Posted on 12/29/2002 9:10:29 PM PST by Pokey78
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:05:05 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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."
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Nafta "represents an attack on our national sovereignty that must be repelled. I cannot in good conscience lend my support to an agreement that violates the spirit of the Constitution" and "the United States' right to maintain our own standards."Wondering what the "free trader" Roepke would have thought of Buchannan's oposition to NAFTA prompted me to search and try and find some insight as to what had been discovered and I think Lew has about as good a handle on that as I have come accross.Congressmen Terry Everett (R.-Ala.), John Doolittle (R.- Cal.) and others on the House side joined Senators Stevens and Smith in voting no, despite the hysterical opposition of every establishment mouthpiece in the country. But the free-market opponents of Nafta saw exactly where this new world of warring trade blocs is taking us, and it's not closer to peace and prosperity.
The present task of a true free trader, and an Old Liberal, is somehow to rescue the ideal of liberalized trade from its perverters. We need to reassert the freedom of people to trade regardless of residence, while opposing agreements like Nafta that restrict that freedom through rules of origin, red tape, and bureaucracy. Moreover, we need to regain an appreciation of trade apart from loan guarantees, subsidies, and the entire panoply of interventionism.
In the 1950s, free-trade economist Wilhelm Roepke did just that. A Misesian, he was the intellectual godfather of the German economic miracle. The European elite – academics, government officials, and large corporations – had embarked on the Common Market, Nafta's intellectual godfather. Roepke thought it would lead first to a trade bloc and then to supranational government, as indeed it has (see Tucker, p. 7). Roepke was a member of the Mt. Pelerin Society, a club of classical liberals, but he resigned in protest when the Society endorsed the Common Market.
Yep, and Republicans who attack Buchanan are neocons.
The article is sour grapes, it mentions Buchanan 11 times, but not a hint that its the Weekly Standards' attempt to nail Buchanan for his recent expose' of traitor Kristol.
Poor W.F. Buckley, with everyone looking for a 'legacy', his is turning over National Review to the neocons. Without Anne Coulter it's just another 'Times'.
It is just another word for the clueless and the mindless to throw out when they feel intellectually outclassed.
Exactly like "homophobe", "Hate Radio", "Mean Spirited", "racist"...
If you would like on or off this bump list, let me know.
Here are links to the first four pieces:
A Question of Temperament [What makes one a conservative?] First of a Series
To Preserve What We Have- American Conservatism - WSJ article by Bill Buckley
Citing Wilson, Truman and FDR as hard Wilsonians indicates a problem with the ideology. Most conservatives would take these men as liberals and their desire to remake the world as unconservative. And most liberals would consider the neo-cons distrust of international organizations to make them poor successors of Wilson and FDR.
Its interesting to see, who some would claim were the succesors to those two, Pat and Bill, fight it out tooth and nail weekly to establish who can call who what.
Success breeds factionalization in the wake of the common purpose and cooperation the conservative movement had when we felt isolated and small.
How would you characterize the people who called Lott a racist?
Another good test is wheather or not they support the New Deal Commerce Clause.
Boot didn't say this. He distinguished "Hard Wilsonian" from "Soft Wilsonian" this way:
Advocates of this view embrace Woodrow Wilson's championing of American ideals but reject his reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish our objectives.
In short, Boot classifies Wilson himself as "Soft" because of his (typically liberal) faith in paper agreements, rather than the more muscular "Hard Wilsonian" approach of his "Big Stick" anti-thesis, TR (who, by the way, was one of the Presidents he singled out -- NOT Wilson and Truman, but TR, FDR, and Reagan. One can quibble about including FDR in that list, but TR and The Gipper sure as hell aren't liberals.)
As for as "popular usage" goes, the neocon only became a an term of abuse since paleocons and kooks decided to use it as verbal code for "jew," which is how Pat Buchanan means it.
And what is "more pro-war than necessary" anyway? For the Iraq war? You don't think that's necessary, huh?
A Republican is for tax cuts first and never criticizes Bush and always criticizes Clinton. Frist is a Republican.
A Neo-Con is for Israel first and never criticizes Sharon and always criticizes Buchanan. Kristol is a neo-con.
A Conservative is for America first and criticizes both Bush and Sharon and always criticizes those for foreign intervention. Buchanan is a conservative.
I wasn't trying to say that any one approach was better than another. I simply don't think it's accurate to say that neoconservatives are no less conservative, when in fact their positions in many areas are more "liberal" than the other conservative factions.
To illustrate, let's compare what might be a typical neoconservative to some other conservatives.
-The neocon supports Federal welfare, asking that it be toned down and reformed. The libertarian and many paleocons want it abolished.
-The neocon accepts, reluctantly perhaps, the New Deal interpretations of the Commerce Clause and "general welfare". The libertarians and paleocons don't.
-The neocon will usually support Federal involvement in the War on Drugs. Paleocons are more likely to limit drug laws and drug law enforcement to state and local governments. Libertarians don't want them at all.
-The neocon will support restrictions of property rights in the name of civil rights. Libertarians and most paleocons won't.
-The neocon will usually support "reasonable" gun control laws, such as "assualt weapon" bans. Libertarians and paleos are much stronger supporters of the 2nd Amendment.
I could continue this list much longer, but I think you get the idea.
In the area of foreign policy you could make the argument that the neocons have the more conservative position, but the same argument could just as easily be made by the non-interventionist libertarians and paleocons. But in the areas where a "conservative" position can be more easily determined- areas like property rights, size of government, federalism, and social regulation- neocons are usually not the most "conservative".
Again, this does not mean they are wrong, or not as effective as the other factions of the conservative movement. It's just not accurate to describe them as "no less conservative" than groups that are demonstrably more conservative.
Unless it's an issue related to globalism, then it sounds more like: "Walk bent over with your pants around your ankles"
Since I have no desire to re-build the Roman empire, I see no reason to embrace these neo-cons and their agenda.
This article is contemptible in ways too numerous to mention, but what they all have in common -- from dishonest arbitrariness in defining limited-government conservatives out of existence, to shilling for meddling heavy-handedness in foreign policy, to dismissal of abortion and cloning as purely "religious" issues -- is advocacy of naked pragmatism. Only power counts, for this latter-day Boot of The Beast; only might makes right, and devil take the hindmost.
No, "Paleoconservatism" only goes back about ten years and there's been unease on the right about neoconservatives (originally related more to domestic than foreign policy issues) for about twenty. The mainstream conservatives of the 80s weren't always sure that neocons were on their side or should be leading the movement.
And what is "more pro-war than necessary" anyway? For the Iraq war? You don't think that's necessary, huh?
Neocons have been promoting that and other wars for years. I'd have to say that they've been too enthusiastic for military interventions for too long.
Thanks for the correction. But Boot still doesn't convince me. If we take realism as one side and "soft Wilsonianism" as the other, there are a lot of possible positions in between. Like you, I have some doubt that FDR represents the same approach as TR and RWR. And indeed, it's not clear to me that TR, Reagan, GWB and Boot himself share the same view of foreign policy. Roosevelt's expansionism, Reagan's pursuit of the Cold War, and the current enthusiasm for remaking the Middle East have some things in common, but there are also differences.
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.