Posted on 05/03/2003 8:44:59 AM PDT by quidnunc
Politics is all about polarities. Republican vs. Democrat, conservative vs. liberal, right vs. left, hard thinking vs. soft thinking. The labels are pervasive, but the ground frequently shifts, requiring a new prefix to freshen up the label.
The word neocon, for example (short for neoconservative), was born of such a shifting of the ground. Coined in the 1970s, the label stuck to Democrats who had watched the Scoop Jackson anti-Communist wing of the Democratic party evaporate before their very eyes. They saw the War on Poverty become a losing battle. On the domestic front, they observed the death of morality as it had been defined for thousands of years in the Judeo-Christian tradition. These Democrats finally concluded that liberalism, as they had known it, was dead.
Irving Kristol, father of the neocons, defined his band of brothers and sisters as "liberals mugged by reality." That reality was the "evil empire" as defined by Ronald Reagan, the leader they championed. The reality extended to a concern for crime and education and what came to be called "family values." A subdivision of the neocons, the "cultural conservatives," were wryly defined as liberals with daughters in junior high.
Jews were prominently identified with the neocons, largely because Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine, made the magazine a sounding board for neocon criticism. But Jeanne Kirkpatrick, a Baptist, and William Bennett, a Roman Catholic, were prominent neocon voices from the beginning. So were other Christians. "What are we," they might ask, "chopped liver?"
The Jewish neocons understood what the majority of Jews who vote Democratic didn't — that Jews and Evangelical Christians held many things in common, among them an admiration and affection for Israel.
Such definitions and ideological attitudes are amply documented in the political history of the second half of the 20th century, but the neocon label resurfaces today as many journalists and pundits identify the neocons as a new generation driving the foreign policy of George W. Bush.
It's a label that doesn't quite fit, since those credited with influence are hardly "neo" anything. For the most part, the label is attributed to second-generation conservatives. Some are sons of the Scoop Jackson Democrats whose fathers have the last name of Podhoretz and Kristol, but the label as accurately understood has a much more inclusive intellectual base, including, for example, Vice President Dick Cheney; his wife, Lynne; Condoleezza Rice; Don Rumsfeld; and Paul Wolfowitz, the hugely influential deputy defense secretary.
The term, however, is disingenuously bandied about at dinner tables and policy meetings in London and Paris and elsewhere, where it is colorfully coded to suggest a Jewish conspiracy working on the White House.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at tallahassee.com ...
Let's assume you are right, however, and that Paul "talks more" about aid to Israel than, for example, Egypt. I submit that this is perfectly just since Israel since it is the largest single recipient of U.S. foreign aid since World War II and is the lynchpin of our Middle Eastern involvement. Once foreign aid to Israel is ended, there will be excuse for the "countervailing" aid to the many Arab dictatorships.
Watch out for those anti-semites under your bed! While you are at, please make sure that any members of the Illumnati are not there either since you apparently subscribe to grand conspiracy theories.
Cheers, AWW
BTW, you didn't answer my question. Are you, like Ron Paul, *against* aid to Arab dictatorships or you one of those antisemitic types who wants to give tax aid to the "enemies of Israel" like Egypt. If you do support aid to Egypt, of course, can we conclude that you are "on some level" an antisemite? If so, off to the reeducation camp for you!
Not that you're making an ad hominem attack or anything.
My point was: you made it seem "inconsistent" for certain conservatives to oppose Kosovo war but support Iraq war, I tried to explain that this was illogical and incorrect. If you understand that already, great.
They have been outraged, for example, that "traitor peaceniks" dared opposed the war after we "were in it." Of course, this did not stop conservatives from opposing the Kosovo war after we "were in it."
Yes it did. Well, it stopped me, anyway. I can't possibly speak for everyone else and it wouldn't be fair to force me to.
Apparently, by their "bizarre" standards of pro-conservatives these same conservatives who opposed Kosovo were not "antiwar peaceniks" then.
That's correct, opposing Kosovo didn't make one a peacenik. why do you think otherwise? bizarre
I guess most pro-warriors only condemn folks as "antiwar peaceniks" when they oppose Republican wars.
Not me, I don't necessarily "condemn" people who oppose wars as "peaceniks" either way
and WHAT BELIEFS are those? "they want to Make The World Safe For Democracy" is a cartoon, get real. Tell me what the ideology is, say something coherent and concrete about it without reducing it to satire. Can you?
You can close your ears and deny its existence,
I do not deny the existence of "neo-conservatism" and I resent you claiming that I do.
If you don't want to believe that such a belief exists, fine.
what belief would that be? You haven't explained a darn thing with any precision.
attempt to deny that those who supported Iraq war could have done so out of any other belief besides Making The World Safe For Democracy. An attempt by whom? By me?
If the shoe fits. To you the common thread is this "passionate belief in MTWSFD". Certain people who have this pass. bel. are "neocons". Earlier you asserted that, oh, Charles Krauthammer is a "neocon". Conclusion: You deny that Kraut holds the opinions he does for any other reason than a Passionate Belief In MTWSFD. You assert he has this passionate belief, and *that's* why he believes what he does (and in particular supported Iraq war). Had he the chance, he might explain to you that his beliefs, and support for the war, are a thousand times more complex than that, that he has no love for Woodrow Wilson, etc, but you deny him the courtesy of granting sincerity on his part. To you, he's a "neocon", you've found the label, and it "fits" him, and his motivations fit into that little MTWSFD box. all evidence to contrary notwithstanding.
Pigeonholing, like I said.
[I don't really care about the term.] Sure sounded like you did at #191.
How about back in #185 when I wrote (and I quote) "I don't really care about the term, I find it pretty uninteresting. I'm just sick of people tossing it around because they find it a convenient boogie man"
Seriously, if you wanna have a knock down drag out argument with me about what I care about and don't care about, that's fine, but you're gonna lose. I'm the world's expert in that field. ;)
I've based my conclusions on the common beliefs exhibited in their writing.
Let's be clear here: the common beliefs discernible among writers Kraut, Coulter, Limbaugh, Jacoby are those of (drumroll) conservatism. The attempt to horseshoe 95% of today's conservatives into the "neo-con" box so you can claim the mantle of "true conservatism" for yourself is understandable enough in psychological terms, I suppose, but don't expect the rest of us observing this little exercise to stand up and applaud.
Let's be honest here, you're talking about a split that doesn't trace to Podhoretz or Trotskyites, it traces back to dec 7, 1941. Which is fine and all, but what's interesting about that is that we've already got terms which are perfectly sufficient: "isolationists" vs. "hawks". "neocon" is what you are calling "conservative hawks". And 95% of conservatives since 1941 - Reagan, Godlwater, everyone who has mattered in 60 years - qualify.
What's the point of the exercise then? answer: to claim rhetorically that to isolationists belong the mantle of "true conservatism". The whole exercise is disingenuous and self-serving from the get-go. you wanna paint yourself as the "true conservative" be my guest, that conversation completely bores me, but stop trying to paint the rest of us with this broad "neocon" brush in the process, it's ridiculous and you know it.
Rush Limbaugh is not a "neo" anything and he's not part of any "wing", he's the definition of the Middle of the conservative road. (and you know it)
Tell you what: When you answer my prior challenge: (For crying out loud: Please find me ONE Libertarian article by Paul (or anyone else) decrying our high aid levels to Egypt that does not ALSO decry our high aid level to Israel.) -- then I will answer this question of yours.
Until then: We would appear to be at a Mexican stand-off.
Your silence indicates that by your own standard you are an antisemite e.g. you support tax aid to the enemies of Israel. I hope that you are properly ashamed. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is willing to take a stand. As to you, if the jackboot fits, wear it!
The Howard Institute and Dr. Carlson are fine. The Rockford Institute is, well, nuts.
Fr. Richard Neuhaus also split off from the Rockford Institute and is now reviled by TRI almost as much as they revile conservatives. Distributivism (sp.?) is also more likely found at the Howard Institute than at the Rockford Institute.
If anyone wants to know just how nuts the Rockford Institute has become, access the website of its magazine: chronicles.com. Be sure to be sitting down when you access it lest you get injured falling down laughing at the various inanities and eccentricities and anti-Americanisms that abound on the site.
The racial slavery (or any other kind) was not defensible. Andrew Jackson correctly predicted to Sam Houston on Jackson's last night in the White House that a civil war over slavery would be a disaster that would take more than a century to heal if ever, that slavery should be allowed to die by attrition. Jackson asked Houston to run for president if ever such a war loomed and, if successful, to declare war on all of Europe, if necessary, to make everyone rally around the flag. Interestingly, abolitionist Lincoln cabinet member Seward made the very same suggestion of European war to Lincoln as one of his very first memoranda as Secretary of State. The memo is published in the first volume of his papers as Secretary of State.
Like a stopped clock, Fleming may be right twice per day or twice per column.
The Shaara novels and movies (Gods and Generals, Gettysburg and Last Full Measure have shown character and valor in many Union officers as well. Let us agree to disagree on the Confederacy and agree elsewhere when we can.
Go to any Civil War cemetery, North or South. These are all our honored dead. I take my children to the graves of Union soldiers from our part of Illinois and teach them exactly that although I think the Southern states, via the 10th Amendment, had and have a right to secede. The Civil War memorial in our tiny town on the northern plains has a remarkably large number of names of those who served and the units in which they served. Most of the streets are named for them even for privates. It is not clear to me as a recent arrival whether the names are those who served or just those who died in service but the number is impressive.
Yeah, but the League of the South isn't just dedicated to the memory of the Old south, it's neo-secessionist as well.
That matter was decided by the Civil War and any attempt to break up the present-day U.S. along the old free/slave-state fauilt lines is at the very least goofy and seditious.
"neocon" is what you are calling "conservative hawks".
Not true. One can be quite hawkish and paleoconservative at the same time. It's what you're hawkish about that makes the difference. Paleos, to the extent that they get hawkish, do so against people that they perceive as a more or less direct threat to our country (There's your Iraq example). Neocons get hawkish in order to make things better in other countries. They may say that doing so will ultimately advance our national security as well, but it seems a rather indirect relationship (at least from my paleocon perspective). That's about the most concise description I can give you.
Well then there may be some hope for you. Therefore, just in case you might want to pursue this subject rationally, I'll address a point you raised to me earlier:
As if we haven't taken sides in running regional battles in other locations before.
No one's denied that we have. Israel, at this moment, and for a long time now, is far and away the largest recipient of our aid for the purpose of taking sides in a long-running dispute. Hence it's natural that it would represent the greatest cause for alarm among people who don't believe we should be spending money to take sides in long-running disputes that otherwise have nothing to do with us.
If "neo-con" means anything, it means those intellectuals, many associated with New York and many who are/were Jewish by Faith or ancestry who left the LBJ Great Society and the ever-more pro-communist and, effectively, isolationist or pacifist or cowardly Demonratic Party as they recognized on the Left the antisemitism of such as the Black Panthers (read Tom Wolfe's Mau-Mauing the Flak Cathers), the growing antipathy to Israel among the hard left of the Demonratic Party, the fact that racial quotas were most likely to reduce their offspring's educational opportunities or employment opportunities compared to meritocracy.
Fleming is a neo-isolationist jackass who is all mouth and no action. Talk is cheap and action speaks louder than words. Whining over one's Beaujolais while munching brie, traveling to and admiring idiosyncratic little European tyrannies like Serbia or Montenegro, AND publishing Raimondo and having Sobran as a regular speaker.
I was remarkably surprised by Frum's piece because I did not think he had it in him as a former advocate of what amounts to deep root canal conservatism. I never doubted National Review's capacity to begin the necessary effort of sticking Fleming head-first into an ideological trashcan where he and his eccentric views and allies belong and beginning the effort to draw the line in defense of the cherished word "conservatism" which is being abused by the "paleos."
Fleming also recently trashed Joe Scheidler, Chicago's pro-life activist hero about a week before SCOTUS peeled RICO off Scheidler. As ever, Fleming, believing in yak-yak and not action whined, moaned and groaned over the lost property rights of the abortionists and sided against Scheidler. Now it does escape me as a conservative what business the federal government has in enacting a RICO statute to be applied to actual racketeers much less to Joe Scheidler and pro-lifers, much less what business anyone like the remarkably eccentric Mr. Fleming may have calling himself any kind of conservative while siding with federal suppression and civil punishment of a pro-life group acting within its own state and not fleeing across state lines to avoid prosecution or whatever.
The "feisty" Fleming refuses to teach about Ronald Reagan in his history class for high schoolers lest the differences between Rockford Institute delusions and actual conservatism be obvious to the kids. Needless to say, he is not likely to be found debating grownups if he is not up to brainwashing kids who may know better. History apparently ends in 1980 just before the election and is replaced by old novels and poetry.
He is taking a small entourage with him to France this month to show them the nation which he has written is a far greater country than the United States ever was or ever will be. After all, if Jacques ChIraq stabbed the US at the UN, provided the Iraqis RECENTLY with weapons to kill American soldiers and tried to provide them with the capacity for making nuclear weapons twenty years ago in the form of the nuclear reactor taken out by the Israeli Air Force, France MUST be superior to the US, right?
Is Raimondo JUST a libertarian, even a libertarian, or whatever else (certainly not conservative)? Does Llewellyn Rockwell take Ludwig von Mises's name in vain to establish non-existent credentials of Rockwell? Is neo-pacifist Sobran anti-Semitic? Does a duck have webbed feet? Was it my grandmother who sagely advised: Show me your friends and I'll tell you what you are? Fleming willingly associates with these people. I can't do that for him.
I believe Bill Buckley was a published conservative (God and Man at Yale) and deservedly respected writer when Fleming and his miniature coterie were dealing with the challenges of kindergarten. Nonetheless, to hear Fleming tell it, Buckley is to be dismissed as a "neo-conservative."
Is Sam Francis, erstwhile editor of the newspaper of the "Conservative" Citizens' Councils (nee White Citizens' Councils or blow-dried Klan) who addressed a convention of the "American Renaissance" (neo-nazi) Movement, yakking about "kosher conservatives" in reference to New York Jewish conservatives, a "conservative" too? He is the coverboy of Chronicles this month.
Again, go to chronicles.com and read the insanity. If you review their columns, policies and party line and still call them conservative, then you have a far more expansive definition of conservative than does the movement. Every movement has the obligation to "shoot its own dogs", figuratively speaking. Scoop Jackson understood the special obligation of liberals to oppose, embarass and humiliate communism and communists. Conservatives must respond in kind and oppose "paleo-conservatism" and its adherents who wish to hijack the good name of the movement.
Cain: I am not my brother's keeper.
Same old, same old.
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.