stear clear of alliances with any portion of the foreign world."

[Mark Bahner]

rmlew writes, "Hitler was correct about the Versailles Treaty."

In what way? (I imagine Hitler said very many things about the Treaty of Versailles!)

Do you mean that the treaty dealt too harshly with Germany? (Just about everyone agrees with Hitler on that, I think.)

Or that Germany could have continued on, and won the war (or at least not lost it) if the German government hadn't surrendered? (I think it's possible they could have fought to a draw. But once the U.S. entered, I think they were pretty much guaranteed to lose. It might have taken another 2-3 years, though.)

[rmlew]

:-) Better not let Washington see that! It's true that Alexander Hamilton significantly HELPED Washington write Washington's Farewell Address (as did James Madison). But the sentiments in the address were Washington's, and Washington's alone.

I believe that Hamilton penned the speech, but concede that these were Washtington's beliefs for that time in history. Only the worst of the Jeffersonian conspiracy nuts believed that Hamilton controled Washington.

I would say, in fact, that it WAS a point to "reject treaties in principle." Once again, "'Tis our true policy to stear clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world..." That is most clearly and emphatically rejecting, "treaties in principle."

Washington had been a strong supporter of the Alliance with France but opposed one with Spain during the Revolutionary war. Clearly his policy suggestions changed with the political and international changes. We are not a precarious fractious empire as we were in 1796. We cannot relly on teh British to ensure taht he seas are open. Things change.

And there's another fact you've missed. Up until 1949(!) the U.S. NEVER had a treaty of alliance with a foreign country! See this U.S. State Department site for details:

I would suggest that you take another look at the Monroe Doctrine and the Atlantic Charter of 1941.
Teh Monroe Doctrine was dependant on British ENFORCEMENT. We lacked teh capability and relied on the British to keep foreign empires at bay in exchange for our not attempting to annex Canada.

For that matter, we had a treaty of alliance with France in 1779.

[rmlew]

rmlew writes, "Hitler was correct about the Versailles Treaty."

In what way? (I imagine Hitler said very many things about the Treaty of Versailles!)
Do you mean that the treaty dealt too harshly with Germany? (Just about everyone agrees with Hitler on that, I think.)

I believe that the Versaille Treaty was too harsh on Germany.

Or that Germany could have continued on, and won the war (or at least not lost it) if the German government hadn't surrendered? (I think it's possible they could have fought to a draw. But once the U.S. entered, I think they were pretty much guaranteed to lose. It might have taken another 2-3 years, though.)

That was a ridiculous claim. Operation Michael failed and the Germans were retreating at the time of the armistice. Moreover, the German navy mutinied (they refused to make a suicidal attack on the allied naval squadron 3 times their size) and the German population was nearing starvation. The Austro-Hungarian empire collapsed. Germany would have collapsed in a few weaks. That is why Germany accepted the armistice.

[DBtoo]

Thank you for the link and explanation!