Posted on 08/14/2003 9:38:27 PM PDT by quidnunc
"[President Bush is] an engaging person, but I think for some reason he's been captured by the neoconservatives around him." – Howard Dean, U.S. News & World Report, August 11, 2003
What exactly is neoconservatism? Journalists, and now even presidential candidates, speak with an enviable confidence on who or what is "neoconservative," and seem to assume the meaning is fully revealed in the name. Those of us who are designated as "neocons" are amused, flattered, or dismissive, depending on the context. It is reasonable to wonder: Is there any "there" there?
Even I, frequently referred to as the "godfather" of all those neocons, have had my moments of wonderment. A few years ago I said (and, alas, wrote) that neoconservatism had had its own distinctive qualities in its early years, but by now had been absorbed into the mainstream of American conservatism. I was wrong, and the reason I was wrong is that, ever since its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s, what we call neoconservatism has been one of those intellectual undercurrents that surface only intermittently. It is not a "movement," as the conspiratorial critics would have it. Neoconservatism is what the late historian of Jacksonian America, Marvin Meyers, called a "persuasion," one that manifests itself over time, but erratically, and one whose meaning we clearly glimpse only in retrospect.
Viewed in this way, one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy. That this new conservative politics is distinctly American is beyond doubt. There is nothing like neoconservatism in Europe, and most European conservatives are highly skeptical of its legitimacy. The fact that conservatism in the United States is so much healthier than in Europe, so much more politically effective, surely has something to do with the existence of neoconservatism. But Europeans, who think it absurd to look to the United States for lessons in political innovation, resolutely refuse to consider this possibility.
Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the "American grain." It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked. Of course, those worthies are in no way overlooked by a large, probably the largest, segment of the Republican party, with the result that most Republican politicians know nothing and could not care less about neoconservatism. Nevertheless, they cannot be blind to the fact that neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters. Nor has it passed official notice that it is the neoconservative public policies, not the traditional Republican ones, that result in popular Republican presidencies.
One of these policies, most visible and controversial, is cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth. Neocons are familiar with intellectual history and aware that it is only in the last two centuries that democracy has become a respectable option among political thinkers. In earlier times, democracy meant an inherently turbulent political regime, with the "have-nots" and the "haves" engaged in a perpetual and utterly destructive class struggle. It was only the prospect of economic growth in which everyone prospered, if not equally or simultaneously, that gave modern democracies their legitimacy and durability.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
What sand? Iraq did not present a direct and immediate threat to the borders of these United States.
Evidently, there aren't any on Mars.
I'll take that to mean that you can't name a single one.
Thanks. I didn't say Christianity, too, because I recently got a torrid argument from a FReeper, who tried to meld the two.
The real "paleo" conservatives left a long time ago.
mrustow: But you disagree with Papa Kristol. HE says that much of the GOP disagrees with neocon ideas, and that he and his compatriots did in fact snooker the party.
goldstategop: Hardly. Back in the day when we disillusioned liberals started criticizing the excess of LBJ's Great Society, some in National Review thought we were onto something. And since they discovered we had so much in common we accepted their invitation to join them and as they say, the rest is history.
You're talking past me AND Kristol. Apparently, you cannot distinguish between America's millions of Republicans and the folks at NR. Say what you will about the old man, but he didn't make that mistake.
Iraq was involved with international terrorists — for instance Hussein agreed to train al Qaeda operatives in bio-weapons technology.
Ipso facto, Iraq presented a direct and immediate threat within the borders of these United States.
Neoconservatives — or as they are called these days, mainline conservatives — are too busy running the government to worry about identifying, cataloging and bickering over the different permutations of conservatism.
If one ran a poll of GOP voters, my guess is between 80-90% of them would want immigration dramatically reduced, and a solid majority of them have grave reservations about globalism. You little snide remark about a trailer park or militia compund really show how many self professed neo-conservatives are not in the real world. FYI, these people are middle class, live in the suburbs, and in many cases their parents, or even themselves used to be Democrats untill they could no longer tolerate the Democratic partys stand on race, abortion and guns.
Insult all you want, but if you drum all the people who disagree with the happy face neo-conservative line out of the GOP, the GOP would probably have less than 120 house seats and less than 30 senate seats.
Yup -- race, abortion, guns and immigration. Some neo-cons may support the 2nd Amendment, but most seem to avoid the issue. They are split on abortion. But on race and immigration, they are all wrong, and have engaged in rampant censorship, to both misrepresent most Republican voters, and a -- as you so aptly put it -- "happy face" on a very glum situation. Either a major GOP schism is coming, or a third party that could result in the GOP being relegated to longterm loser status.
To adapt an old Burma shave jingle to this discussion:
Yodel a sob
for the paleocons
they faded away
like those
old mastodons.
Ah, yes. The imaginary Hussein/Al Qaeda connection. According to who? The PNAC? The Bush administration? The same ones still 'looking' for WMDs? Let us all know when they find them okay?
England, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, to begin with some important ones.
Its one thing to argue a pro-isolationist foreign policy/national defense position, but there is no point in attempting to deny reality while doing so.
Yes and the top bracket was at 90% one time too. Still should I feel great about paying 50% because some poor shlubs paid even more at one time? The income tax is immoral and an assault upon liberty - there is no other way to describe it and there is no justifying it.
You say that you agree with State sponsored welfare/safety nets yet you complain about some of the scolding-nanny do-gooder laws. I contend they are related and the latter is inevitable once the former is implemented. When the State foots the bills for something then they have the right to dictate your behavior regarding those expenditures. Perfect example is the anti-smoking legislation under the guise that smoking raises health care costs. Never satisfied with regulating they now target fast foods, fatty foods and SUVs. The list goes on. Think about those smoking laws - they dictate to you what you can and can not do on your own property with a legal substance i.e. a restaurant must have a non-smoking section or now no smoking allowed at all.
If you haven't read it I suggest you read Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom. Then ponder the expansion of State power and the demise of liberty since FDR. Remember Hayek is a conservative/libertarian icon. Kristol here dismisses him. Also remember that Kristol was a communist all of his youth, then a liberal Democrat and though he now calls himself a "conservative" he outlines clearly that he believes in the liberal welfare state. Hayek and history point out correctly where it leads to. The founding fathers understood these things as well and that is why they formed a limited government with few authorities and believed in localized control - not central planning.
One more point - the same socialist mentality that dominates the Feds dominates the individual States. One can not blame one and excuse the other or vise versa. This disease infects all levels of government. Liberlaism is a cancer that grows it can not be compromised with or controlled. It is eradicated or it overwhlems you.
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.