[billbears]

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.

How is anything in the neocon playbook conservative? More government, interfering in world situations that have nothing to do with the safety of this nation, spending on the level that would make FDR and LBJ balk?

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.

Forgot one. Wilson. Without him we may have never had a neoconservative movement. At least not one involving foreign policy. Or else it would have been quickly relegated to the trashpile where it belongs

AND THEN, of course, there is foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention. This is surprising since there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience.

That has to be the most ridiculous thing I've read today. No set of beliefs? From 'liberating the masses' to 'spreading democracy' I'm beginning to wonder when they'll have time to defend this nation of states.

(The favorite neoconservative text on foreign affairs, thanks to professors Leo Strauss of Chicago and Donald Kagan of Yale, is Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War.)

Well at least he admits it

These attitudes can be summarized in the following "theses" (as a Marxist would say): First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. Precisely because we are a nation of immigrants, this is a powerful American sentiment. Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. International institutions that point to an ultimate world government should be regarded with the deepest suspicion.

Well unless it's under the 'right' leadership, eh Irving?

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

PNAC Statement of Principles

[pierrem15]

How is anything in the neocon playbook conservative? More government, interfering in world situations that have nothing to do with the safety of this nation, spending on the level that would make FDR and LBJ balk?

How are "more government" or "spending" part of the neo-conservative playbook?

interfering in world situations that have nothing to do with the safety of this nationSo you prefer to wait until the mushroom cloud appears?

What is the fetish with Leo Strauss???

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

From 'liberating the masses' to 'spreading democracy' I'm beginning to wonder when they'll have time to defend this nation of states.

The idea is that you won't need to defend yourself against liberated, democratic nations.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

The word, 'neocon' is becoming popular among Bush critics because it sounds sinister, like 'neo-nazi'. I'm not 100% 'go Bush go'. But this is just some desperate name calling by Ron Paul types. Of course, we need the Ron Paul types, who forever assume the worst, just as Thomas Jefferson played an important role with the Founding Fathers. But we also need the Hamiltons and Washingtons, who got things done.

[Burkeman1]

Thanks for the analysis of that thread. At least old Irving admits that Neocons exist as some freepers have said they don't or that it is only a term to disparage "Israel" which is telling in itself. Your post was spot on. Thanks.

PS I haven't read the entire thread yet but my bet is that not one has challenged your analysis seriously.

[JohnGalt]

This is a stunning article that leaves bare the thin connection between the neoconservatives and conservatives at large. The silly emotional appeals Iriving is making in this piece would cause most to blush, only Irving is not interested in having his movement subjugated to 'just another flavor' of conservatism.

His desire to see 'neoconservatism' as something different is both his undoing, but also his attempt to maintain natural ties to the Democratic Party. (Think about this piece in chronological context with the words leveled against Ann Coulter for writing an 'In Defense of' treatise on Joe McCarthy.)

I dare say, Irving is both claiming to have the Kings Ear but also preparing to make an escape if need be.

Solid reductionist critique of Mssr.Kristol's piece:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html