Posted on 06/16/2003 5:03:58 PM PDT by ComtedeMaistre
Maybe, but to tie up all loose ends here you'd have to (1) define "neo-cons" (as you acknowledge), (2) identify one or more people you think are "neo-cons", (3) explain how their views are utopianist, and probably (4) demonstrate that their views being utopianist is connected with them being "neo-cons" and not just some coincidence.
Hard to do all that when no one can agree on the definition of "neo-con" in the first place. At the very least, you seem to have kick-started this process somewhere in the middle.
If the definition of "neo-con" is the standard one (former leftist turned conservative) then it's hard to see how, precisely, "neo-con" is supposed to be connected with utopianism. If we all agree that conservatives abhor utopianism, and that "neo-cons" are conservatives, then they pretty much can't (now) be utopianists. (If they were we wouldn't call them "neo-cons", but something else.) They could have been utopians in the past of course (since they are former leftists), just not now.
So the assertion "what they have in common is utopianism" doesn't quite add up, unless/until someone actually comes along and demonstrates this.
On the other hand, if the exercise being undertaken here is more like the following: (1) some conservatives are identifying some fellow conservatives they disagree with, and whose ideas they think "utopian" or find convenient to call "utopian", and (2) calling them "neo-cons" or attributing their ideas/existence to a movement called "neo-conservatism", and then (3) going back and filling in all the definitions where convenient to make this argument seem to hold together, then everything becomes much more understandable. (Just illegitimate.)
Neocons strike me as folks who like to be where the power is and are willing to adopt different labels depending on the zeitgeist. They also seem to be politicos who are pragmatically conservative but still believe that liberals have the monopoly on good intentions.
Which "neocons" are these? Is this your definition of "neo-conservatism" or a property you think you've observed of "neo-conservatism"?
If the former, are there any "neo-conservatives" at all? Who?
If the latter, who are the "neo-conservatives" you think you've identified who, you think, have these properties? (And then why are they "neo-conservatives" to begin with?)
Finally, to say that one is unaware of certain writings or thoughts so therefore one is NOT influenced is to disregard culture.
I was asking for something different. If there is "influence" (conscious or unconscious) of Trotskyism in "neo-conservatism" that is worth spending the time to talk about, then surely it ought to be possible to find some evidence for this in the form of characteristically "Trotskyist" ideas present and prominent in the writings/thoughts of "neo-conservatives". You're right that the "neo-cons" need not necessarily be aware that "Trotskyism" is their source, but the ideas should be there nevertheless.
Yet no one has been able to point to a single specific idea common and unique to both "Trotskyism" and "neo-conservatism" other than the really stupid observation that neither are pacifists. Other candidate "links" from this thread are:
-"neocons" are in practice Zionists and "Trotskyists" are too (but then why not just cut out the middle man and forget the "Trotskyism" stuff, and come out and say "neo-conservatism is linked to Zionism"?)
-"neocons" want to Spread Something On A Global Scale and "Trotskyists" did too (nevermind that "neocons", as far as I can tell from the vague definition, want to spread democracy and freedom, while "Trotskyists" want to spread communism... that's but a mere trifle I suppose...??)
I could try to discern more "links" but if any others have been listed on this thread, they're even stupider than the preceding two.
Irving Kristol might have once been a neo, by definition he is now a paleo.
Bruce Bartlett on Irving Kristol:
. . . The first batch of left-wingers to turn right in the 1950s were mostly ex-communists, horrified by Stalin and naked Soviet expansionism. The second wave, which included Kristol, came around in the late 1960s in reaction to the excesses of the New Left and the growing wave of anti-Americanism among conventional liberals. He was their leader, and he showed them a halfway house out of the left by creating "neoconservatism." Eventually, Kristol was joined by such heavyweight intellectuals as Norman Podhoretz, Pat Moynihan, and Daniel Bell.
In a small journal called The Public Interest, which he still edits, Kristol sought out university professors with conservative views on particular public-policy issues. They might not have been conservative on any other issue, but he got them to write articles about the one issue on which they were conservative. In this way, he created a solid intellectual foundation for things like supply-side economics, welfare and education reform, and many other conservative policies that have been enacted into law. . . . -- The National Review
yitbos
Irving Kristol coined the term, wrote about it, and therefore, his explination, and his alone, should be the one used. It isn't, sadly, and far too many here, have decided that they know far better than one of the founders of neoconism, does.
No, neocons aren't UTOPIANS; but, many of those who now use the term perjoratively, certainly are !
Shakespeare's words, like passages from the Bible, have become part of everyday speech. Any Rand ? NO !
You're positing questions, that have NO answers. There is NO " neocon ideology " !
I have read reams and reams of articles here, by people, who aren't neocons, totally dismiss what the original neocons have said about themselves, so no, frankly, I am not interested in reading another one; which I may have already read anyway. But thanks all the same.
Well, I'm tempted to just say "that's right, I don't" ;-), but that's a brief (inexact) summary of a much larger point. For the record, as I understand the story, (a) there was a certain set of leftists-turned-conservative who started getting called (not by their own volition) "neo-conservatives", (b) some of them (presumably not all) ended up just embracing the term (which was intended to be somehow derogatory), (c) this became a semi "movement" centered around, as you mention, a magazine or whatever. This petered out in the '70s or so when one of them (Podhoretz?) wrote a book about neoconservatism's "death". There seems to have been some semi controversy in the Reagan administration centered around Jeanne Kirkpatrick, but basically that was the last we'd heard of "neoconservatism" for about 20 years. And all along, very few people would have actually called themselves "neo-cons"; some of those who used to, presumably no longer do. As a "movement" it simply does not have a very good case.
Now, suddenly they've been resurrected and you've got leftists joined with Buchananites in perceiving the dark hand of "neoconservatism" behind each and every thing they disagree with. My perception is that this is a facile conspiracy-label and not a description of any real thing. I am still waiting to be disproven about this.
The point being you've now got people writing vanity essays on FR about what they think the neocons are up to, what they think their motivation is, what they've "observed" or "noticed" about the neocons, why they don't like them, why their conservative credentials are lacking and we should stop following them... and it's just not clear to me that they're actually talking about any real human beings (as opposed to projecting their dislikes onto mental bogeymen "the neocons" and then composing narratives in which "the neocons" figure prominently).
Yes, Podhoretz, I. Kristol, etc., these guys rallied around and embraced the term, it meant something at one time, to them. The problem is that I have no confidence whatsoever that when someone throws out say "those guys at NRO!" as "neocons" that they are using word in anything like the same way.
One way out would be to define "neocon", but then you have to actually establish that a given person you're talking about is a "neocon" according to that definition, which is presumably why nobody goes that route. Instead what people do is make a little mental list of guys they (I'm guessing) don't like. At the top of that list they put the word "Neocons!", and voila. But that doesn't prove a darn thing. One may as well put the phrase "People I Don't Like" at the top of such a list for all it tells me.
So yes, "neocons" exist, I can list at least four. But "neocon", as people use the term, doesn't have a comprehensible meaning independent of "People I Don't Like".
Again, anyone could prove me wrong by putting forth a reasonable, objective definition of the term and applying it consistently.
You seem to sneer at the three or four guys mentioned as though, perhaps that's it.
As far as I know, that is it. My list is growing though; this guy Stephen Schwartz is a recent addition. Let's just say the list is a work in progress.
A couple of those guys had their own magazines and I'm pretty sure that there were probably several hundred thousand subscribers to them.
Meaning what? Every subscriber to a magazine edited by a "neocon" is therefore a "neocon"? Why? If I take a subscription to The Nation does that make me a socialist?
I of course presume that generally people who subscribed to those magazines did so for the conservative views contained therein. ("Neocons", remember, hold conservative views, otherwise the term would make no sense.) Thus most of them, I presume, are conservatives.
I would add the guys at Weekly Standard to the list.
"the guys at Weekly Standard"? all of them?
Okay, so what you're saying is, "the guys at Weekly Standard" are "neocons". I assume you've come to this conclusion by comparing the views of "the guys at Weekly Standard" to the definition of "neo-conservatism" and observing that the term fits them. Great!
Can you tell me which definition of "neo-conservatism" you used to accomplish this taxonomy?
If not, then what exactly did you just do, besides slap a meaningless label on "the guys at Weekly Standard"?
It shouldn't bother you that there is no hardcore definition of neoconservatism etched in stone
I'd settle for a loose definition painted with fingerpaint at this point ;-)
as far as I know, there is no definition of conservatism or Americanism or liberalism either.
Well but there's an important difference here. Most of the people we refer to as "conservatives" or "liberals" would actually call themselves that if prompted. There is also more or less widespread agreement on what the two stand for in broad terms. By contrast, most neoconservatives don't call themselves such (for example, a favorite supposed "neocon" of many people, Bill (not Irving) Kristol, ain't no such thing; he's a "National Greatness Conservative" whatever that is - I know this because I've heard him say it.) Some would laugh at the idea, and the only reliable way I have of discovering whether this or that guy is a neocon is to ask the person I'm talking to whether the guy in question appears on his mental "neocon" list. And as you can imagine it's tedious to do this with every single person I correspond with, especially when the lists are all different. (To some, Bush is a "neocon".)
I would add people like Newt Gingrich, David Frum, and Charles Krauthammer to the list. Also a lot of the newer guys at National Review would fall into the category.
That's all very interesting, but why would you "add" those people to the list of "neocons"? How are they "neocons" (i.e. what characteristic "neocon" views do they hold, which of course requires you to list some characteristic "neocon" views..)
What "category"? All I see is a list of people you've tossed off. You can call that list "neocons", you can call it "kwyjibos" for all I care, but I don't see what you're accomplishing or what I'm supposed to take away from it.
Some aspects of neoconservatism that I have noticed are an interventionist foreign policy, fiscally conservative but socially liberal, and a general tendency to be where democrats were three or four decades ago.
How can you "notice" aspects of something you can't define in even the broadest of terms? I filter this through my "neoconspeak" filter and here's what you're really saying:
If what you're saying makes any sense, you're really defining "neocons" to be conservatives who believe in, among other things, "an interventionist foreign policy, fiscally conservative but socially liberal, and a general tendency to be where democrats were three or four decades ago."
And ok, that's fine by me then. One problem though, many people who fit this definition don't necessarily have much in common with the historical "neocons", do they? None of this stuff is all that unique to historical "neocons". In fact most Republicans actually fit this definition. Ronald Reagan fits this definition for example.
So what you've done is hijacked the term to describe an overlapping but different group of people from those who used to be called "neocons" (=former leftist turned conservative, anti-communist etc). Now, that's ok I guess, but it leads to confusion and I wonder why you would do it.
For them, government IS the solution, not the problem. There is little of the last half century of liberalism that they have any problem with: they do not seek to abolish ANY liberal program, they merely talk about reform. And they'll spend even more of my money than the liberals did to do it. Vote for us: we stand for everything they stand for, but we'll do it more slowly and more efficiently.
You've just described the Republican Party.
Perhaps your personal definition of "neocon" simply redundantly coincides with "Republican".
Again, that's ok, but it's confusing, and I wonder why you need the term when we've already got the term "Republican".... :-)
Can you not name the others?
Can you not name the others?
I'd say Trotsky most definitely was ruthless enough. He could wield power as brutally as any other tyrant. He just wasn't as practical as Stalin. Trotsky wasn't playing as focused a game on the same level as his adversary. Indeed, I don't think he ever understood Stalin's game. He never understood the intra-party exercise of power, but please, try telling the sailors of Kronshtadt that Trotsky wasn't ruthless.
It gets very hard to follow, like all the old stories about Lovestonites and Shachtmanites, Zinovievites and Bukharites, Alcove #1 and Alcove #2. And the personal animosities and invective going this way and that complicate things further.
Forty or fifty years ago, leftists in and out of academia had more involvement in intellectual controversies than just about anyone else in the country. The Depression had radicalized them, and most of the rest of the country more or less accepted the country as it was. Non-leftists were too busy earning a living to devote much time to such debates, at least in comparison to later generations. So it's not so much about neo-conservatism and Trotskyites, as about American intellectual life in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. Leftism was the atmosphere of the day for intellectuals, and its influence would be felt strongly on anyone in the intellectual world.
Leftists in those years were also better suited to debates in social science better than that of rightists, both here and in Europe, and that's why the CIA gave so many leftists funding. Conservative intellectuals and the man in the street were more suspicious of the then-hot social sciences like sociology and anthropology, which leftists embraced.
So it's not surprising that the influence of leftist intellectuals would be felt across the intellectual spectrum, and that they'd provide the leadership for even conservative movements. This was as true of Buckley's National Review as of the later neo-conservatives, if not more so. I believe Eastman, Burnham, Meyer, Chambers, Toledano, Herberg, etc., all had left-wing pasts, as did even Richard Weaver briefly.
LOL... I'm not asking for passages of text, just a coupla names. But you won't give me any. Don't try too hard to make your point. :-)
Most would. Perhaps Presidential candidates would not. I was speaking generally here. Listen to a talk radio station (of centrist or leftist bent), the callers, if on the left, will begin their call by "first of all, I consider myself pretty liberal...". That's who I'm talking about.
Nobody calls in to radio stations and says "First off, I'm a big true-blue 'neo-conservative'." On the other hand, there are about three or four guys who have written books or opinion columns admitting to being "neo-conservatives". (That's why they're on my official list.)
Same with neocon since people are recognizing them as liberals in conservative clothing.
Who is "them"? Name some of these people you have in mind. (And then tell me why they're "neocons". You know, by defining "neocon" and then showing me that the definition fits the person you have in mind.)
You would not settle for ANY definition however loose or tight
So now you're a mind reader? If we're going to get into an argument about what I would settle for, uh, you lose :-)
several posters have pointed out certain political beliefs that are generally held by those who are being called neo-conservatives
Not really. Several people have caricatured the political beliefs of people they mentally call "neo-conservatives", and then pretended this caricature was accurate, and finally proclaimed "...and that's what 'neo-cons' believe". For example, you said in Post #124, "For them, government IS the solution, not the problem." You also asserted in the very same post that you'd put Newt Gingrich and CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER for crying out loud on your mental list of "neocons".
Is it really true that CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER thinks "government IS the solution, not the problem"? Is that how he would describe his views? Is it even close? Or is that simply the best way you could think of to put down his beliefs? Give me a break here.
by those of us that are so ignorant that we can hardly chew gum and walk simultaneously.
??? what are you talking about? You're saying you're ignorant? I'm sorry to hear that. (???)
Contrary to what you guys say, the term Neo-conservative was NOT embraced by those "former" leftists cum "conservatives".
Uh, whatever. It's not like I actually care, I was relating the story as I've gleaned it from several articles. My understanding was that some of them (I never said ALL) embraced the term. I don't really think it's an important point Whether Or Not "Neo-conservatives" Embraced That Term.
Norman Podhoretz stridently maintained that he was a liberal until it became too obvious even to him that liberalism had been hijacked by the radical left and they had to distinguish themselves from the others somehow.
Ok I'll take your word for it.
They still believe in liberalism albeit in a more classical definition of the word
In fact, so do "conservatives" (=classical liberals).
The paleos are annoyed because they STILL don't think that FDR or JFK were great men, the neos do.
List the people who, you think, think FDR and JFK were great men. And then explain to me why those people you've listed are "neos". (I know I keep repeating myself, but seriously, you really do have to actually dot these i's and cross these t's, otherwise you're just carelessly slappin' meaningless labels on people. I'm just sorry I had to be the one to break it to you.)
With political terms constantly morphing or rather, being morphed by power hungry elites that want a label that carries a certain fashionable cachet, it is hard to keep up.
Tell me about it. Especially when so many people are so willing to embrace a phony label and toss it around disingenuously without ever bothering to define it.
Some feminists think pornography is great and some see it as evil; does that mean there is NO definition of feminism except "women I don't like"?
No. I don't see your point.
can we please not play the I have NO idea what anyone is talking about because this particular group of politicos doesn't exist.
Well, sure. I don't have NO idea what people are talking about when they say "neocon". After all, I know about at least four (4) certified "neocons": Podhortez, I. Kristol, Schwartz, and.. oh I forget the fourth but you see my point. I acknowledge that there are "neocons" and I know about some. I just don't understand what kind of definition of "neocon" would include Newt frickin' Gingrich, or how such a definition would relate back to the original definition of the term.
As for Irving Kristol defining the term (which of course has NO definition) he ought to be congratulated. He is the only person in the last two centuries to define a (non-existent) political term that did not in any way evolve or mutate with the times.
I really don't understand what you're trying to say here.
Again, please pardon my colossal ignorance on these matters as lexicography and lib- er, neo-conservatism are not my areas of expertise.
Still don't know what the hell you're talking about with this "ignorance" stuff, when did I call you ignorant? You seem t'have gotten suddenly pretty ticked at me, why is that?
["you've just described the Republican party."] No kidding. And Guess who's running the show.
Republicans!
(Oops, I was supposed to say "a shadowy, dark, maybe-Jewish Cabal with Trotskyist links", wasn't I? ;-P )
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.