Trotskycons? (Neo-Con Scholar Confesses Neo-Conservatism Was Founded By Trotskyite Communists)

National Review ^ | June 11, 2003 | Steven Schwartz

[ComtedeMaistre]

Trotskycons?

Pasts and present.

By Stephen Schwartz

EXCERPTS

".....This path had been pioneered much earlier by two Trotskyists: James Burnham, who became a founder of National Review, and Irving Kristol, who worked on Encounter magazine. Burnham was joined at NR by Suzanne LaFollette, who, piquantly enough, retained some copyrights to Trotskyist material until her death. But they were not the only people on the right who remained, in some degree, sentimental about their left-wing past. Willmoore Kendall, for example, was, as I recall, a lifelong contributor to relief for Spanish radical leftist refugees living in France. Above all, Burnham and Kristol, in a certain sense, did not renounce their pasts. They acknowledged that they had evolved quite dramatically away from their earlier enthusiasms. But they did not apologize, did not grovel, did not crawl and beg forgiveness for having, at one time, been stirred by the figure of Trotsky......"

"......That is, of course, insufficient for some people. There remain those for whom any taint of leftism is a permanent stain, and who cannot abide an individual who, having in the past been a Trotskyist, does not now caper and grimace in self-loathing over the historical truth, which is that, yes, Trotsky commanded the Red Army, and yes, Trotsky wielded a sword, and yes, Trotsky, a man of moral consistency if nothing else, took responsibility for the crimes of the early Bolshevik regime. But of that, more anon......"

"......Well, I consider Beichman's intent more sinister: to exclude Hitchens and myself from consideration as reliable allies in the struggle against Islamist extremism, because we have yet to apologize for something I, for one, will never consider worthy of apology. There is clearly a group of heresy-hunters among the original neoconservatives who resent having to give way to certain newer faces, with our own history and culture. These older neoconservatives cannot take yes for an answer, and they especially loathe Hitchens. But nobody ever asked Norman Podhoretz to apologize for having once written poetry praising the Soviet army. Nobody ever asked the art critic Meyer Schapiro, who was also a Trotskyist, to flog himself for assisting illegal foreign revolutionaries at a time when it was considered unpatriotic, to say the least. Nobody ever asked Shachtman or Burnham, or, for that matter, Sidney Hook, or Edmund Wilson, or a hundred others, to grovel and beg mercy for inciting war on capitalism in the depths of the Great Depression........"

".....One might also add that nobody ever asked Jay Lovestone and Bertram Wolfe, ex-Communists whose company Beichman doubtless would prefer, to apologize for having defended the Soviet purge trials and the Stalinist state, long after so many of the brave band that carried a banner with the strange device of the Fourth International were murdered for their defiance of Stalinism. And I have yet to read an apology by Beichman for his own involvement with the Communist network......"

"......To my last breath I will defend the Trotsky who alone, and pursued from country to country, and finally laid low in his own blood in a hideously hot little house in Mexico City, said no to Soviet coddling of Hitlerism, to the Moscow purges, and to the betrayal of the Spanish Republic, and who had the capacity to admit he had been wrong about the imposition of a single-party state, as well as about the fate of the Jewish people. To my last breath, and without apology. Let the neofascists, and Stalinists in their second childhood, make of it what they will......."

[dennisw]

Stephen Schwarz admits to having been a Trotskyist. That's not the same thing as "Necons"[sic] admitting to "Trotskyist origin and influence". You need to learn to distinguish between individuals and groups of humans.

So true. People can call me neo-con if they want. But what do I care or know about Trotsky? To say I have been hoodwinked by Trotsky as filtered down by neo-con leaders is ridiculous. Trotsky discussions are best left to smoke filled cafes in Europe. 95% of Neo cons don't know and don't care. All they know is they agree with positions ABC and XYZ that neo conservatives espouse. 

The real deal with Trotsky is he provides a Jewish communist figure to try to slime the neo conservatives with

[dennisw]

I'd say Trotsky most definitely was ruthless enough.

Hardly so. After his big splash he got exiled and removed in stages from the inner circles and from Russia itself. He was nothing compared to Stalin and Stalin's politburo, all monsters who one way or another managed to stay in Russia and lead while Trotsky got booted. Eventually killed in a most savage way to send a message.

[x]

You apparently have a soft spot for old Lev. The man who told the rebels of Kronshtadt that they would be "slaughtered like partridges" was certainly ruthless enough with "class enemies." Clearly he wasn't in Stalin's category -- largely because he wouldn't treat party members with the same distrust and brutality as outsiders. But I don't see much point in excusing his brutality. Trotsky lacked Stalin's paranoia, but neither he nor Lenin would have held back from ultimate brutalities if they felt them necessary. One might as well give Mussolini or Ho Chi Minh a pass because they weren't Hitler or Mao. The "famous dictators" scale isn't always the relevant one. Sometimes one has to make a comparison to ordinary humanity.

[TradicalRC]

Okay, I give up. Apparently there is no such thing as neo con or paleo con and the heated debates between the two gruops are a tempest in a teapot. Or is it that neither of them exist until someone gives you a definition of them? Whatever, no I cannot read your mind I am merely responding to your dismissal of any poster trying to point out anything that they perceive to be neoconservative and watching you kvetch about how meaningless their posts are.

Everyone has a certain amount of idiosyncracies in their frame of reference so in the interest of fairness, I'd like to know if you have any working definitions for the following terms, maybe then I would gain some understanding.

Radical. Leftist. Communist. Stalinist. Liberal. Paleo-Liberal. Neo-Liberal. Progressive. Marxist. Democrat. Moderate. Republican. Libertarian. Socialist. Neo-Conservative. Conservative. Paleo- Conservative. Reactionary. Right Winger. Socialist.

Any help would be appreciated. These are all terms that I commonly run across in political reading.

[ComtedeMaistre]

>>>>I like your screenname. Are you a monarchist, by any chance?<<<<

Yes. I am a proud monarchist and very conservative in my philosophy. I am also a traditionalist Catholic of the pre-Vatican II worldview, and attend Latin Mass when I am able to. That is why I chose the screen name of the great anti-enlightenment philosopher, Joseph de Maistre: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09554a.htm

I see on your profile page that you are a monarchist as well. If you are interested in British Royalty, you may want to check out the Burke's peerage resource page, which carries a lot of info on that stuff: http://www.burkes-peerage.net/sites/peerageandgentry/sitepages/home.asp

[Dr. Frank fan]

Apparently there is no such thing as neo con

I've conceded several times that there are "neocons". I've even listed three or four. Why do you keep lying about what I am saying? My point is not that there is no such thing as a "neocon" but that the term is not used in any kind of coherent way by almost anyone, particularly here on FR or in certain editorial columns of conspiratorial bent.

or paleo con

I never mentioned "paleocons". I don't really use the term.

and the heated debates between the two gruops are a tempest in a teapot

You think there are heated debates between the two groups "paleocons" and "neocons"? All I keep seeing are a bunch of conspiracy-minded articles by Buchanan types (and, even stupider conspiracy-minded articles by left-wing types) about what "the neocons" are up to.

Other than that, it's clear to me that there is a significant disagreement between what you call "paleocons" and mainstream conservatives, or mainstream Republicans, etc. I don't know how "neocons" are supposed to fit into the equation; remember, all the supposed properties you listed of "neocons" really describe nothing but your average Republican congressman.

Or is it that neither of them exist until someone gives you a definition of them?

Well, let's turn that around. Do kwyjibos exist? Yes or no? Come on, thirty seconds, I want an answer.

(Can you answer if I don't actually define the term? Think about it.)

Y'know, I've observed that kwyjibos like to be stroked behind the ear, but don't leave them out in the sun! And it's kwyjibos that wrote the "Road Map For Peace". Boy the kwyjibos must be jumping in their galoshes now. But I think they're losing their influence.

(Does the above make any sense if I don't define the term? Think about it.)

I did some more thinking, and to my list of kwyjibos I'd add Tom Lantos, the guys at Field & Stream, Dennis Miller, and Donna Brazile. They're all kwyjibos, just look at 'em. None of them will admit it of course, that's how blind they are to their kwyjibo-ness.

(Doesn't the above sound idiotic if I can't define the term? Think about it.)

I am merely responding to your dismissal of any poster trying to point out anything that they perceive to be neoconservative

But you've got it all wrong. I don't "dismiss" someone for pointing out what they perceive to be "neoconservative". Instead what I do is ask them, How do know know such-and-such is "neoconservative"? What makes this or that view "neoconservative"?

These are perfectly fair questions and if "neoconservative" were being used coherently or honestly as a political term, the answers would be forthcoming. They are not.

and watching you kvetch about how meaningless their posts are.

Yes, it must be frustrating to have it pointed out how meaningless your posts are.

Now you ask for my working definitions. Fair enough:

Radical. The most appropriate definition in this context would be: of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change

Leftist. (one who holds) a radical as distinguished from a conservative position

Communist. (one who holds to) a theory advocating elimination of private property; (if capitalized) one who belongs to the Communist Party, if one exists in their country

Stalinist. (one who holds to) the political, economic, and social principles and policies associated with Stalin

Liberal. (one who holds to) a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; (if capitalized) one who belongs to the Liberal Party, if one exists in their country;

Paleo-Liberal. no freaking clue. "old" liberal?

Neo-Liberal. a liberal who de-emphasizes traditional liberal doctrines in order to seek progress by more pragmatic methods

Progressive. (traditional definition:) one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action; (modern/ probably more accurate:) a socialist afraid to call himself as such

Marxist. (one who holds to) the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society

Democrat. (if capitalized) a registered member of the U.S.'s Democrat Party; (if not) an adherent of government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

Moderate. professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme; (when used by leftist writers:) a Republican who is not conservative

Republican. (if capitalized) a registered member of the U.S.'s Republican Party; (if not) one who seeks a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

Libertarian. (if capitalized) a registered member of the U.S.'s Libertarian Party; (if not) a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action

Socialist.

(one who holds to) any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Neo-Conservative. a former liberal espousing political conservatism

Conservative. (one who holds to) a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change

Paleo- Conservative. No clue. "old" conservative? Seems to have some association with Buchanan followers nowadays, but I don't know why exactly.

Reactionary. (one who has) resistance or opposition to a force, influence, or movement; especially : tendency toward a former and usually outmoded political or social order or policy

Right Winger. (one who holds to) a conservative position

Socialist. already listed

Now, I got all those definitions, with few exceptions and some minor modifications/additions, from webster.com.

Interestingly, the definition of "neo-conservative" is worth re-visiting:

(1952) a former liberal espousing political conservatism

Now you see why I get confused? You are obviously not talking about the same word. After all,

is Newt Gingrich a former liberal (espousing political conservative)?

Charles Krauthammer?

(all of) "the guys at Weekly Standard"?

Bill Kristol?

Paul "Vulfervitz" Wolfowitz?

David Frum?

Richard Perle whoever that is?

anyone?

Bueller?

In some cases, maybe. (I don't know the entire biography of all of these guys or even any of these guys.) But I think it's safe to say that for most of the people who get called "neo-conservative" by people like you, the answer is NO. They're NOT "neo-conservatives", at least if you pay any attention whatsoever to that little thing known as the DEFINITION of the word.

(You may have heard of this thing called "DEFINITION" before. Most words have them, and those that don't, often aren't actually useful words.)

So, you can use the word "neo-conservative" if you want, and if you pay attention to its DEFINITION. It's clear to me that it's fair to say Stephen Schwartz is a "neo-conservative". He calls himself one, it doesn't seem to contradict the definition, so fine.

But when you come along and say Well golly gee, you'd like to add Newt Gingrich or Charles Krauthammer to the list, you can't just do that without destroying the term. (You can't just add "frog" to the list of things called "fruits" without destroying the meaning of the word "fruit"...)

One thing you could do, of course, is say "well phooey on you, the dictionary's definition sucks, I'm using my own". Which would be fine, except you won't tell me what it is.

Which is what makes the whole exercise, quite frankly, disingenuous and intellectually bankrupt.

You've made a list of people you disagree with. Big whoop. You wanna call them "neocons" or "kwyjibos", be my guest. Just don't expect me to applaud or to pretend that you're making a damn bit of sense. Cuz you ain't. Later,

[Destro]

Let me see if I can do it this way....

The majority of the big cheeses of the neo-con movement were Trotskyites or a form of communist once - can we agree on that?

They no longer are communists - can we agree on that?

Now we get to the tricky part - in that move to the right the neocons brought with them a certain world view - certain ways of thinking about the world not standard to the American conservative movement now dubbed paleo-con.

That this way of seeing the world may or may not be Trotskyite is off the table for the time being can we at least agree to my above paragraph?

I also want to apologize for calling Dr. Frank, dumb. Even if I thought so - and I don't - I should not have said it.

[Thumper1960]

Interesting.

Since I was once (late 70's-early '80's) in the Socialist Workers Party, arguably the "first" Trotkyist party in the USA and a fraternal mamber of the Fourth International, I can relate to much of this discussion.

I still harken back to the Churchill quote: "To be conservative at 20 is heartless and to be a liberal at 60 is plain idiocy. "

[Burkeman1]

There is no real link between Neo Cons and Trotsky other than a few of the founders were Trotskites in their youth. The connection seems to be that Trotsky was a proponent of continued revolution and active expansion of the Soviet Union and Communism at all times. His main opponent was Stalin who wanted "Socialism in one Country" while making "world revolution" a secondary priority. The supposed link between the Neo Cons and Trotsky is that Neo Cons want to wage a world revolution in favor of Capitalism and Democracy. Same goal- different ends. I happen to disagree with this view very much. But I think some are trying to imply that Neo Cons are closet commies with this tenuous link. "Neo Cons" and other conservatives who want an adventurous foreign policy are wreckless, arrogant, and uniformed- but they are not communists.

[Torie]

The father of Neoconservatism perhaps is Jimmy Carter:

"Doug Macdonald of Colgate University had a fine response this week to the tiresome overintellectualized prattling over how Leo Strauss is supposedly the father of neoconservatism. On a listserv I'm on, he wrote:

"As a self-defined neoconservative for the last twenty years or so, who is neither a Straussian nor Jewish, two groups often conflated with neoconservatism, the former incompetently and the latter sometimes recklessly, I welcome Brian Auten's corrective to Wesley Yang's facile generalizations about a rather amorphous group of people. I might only add that this thread has concentrated too much on ideas without tying them to concrete events. Neoconservatism arose in the mid-to-late 1970s in reaction to what was perceived as an American political establishment that had come to see the United States as the major problem in the world, both in the East-West Cold War and in the Third World. Neoconservatives, on the other hand, saw the United States as the major solution in the world, especially with a Cold War still on in both East-West and North-South terms. The real "father" of neoconservatism, for many of us, was not Leo Strauss but Jimmy Carter.

"Indeed."

I would give LBJ major credit as well.

I am trying to remember when I first though of myself as a neconservative. It was probably sometime in the 1980's, but I was hard wired that way at birth really.

[Destro]

yes, exactly!

[Dr. Frank fan]

The majority of the big cheeses of the neo-con movement were Trotskyites or a form of communist once - can we agree on that?

Well, they were on the left, certainly. (This is a tautology seeing as how it's part of the definition of "neo-con"; if a person was never on the left, they wouldn't be called a "neo-con" in the first place. At least if we actually use its definition. ;-)

They no longer are communists - can we agree on that?

Sure. (Also tautological. If they were still communists they'd be communists, not conservatives, and therefore not "neo-cons".)

in that move to the right the neocons brought with them a certain world view - certain ways of thinking about the world not standard to the American conservative movement

Says who? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Maybe some did, and some didn't. You kinda need to explain who exactly you have in mind here ("the neocons" is too vague) and what "world view" or, more likely, views you think these specific people "brought with them", before I can possibly agree to the characterization. As of now it's just too vague.

I also want to apologize for calling Dr. Frank, dumb. Even if I thought so - and I don't - I should not have said it.

Heh, I'd forgotten you had. :-) (So, maybe I am dumb ;-) Anyway, no worries....

[Destro]

Paleo-cons do have a rich history-simplified-pretty much they want nothing to do with the world in terms of shaping it. You leave my nation alone we leave you alone attitude. In the 30s and early 40s they were called isolationists or nativists.

The Cold War was an immediate threat to America so paleocons had no problem in being gung ho for confrontation. The Reagan Doctrine, IMHO was a paleo-con inspired policy of letting the natives fight the cold war.

The fact that some of those we helped arm (Saddam, what was to be al-Qaeda) were scum bags animates (again my opinion) neo-cn thinking in that we have to do it ourselves. Which again sounds a lot like war democrat talk of LBJ (from my readings anyway-the LBJ era was way before my time).

[Dr. Frank fan]

Destro: "The majority of the big cheeses of the neo-con movement were Trotskyites or a form of communist once.."

Burkeman1: "There is no real link between Neo Cons and Trotsky other than a few of the founders were Trotskites in their youth."

Hmm. So it seems we have a numerical discrepancy. For the record, I don't know who's correct; I don't know what proportion of "neocon founders" were Trotskyites. All I'd like to say is that whatever the answer is, it's a quantifiable statement, not an axiomatic one about "neocons", as it's currently being treated by conspiracists.

The connection seems to be that Trotsky was a proponent of continued revolution and active expansion of the Soviet Union and Communism at all times.

Right; I recognized this proposed "link" and summed it up thusly:

Both "neocons" and Trotskyites want to Spread Something Worldwide!

(some "link" ;-)

The supposed link between the Neo Cons and Trotsky is that Neo Cons want to wage a world revolution in favor of Capitalism and Democracy. Same goal- different ends.

It's even less of a link than that. It's a different goal. "Communism" and "Capitalism and Democracy" aren't the same goal!

It may be correct to assert that, if anything, they advocate the same means ("world revolution"). However that seems a little over-the-top. (Is Newt Gingrich really preaching "world revolution"?)

"Neo Cons" and other conservatives who want an adventurous foreign policy are wreckless, arrogant, and uniformed

Y'see, this is what I crave - someone with the b**ls to actually just come out and say what he believes, without trying to couch everything in the false pseudo respectability of a grand historical theory involving everyone around him being unknowingly kidnapped by a sinister shady movement. :-) It's downright refreshing!

I believe that the need to resort to the crutch of "neocon" theories to argue against someone's views is a sign of weakness and lack of confidence in one's own beliefs.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Paleo-cons do have a rich history-simplified-pretty much they want nothing to do with the world in terms of shaping it. You leave my nation alone we leave you alone attitude. In the 30s and early 40s they were called isolationists or nativists.

Thanks. Yes, I learned about them in school, during my book-larning and such. But in my book (and Webster's book, I'd wager) these people are still called isolationists and nativists.

I don't like or need redundant words.

The Reagan Doctrine, IMHO was a paleo-con inspired policy of letting the natives fight the cold war.

That's interesting. Meanwhile, I could find a dozen other Freepers I've corresponded with who'd insist that Reagan was, or was advised by, or was unduly influenced by "neocons", and that our every foreign policy endeavor starting from WWII was a "neocon" thing.

So do you see why I get confused and keep asking for some semblance of a definition of "neocon"? Whether Reagan was or was not a "neocon" seems to depend not on anything intrinsic to Reagan, but on who I'm talking to at the moment.

That's a problem for people who try to insist that "neocon" is a useful term.

The fact that some of those we helped arm (Saddam, what was to be al-Qaeda) were scum bags animates (again my opinion) neo-cn thinking in that we have to do it ourselves.

Which people are these "neocons" who, in your opinion, are animated by the fact that we armed thugs during the Cold War into thinking that we have to fight this new war ourselves?

And oh yeah, these people you have in mind, why are they "neocons"? How do they fit the definition of a "neocon"? (And oh yeah, what is that definition, in your view, by the way?)

Just wonderin' (as usual). I won't hold my breath for solid answers. (as usual)

[Destro]

I am just writting off the top of my head. You can always double check me by googling. Now off the top of my head-the reason I mentioned that the Reagan Doctrine was a paleo thingee was because I remember Republican statements made during Vietnam that we should be having the South Vietnamese fight for their country not our boys. I always saw the Reagan Doctrine as an application of Nixon's Vietnamization policy world wide. Maybe the Reagan Doctrine was a mix of paleo and Scoop Jacksonisim. Neocons were Scoop Jackson democrats back then and it was Democrats that got America involved in wars not Republicans. Dole even said the Democrats were a war party when he ran for Vice President in the mid-seventies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,854714,00.html

Democrat hawk whose ghost guides Bush

Scoop Jackson's body is 20 years in the grave but his spirit goes marching on

Julian Borger in Washington

Friday December 6, 2002

The Guardian

One man more than any other can credibly claim the intellectual and political credit for the Bush administration's bellicose showdown with Iraq and its muscular new doctrine of pre-emption. This lynchpin politician is not a member of the government, not even a Republican, but a maverick Democrat senator who has been dead for nearly 20 years.

Henry "Scoop" Jackson is the common thread linking the hawk ideologues who have taken the driving seat since September 11.

Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith, the two leading strategists at the defence department, and Richard Perle, an unusual but influential Pentagon adviser, are all former Democrats who worked for Jackson in the 70s, and looked on him as their mentor.

Mr Perle still claims to be a registered Democrat, in honour of the late senator for Washington state, and Mr Wolfowitz has been known to describe himself as a "Scoop Jackson Republican".

This week President Bush put another Jackson protege, Elliott Abrams, in charge of White House policy in the Middle East.

Mr Abrams, who was convicted for misleading Congress about the Iran-contra affair (money secretly raised by selling arms to Iran sent to the contra guerrillas in Nicaragua), remains fiercely loyal to the source of his anti-communist zeal.

He recently argued that the Jackson's "insistence on a 'moral realism", combining American power with principled support of human rights and democratic allies, helped to prevent disaster during America's post-Vietnam crisis of detente, malaise, and the Brezhnev Doctrine."

Another acolyte, Frank Gaffney, runs the centre for security policy, a rightwing thinktank which has served as an incubator for the emerging themes of Bush foreign policy since September 11: the assertive use of military power, an aggressive pre-emptive approach to emerging threats, and uncompromising support for the Likud party and its policies in Israel.

"Jackson's influence is more powerful now than when he was alive," said Charles Horner, who worked beside Mr Perle on the senator's staff, in his "bunker" - Room 135 in the Senate office building, from where they fought against detente and the peaceniks in their own party.

A well-founded nation

Mr Horner, now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, another Washington crucible of conservative ideas, said: "For the Democrats in the 70s the ideas of the anti-war movement transmogrified into an attack on national security.

"There was a lot of stridently anti-American rhetoric, with America demonised as a force for evil."

In contrast, Jackson and his followers insisted that the US was a "well-founded nation" which could be a force for good in the world if it was not afraid to use its strength.

From Room 135 "Scoops Troops" fought every international arms control treaty that came the Senate's way, successfully blocking ratification of the Salt2 treaty until it was buried by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Jackson also pushed for trade sanctions against Moscow until it allowed the emigration of Soviet Jews: a policy he saw as the perfect marriage of hard-nosed diplomacy and moral principle.

To bring that day closer, and in the name of melding foreign policy with moral principles, Jackson fought for and won trade sanctions on Moscow for its refusal to allow the mass emigration.

His beliefs, and much of his staff, were gratefully taken up by Ronald Reagan in 1980, with Jackson's blessing.

Before that the Democrats, not the Republicans, had the reputation of being the war party. Woodrow Wilson took the reluctant country into the first world war, and Franklin Roosevelt did the same in the second. Harry Truman took the anti-communist struggle to Korea, and the Vietnam war was pursued first by John Kennedy and then Lyndon Johnson.

Jackson, who arrived in the capital as a young congressman in 1941, "came to believe that you have to confront evil with power", as Mr Horner put it, and saw himself as upholding a Democratic tradition which married social support for civil rights and equality at home with unflinching military support for democracy abroad.

His instincts were honed into a political ideology with the help of Dorothy Fosdick, daughter of a New York priest and famous pacifist, Harry Fosdick, who served as Jackson's foreign policy adviser for 28 years. Today's grey eminences behind the "war on terror" were once young apprentices under her supervision.

As his party turned against the Vietnam war, Jackson formed a faction called the Coaltion for a Democratic Majority, intent on steering the leadereship away from detente, pacifism and isolationism.

He sought the party's presidential nomination but lost to relative pacifists both times, first George McGovern and then Jimmy Carter, whose presidency he then pilloried bitterly in the Senate.

He had minimal stage presence, and his ascetic personality - he did not drink, listen to music, follow sports or pursue hobbies - had little popular appeal. When Robert Redford visited his offices Jackson had no idea who he was.

Jackson died in 1983 and therefore missed the collapse of communism he had long predicted, but his former disciples are united in the belief that he, as much as Ronald Reagan, helped the US to "win" the Cold war. They see him as the light guiding the evolving Bush security doctrine, and they should know: they are directing it.

[TradicalRC]

Okay, I apologize for getting sarcastic.

Your definitions make sense and your point about asking for definitions is certainly legit.

I will accept the term neocon as former liberal turned conservative.

Now, here is the problem: the original neocons got conservative over foreign policy and nothing else, does that really make them conservative?

Can we make the assumption that perhaps some of the subscribers whose names we do not know believed the same things as the writers or do you entertain the position that people who have nothing in common with the neocons politically would subscribe to their magazines?

Do you really think that the term neo-con that has appeared in reams of different publications was coined for the sake of three or four political writers?

Liberalism has changed significantly in the last few decades: at one time libs believed in eliminating special rights for special groups (WASPs) but now seem to believe in special rights for special groups ( the minority du jour).

Now the reason why I would hesitate to call Newt Gingrich a conservative is his praise of FDR, his sneering at the pro-life Republican platform, and his helping to expropriate more money than the democrats for favored social programs.

Charles Krauthammer favors interventionist foreign policy among other things that presently escape me, but conservatism never favored that. People talk about WWII, but the Treaty at Versailles pretty much gaurenteed that WWII was going to happen and Western leaders simply did not want to hear it.

There are people who get called conservative and I simply cannot figure out why.

As for kwyjibos, I am not aware that that is a term in the political lexicon, whereas, the term neo-conservative is. Like it or not.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Now off the top of my head-the reason I mentioned that the Reagan Doctrine was a paleo thingee was because... (Guardian article about Scoop Jackson link, etc.)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I really doubt you or think you're "wrong". I'm just saying that your view seems to contradict the view of many other Freepers, who would bring up Kirkpatrick or Bennett or whoever... There is no consistency whatsoever in how the term "neocon" is used, that's my only point. Maybe the others are "wrong" to describe Reagan or Reagan's foreign policy as "neocon"; the problem is simply that it's impossible for me to figure out who's right and who's wrong if no one will actually tell me the definition of the word they're throwing around.

I was interested to read about the Scoop Jackson connections of Wolfowitz/Perle, I hadn't known all that. Sounds interesting, maybe I need to look into this Scoop Jackson guy, thanks for the link. Best,

[Destro]

An example the Repulicans rejected the Treaty at Versailles and Wilsonian policy.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I will accept the term neocon as former liberal turned conservative. Now, here is the problem: the original neocons got conservative over foreign policy and nothing else,

Says who? You're contradicting yourself. If you accept that a "neocon" is a former liberal turned conservative, and you point to someone and say "he's a neocon", it then follows that he's (drumroll) conservative now. Not "conservative over foreign policy and nothing else", but conservative. Remember, the definition of "neocon" (which you said you accepted) is a former liberal turned conservative. Not a "former liberal turned conservative over foreign policy and nothing else".

Now, if you want to talk about people who are former liberals who turned conservative over foreign policy and nothing else (I'm sure some exist), that's fine. It's just that such people can't be "neocons" because that's just not what the term "neocon" actually means. Maybe you could use a different term, "foreign-con" or whatever. Alternatively, you could have a change of heart and start insisting that the dictionary definition is wrong, and needs to be modified.

But then the confusions start to multiply. Let us suppose that I accept that these "neocons" are people who turned conservative over foreign policy and nothing else.

Why on earth do you call Newt Gingrich a "neocon" then? He's the dang Contract With America guy (which had little if anything to do with foreign policy) who at least tried or pretended to try to cut back the government. Something doesn't add up. If I accept your current definition, I then have to reject your labeling of Gingrich as a "neocon". I can't accept both! My brain will explode! (Seriously, I can not figure out why some are suddenly trying to draft Mr. Contract With America into the "neocon" movement.. it makes no sense whatsoever to me...is it merely because he supported Iraq war?)

Another thing that doesn't add up is that I think most people who toss around the term "neocon" would actually assert that the "neocon" foreign policy isn't conservative in the first place. Isn't that, after all, what Buchanan and his followers are trying to say? That the supposed "neocon" policy on Iraq etc. "isn't really conservative"? So your definition (even if I accept it for its self-contradictory nature) actually contradicts the definition of "neocon" used by most others. To you a "neocon" is conservative on foreign policy, to others a "neocon" is anti-conservative on foreign policy. Which is it?

How am I supposed to understand and reconcile all these contradictions if no one will define their terms?

Well, I've defined my terms. I'm content to use the dictionary definition. And if others come up to me and use these same terms in ways that make no sense or contradict themselves, I'm gonna call 'em on it. You can see why, right?

[those darn sinister Weekly Standard guys] Can we make the assumption that perhaps some of the subscribers whose names we do not know believed the same things as the writers

Sure. In fact if you recall, that's exactly what I did. 1. I took your word for it that "the guys at Weekly Standard" are "neocons". 2. Using the definition of "neocon", I concluded that "the guys at Weekly Standard" are conservatives - have conservative views. (Otherwise we wouldn't call them "neocons".) 3. I presumed that most subscribers to a magazine whose writers/editors hold conservative views would be, themselves, conservative. Thus I decided that most Weekly Standard subscribers are conservatives. (Remember?)

Some of them may be, in addition to being conservatives, former liberals. Those people are then "neocons" (I guess). I have no idea how many such people there are. Nor do I think it's particularly important.

Now the reason why I would hesitate to call Newt Gingrich a conservative is his praise of FDR,

Yeah, that bothered me too. But whether his praise of FDR bothered us or not, I don't see how that makes him a "neocon" though unless (1) he's a "former liberal turned conservative", or (2) you use a different definition of "neocon" from the dictionary's (in which case: what is that definition?)

Remember, if "neocon" is going to make coherent sense as a political term, it's gotta mean something objective and measurable over and above simply "a conservative I disagree with about stuff". My objection to the way the term is used is precisely because most people now seem to use it as "a conservative I disagree with about stuff". That's not a valid way to use a political term.

and his helping to expropriate more money than the democrats for favored social programs.

Dunno what you're referring to exactly here. Sounds bad. But again, try to keep this straight: just because you or I may have disapproved of something Newt Gingrich did or didn't do doesn't make him a "neocon". The definition of "neocon" isn't "a conservative I dislike"; or, if it is, it's a totally phony term.

Charles Krauthammer favors interventionist foreign policy among other things that presently escape me, but conservatism never favored that.

Wow, now you're totally contradicting yourself. Remember earlier in this post when you said that "neocons" turned conservative on foreign policy and nothing else? So let's summarize:

1. "neocons" turned conservative on foreign policy on nothing else

2. you'd add Krauthammer to your list of "neocons"

3. Krauthammer favors interventionist foreign policy

4. in your opinion that's not the "real" conservative thing to do ("conservatism never favored that")

5. thus Krauthammer isn't really conservative on foreign policy

6. In conclusion, you think Krauthammer the "neocon" (people who are conservative on foreign policy on nothing else) favors an anti-conservative intervenionist foreign policy. On foreign policy, Krauthammer is anti-conservative, and that's why you call him conservative on foreign policy (but nothing else).

How can you think all of this stuff at the same time and not have your brain explode? :-)

As for kwyjibos, I am not aware that that is a term in the political lexicon,

Maybe it should be. It makes no less sense than the way "neocon" is currently being used. (Neither have been adequately defined, for example.)

whereas, the term neo-conservative is. Like it or not.

I think it's clear that I don't. If it were being used honestly according to some coherent definition, I'd have nothing to say against it. But it's not - I think this recent post of yours proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt - and that's my point. Best,