Posted on 08/20/2003 1:36:11 PM PDT by Korth
No I don't and I never claimed them to be.
>You keep on omitting Kristol's reference to Ronald Reagan as a "neo-conservative" 20th Century hero, according to Kristol. Why? And why no ellipsis to tip people off to the omission?
I did that to avoid my critique of neooconservatism from getting side tracked to a discussion of the cold war since most conservatives have a knee jerk admiration for the cold war - any criticism would result in a barrage of posts but damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
Kritsol made it clear that on domestic issues he is no Reaganite. Reagan was against the welfare state and high taxes. Kristol admits he needs the latter to fuel the former which he sees as a virtue not a vice. What attracts neocons to Reagan then? An aggressive foreign policy i.e. meddling in other countries affairs.
The cold war is an odd and multifaceted event which served many purposes. It was an excuse for the US to keep troops around the world post W.W.II and to expand US influence i.e. build an empire. For New Dealers it was an opportunity for socialist wealth redistribution on a global scale in the guise of foreign aid to keep communism out (funny how we bribed foreign governments to keep the Soviets out while we sent in Marxist US advisors to help their economies but that is another story). See the above W.F.Buckly quote as to how it helped domestic socialism. The arms race, maintaining a large military and supplying guerillas and anti-Communists globally was very profitable for the military-industrial complex.
There are other purposes and reasons but the point is Reagan was an establishment outsider and a true believer in the evils of communism and he wanted to defeat it. The US governing establishment saw the cold war as a perpetually useful tool. That is why Reagan was so opposed. The neocons however were jaded communists and had it in for the Soviet Union which to them betrayed the socialist revolution. Kristol and company may have modified the extreme socialist views of their youth but they still have the passion for world revolution i.e. to remake the world in their image. Kristol admits this. Reagan was a natural vehicle to further their grand designs for mankind. Now they see the war on terrorism as an opportunity. Luckily for them the enemy is nebulous and can be construed to be anywhere they set their sights.
> The suggestion that Bill is a socialist
I contend that Buckley is a company man, he works for the establishment. How can a capitalist country support socialism? The paradox of capitalists supporting socialism is answered when one understands socialism is a tool by which the powerful and wealthy monopolize power and wealth.
> "Peaceful trade with all nations" aka GATT and WTO violates an essential social compact here and is the treason of economic elites against the working people of this country. When enough are unemployed and impoverished to scrape the last nickel out of 3rd World slave labor, those elites will be the first to complain of the political backlash.
How do you construe "Peaceful trade with all nations" into supporting GATT and WTO neither of which I endorsed nor mentioned? That indiscretion aside your critique of them is the first thing you've said that I can agree with.
> Daddy Bush ... did not squash Saddam once and for all when we could easily have done so
In all fairness to Bush he only had authority to liberate Kuwait and the Arabs would have revolted had we invaded Iraq at that time. Trying such a stunt in the heart of Arab territory with Arab military units in our midst would not have been prudent. Everything in due course. Events served their purposes and worked to our advantage better than hoped. The blow back from our permanent presence gave us reason to be in Iraq in perpetuity as well as Afghanistan so now we control access to and policy in both the mid east and central asia. Double plus good for the empire, eh?
Those who need to achieve greatness vicariously through larger entities like the nation would worship presidents who were involved with wars and aggressive foreign policy. I measure presidents by their adherence to the constitution and the principle of limited government. Plus the concern of the public interest over partisan politics and the lack of graft and cronyism. As far as presidents go I think Cleveland was one of the best we've had.
I just don't see a political answer aside from choices between parties who stand for something rather than this charade where they pretend there is a difference and we pretend we believe them.
Andrew Jackson: The very best. He killed thae National Bank of that pecksniff and neo-Federalist Nicholas Biddle and his snob cronies. He was in battle with Jean Lafitte at his side, thoroughly ventilating Brit General Pakenham who, after all, had no business being in the US at all, then stuffed Pakenham's bullet-riddled corpse into a whiskey keg with whiskey as the preservative and sent the old boy back to his tea-sipping relatives. Grabbed Florida for the US, sent John Quincy Adams packing after having the previous election stolen by a cabal of Adams and Clay acting for the big shot interests against the folks, pet banks, spoils, wildly populist and popular. No one even thought of mesing with the US with him in the White House. Openly connived with cronies in early exercises of Manifest Destiny. You wanted him on your side in a personal gunfight too. The best, the very best.
Ronaldus Maximus: No need for discussion since he is recent enough. The very best of the 20th Century. Even now in his present condition, he would be a far better president than Woodrow Wilson, William Howard Taft (Federal Reserve, 16th Amendment gets under way), Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, RMN, Gerald Ford (by a margin of infinity to 1), Bush the Elder and, of course the Arkansas Antichrist. In his prime, he was better than the rest of his 20th century competitors. Gets extra credit for refusing to employ paleos.
Rutherford B. Hayes: Achieved office the old-fashioned way by buying it. He ended Reconsruction to satisfy the fifteenth and independent commissioner fro the South. He only did what was right and he got the presidency for it. He also ended the Civil War Income Tax and redeemed tha Civil War greenbacks in full face value in gold as a lesson to the nation and its politicians as to funny money. Then, having done about all a man could do, he went home to Ohio after one term.
Thomas Jefferson: As Ronaldus Maximus observed to a White House guest list of science pracitioners and professors, theirs was the second smartest average IQ get together in any one room at the White House and second only to Thoms Jefferson using the smallest room by himself. Helped American recover from dread Federalist days and policies.
James K. Polk: Jacksonian and vigorous practitioner of Manifest Destiny. What more need by said?
Warren Gamaliel Harding: There will never be another with a middle name like that. Used to give the slip to Secret Service and sneak out a secret White House exit with a cold case of beer to hand out in casual clothes to bleacher bums at Senators' baseball park. William Henry Harrison: Contracted pneumonia giving inaugural speech in the freezing rain for hours at age seventy. He died forty days later, having done no damage despite being a Whig.
Benjamin Harrison: Grandson of William Henry and a true naif and child of nature. Benny went to see his campaign manager, Matt Quay, the day after the election and said: Thank God, we won, Matt!. Quay realistically replied: God had nothing to do with it, Harrison. We bought every vote you got.
FDR and TR as aforesaid.
Chester Arthur: beneficiary of the marksmanship of a stalwart (conservative) assassin of the radical Garfield, he was expected to be the most corrupt crony-lover ever but disappointed and ran a clean government. Even so, he was very good.
Those are my favorite 11. Honorable mention: Franklin Pierce and ames Buchanan and Dubya.
I am pinging ninenot, a semi-close neighbor of good sense standing a bit between me and thee on the paleo matter and very much an admirer of PJB.
As David Frum's article pointed out so well, the origin of the paleos is in the disgruntled realization of the socially eccentric and politically unsophisticated romantic blood and soil types that Reagan really was not going to hire and credential them. In 1986 at a Philadephia Society or Mont Pelerin Society meeting they announced their discovery that they, and not the consevative movement or Reagan admnistration were the REAL conservatives, that Israel had hijacked conservatism along with about eight elderly New York refugees from McGovern's takeover of the DemoParty and that henceforth they would deal with the phonies who elected Reagan by hiding their heads in the sand and denying our (movement conservatives') existence.
More recently, one local example known well to me and thee in teaching a course entitled Real American History (which in its post-1900 portion is real American fantasy) refused to even cover the Reagan Administration (the pain, the horror!) doing literature such as the Legend of Sleepy Hollow instead. These folks are trying to redefine Reagan who can no longer defend himself as a "paleo whatever". When John Flynn, Charles Lindbergh (as a politico) and Garrett Garrett drank at the primeval wading pools of old, Reagan was an avid and active supporter of FDR and no more an ancestral Republican green-eyeshaded bean counter than me or at least half of thee. He was no isolationist either at any stage of ideology or career.
As conservatives go, Ronaldus Maximus was the master. He was the gold standard (so to speak). He was unbeatable. He was a social normalist. He was not a crank like that "history" teacher and neither Serbia nor Montenegro counted in his foreign policy considerations as did Nicaragua or scrapping arms control proposals or being aggressive towards the soviets or keeping chicoms from thinking bad thoughts. One flaw was free trade but no one is perfect any more.
All that having been said, you do, of course, merit, for lifetime achievement in spite of our few differences, a tip of the antlers which is hereby respectfully tendered since you can be distinguished in many ways from our acquaintances at the institute.
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.