‘Godfather’ Kristol’s Statist/Imperialist Manifesto (Neo-cons vs. Classical Liberals)

Lewrockwell.com ^ | August 20, 2003 | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

[Korth]

Irving Kristol, who identifies himself as the "Godfather" of neoconservativism, is finally beginning to come clean and admit what neoconservatism stands for: statism at home and imperialism abroad. He makes this candid admission in an August 25 article in The Weekly Standard entitled "The Neoconservative Persuasion."

Congratulating himself for becoming an "historic" figure (at least in his own mind) he declares:

[T]he historical task and political purpose of neoconservativism 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 (emphasis added).

Like all neocons, Kristol claims to be a champion of democracy, but his words and actions often contradict this claim. Consider the language in the above quotation, "against their respective wills." According to the traditional theory of democracy, the role of competing ideas in politics is supposedly a matter of persuasion. Political debates are supposedly aimed at persuading voters that you are right and your rival is wrong. But Kristol will have none of this. He is the "Godfather," after all. What he apparently means by transforming traditiona l conservatives against their will is not to attempt to persuade them to become statists and imperialists like himself, but to intimidate and censor them by conducting campaigns of character assassination against anyone who disagrees with the neocon agenda. He means to purge all dissenters, Stalin style.

This decidedly un-democratic tactic was on display in David Frum’s National Review attack ("Unpatriotic Conservatives") on any and all conservatives who disagree with the neocon agenda of endless warfare around the globe. Indeed, the neocons are well known for resorting to personal smears rather than intellectual debate, beginning with their vicious campaign of character assassination against the late Mel Bradford when he was nominated by President Reagan to head the National Endowment for the Humanities in the early 1980s. That smear campaign established their political modus operandi.

Kristol claims that the three biggest neocon idols are Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Ronald Reagan; all other Republican party worthies are "politely ignored." Teddy Roosevelt, whom the neocons affectionately call "TR," was simply nuts. Mark Twain, who met him twice, called him "clearly insane." In any number of "TR" biographies we learn that after an argument with his girlfriend as a young man he went home and shot his neighbor’s dog. When he killed his first buffalo – and his first Spaniard – he "abandoned himself to complete hysteria," as biographer Edmund Morris recounts.

While president, TR would take morning horseback rides through Rock Creek Park wildly shooting a pistol at tree branches, oblivious to the harm he might do to residents or houses in the area. He once strung a wire across the Potomac River so that he could hang on it while crossing the river because, he said, his wrists needed strengthening. The TR biographies are filled with similar stories of his asinine antics.

Like the neocons, TR was a Lincoln idolater. (His secretary of state was John Hay, Lincoln’s personal White House secretary). After being lambasted in the US Senate over the fact that he had launched a military intervention in the Philippines that costs thousands of American lives and resulted in an incredible 200,000 Philippine deaths, Edmund Morris recounts in his latest biography of TR, Theodore Rex, how he responded to his senate critics during a Memorial Day address to aged Union army veterans. The criticisms against him were invalid, he told the white-bearded veterans of Lincoln’s army, because the mass killing of Philipinos was for their own good – its purpose was to spread democracy. Besides, he said, it was the exact same policy of the sainted Lincoln, so how could anyone object? Southerners were also killed by the hundreds of thousands for their own good, according to TR’s logic.

Like the neocon Lincoln idolaters, TR was a consolidationist who had no respect for states’ rights – or for constitutional restraints on government in general. He loathed Jefferson but idolized Lincoln, naturally. He nationalized millions of acres of land, initiated numerous antitrust witch hunts that were enormously harmful to the economy, imposed onerous regulations on railroads that led many of them into bankruptcy, and responded to the socialist Upton Sinclair’s book The Jungle by regulating food and drugs. (FDA drug lag has been proven to have caused hundreds of thousands of premature deaths due to the inaccessibility of life-saving drugs available in other countries).

His fellow Republicans accused him of trying to concentrate all governmental power in Washington, abolishing state lines, and creating a stifling bureaucracy to control the population. They were right, of course, which is why the neocons love TR so much. (Bill Clinton also said that Teddy Roosevelt was his favorite Republican in all of American history).

Like Kristol, Max Boot, Charles Krauthammer, and many other neocons, TR was infatuated with war and killing. A college friend of his wrote in 1885 that "he would like above all things to go to war with some one. He wants to be killing something all the time" (See Howard K. Beale, Theodore Roosevelt and the Rise of America to World Power, p. 36). As president, he constantly announced that America "needed a war," which is exactly what the neocons of today believe. War – any war – the neocons tell us, gives us "national unity."

TR was a statist in domestic policy, a foreign policy imperialist, and an inveterate warmonger. He was, in other words, the real "Godfather" of neoconservatism.

As for FDR, the neocons idolize him as well because the older ones like Kristol are all former leftists – like FDR – and they have never abandoned their statist beliefs. Further evidence of this lies in the one reason Kristol gives for why neocons idolize Ronald Reagan: Although they had nothing to do with initiating the "Reagan tax cuts," neocons supported them because they believed they would spur economic growth, which in turn would enable them to fully fund the welfare state. (In this regard California gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger is a neocon: In his initial press conference announcing his candidacy he said he wanted to "bring business back to California" so that the Golden state’s massive welfare entitlement bureaucracy could be fully funded).

Kristol claims that democracy used to mean "an inherently turbulent political regime," but not so once a country becomes prosperous. This is a breathtakingly absurd proposition. The very existence of the neocon cabal, at a time of the greatest world prosperity in history, contradicts it. If the neocons are about anything they are about political bullying to impose their will on others – turbulent democracy, in other words. Moreover, in The Birth of the Transfer Society Terry Anderson and P.J. Hill discuss how, as the idea of democracy replaced individual liberty as the reason for government in the post-1865 era, politics inevitably became more and more "turbulent" with one rent-seeking group after another cropping up to use the powers of the state to plunder its neighbors. The transfer state has continued to grow virtually unabated over the last century, making American democracy ever more turbulent and divisive. There has been a relentless shift away from the traditional constitutional functions of government and toward an ever-expanding transfer society. Kristol’s notion that twentieth century prosperity brought an end to "political turbulence" is preposterous and absurd.

Equally preposterous and ahistorical is his further claim that, with prosperity, Americans will become less susceptible to "egalitarian illusions." But the U.S. today is as prosperous as it has ever been, and mindless egalitarianism reigns. Just a few weeks ago one of Kristol’s favorite Supreme Court justices, Reagan appointee Sandra Day O’Connor, wrote a majority opinion that said racial discrimination against whites in college admissions was desirable because, in her opinion, the mixing of skin colors on college campuses – to supposedly promote egalitarianism – trumped the constitution she once swore to uphold. A thousand other examples could readily be used to disprove Kristol’s thesis.

Kristol further admits that neocons do not in any way favor limited government. He mocks the idea of limited constitutional government by calling it "the Hayekian notion that we are on the road to serfdom." He is not just mocking Hayek, but the entire classical liberal tradition, as well as the Enlightenment ideas that informed the founding fathers in their limited government philosophy. In chapter 1 of The Road to Serfdom Hayek lamented the abandonment of classical liberal ideas in countries that had been adopting fascism and socialism (and its close cousin, New Dealism) during the 1930s and '40s by saying:

We are rapidly abandoning not the views merely of Cobden and Bright, of Adam Smith and Hume, or even of Locke and Milton, but one of the salient characteristics of Western civilization as it has grown from the foundations laid by Christianity and the Greeks and Romans. Not merely nineteenth- and eighteenth-century liberalism, but the basic individualism inherited by us from Erasmus and Montaigne, from Cicero and Tacitus, Pericles and Thucydides, is progressively relinquished.

This is what Kristol and his fellow neocons are so opposed to: the same philosophy of individualism that early and mid twentieth century tyrants from Mussolini to Hitler to Stalin understood as being their biggest philosophical roadblock. "Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm of anxiety about the growth of the state," Kristol smugly pronounces, repudiating the ideology of the American founders.

And it is not an exaggeration to say that the neocons repudiate the basic political philosophy of the founders, even if they hypocritically invoke the founders’ words from time to time in their political speeches and writings. Just recall some of the harsh anti-government rhetoric of the founders. To Jefferson, "on the tree of liberty must spill the blood of patriots and tyrants." And, "a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."

Patrick Henry urged his fellow Virginians to take up arms against the British government "in the holy cause of liberty" and warned that it is the tendency of all centralized governmental powers to "destroy the state government[s], and swallow the liberties of the people." This of course finally happened in April of 1865, a month the neocon "Civil War" historian Jay Winik says "saved America."

In his Farewell Address George Washington warned that special interest groups in a democracy "are likely, in the course of time . . . to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, and to usurp for themselves the reigns of Government." Sounds like a perfect description of the neocon cabal.

James Madison pronounced that "it is in vain" to expect that politicians in a democracy would ever render clashing political interests "subservient to the public good." And Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense that "Government even in its best state is but a necessary evil, and in its worst state an intolerable one."

Kristol repeats his old refrain that "libertarian conservatives" are different from neocons because they are supposedly "unmindful of the culture." He is either oblivious to or willfully ignores the fact that it has been libertarian scholars who have done more than anyone to research and write about the damage to the American culture inflicted by the welfare state (family breakup, rampant illegitimacy, loss of work incentives, short-sightedness, slothfulness, etc.). Neocons ignore all of this vast libertarian literature and continue to champion an expanded welfare state while pretending to be protectors of "the culture."

Nor does Kristol acknowledge that it is libertarians who have done more than anyone to expose how the government’s war on drugs has created a criminal culture, a bloody and violent culture, a culture that traps young children into short crime-ridden lives, and a culture that corrupts the police and the judicial system. Neocons all support an even more vigorous war on drugs while pretending to be ever so concerned about "the culture."

I can’t help but point out that the self-appointed neocon culture and morality czar, "Blackjack" Bill Bennett, recently revealed to the world what his idea of "culture" is: Sitting on a vinyl stool at a Las Vegas casino at 3 A.M. pouring thousands of dollars into one-armed bandits while being served free drinks by cocktail waitresses barely out of their teens and dressed like hookers. (Bennett admitted to having blown some $8 million at Vegas casinos in recent years).

In foreign policy Kristol says neocons are, well, imperialists. For a "great power" there are no boundaries to its pursuit of "national interest." He says we have an "ideological interest" to defend, and that means endless warfare all around the globe to ostensibly "defend" that ideology. (And Mark Twain thought TR was insane.) Of course, someone has to decide for us what that "ideological interest" is, and then force the population, with the threat of imprisonment or worse (for nonpayment of taxes, for instance) to support it.

In Kristol’s case, his primary ideological rationale for military intervention is: "We feel it necessary to defend Israel today" in the name of democracy. Well, no we don’t. If Irving Kristol wants to grab a shotgun and take the next flight to Tel Aviv "to defend Israel" then Godspeed, and I will offer to buy him a first-class plane ticket. But leave me and my family out of it.

Translating "we feel it necessary to defend Israel" from neoconese, we get this: "Young American soldiers must die in defense of Israel." Like hell they must. Young Americans who join the military for patriotic reasons do so because they believe they are defending their country. It is a fraud and an abomination to compel them to risk their lives for any other country, whether it is Israel, Canada, Somalia, or wherever.

The Godfather concludes his essay by gloating over how neoconservatism is "enjoying a second life" in the current Bush administration, with its massive expansion of domestic spending, record budget deficits, lying us into war, TR style, and of course killing. Lots of killing. That he used the word "enjoyed" to describe all of this speaks volumes about "Godfather" Kristol and his neo-comrades.

[u-89]

Concerning the your thoughts on the 1st Gulf War consider these unquestionable facts.

a) 1990 - Iraq is finished with a war against Iran and is deep in debt.
b) Kuwait is pumping more oil than allowed by OPEC agreement, deflating the price of oil thus hurting Iraq's already troubled economy and ability to repay it's debts.
b1) Kuwait is drilling sideways under their border taping into Iraqi fields.
c) Iraq does a lot of very loud saber rattling but the Kuwaitis do not cease and desist.
d) The US does not take the initiative to be a peace broker or approach OPEC members on the brewing trouble.
d2) The US ambassador to Iraq April Glasby actually tells Saddam that his dispute with Kuwait is not our concern thus giving him a green light for action.
e) Saddam finally makes a move against Kuwait and we scream like a stuck pig about how Saddam is the next Hitler and we need to "restore democracy to Kuwait".
f) We tell the Saudis they need us to protect them though they do not feel threatened. We say we have satellite photos of Iraqi armor massing on their border ready to overrun them. Other countries satellites show nothing on the border - theirs are released to the world - we stand by our story and to this day have not released our photos.
g) We assure the Saudis our bases will only be on their soil for as long as it takes to liberate Kuwait.
h) We leave Saddam in power and establish no fly zones over his sovereign territory telling him he has no rights there thus making sure we need permanent bases to counter him and thus never leave Saudi Arabia. In short we now have a permanent excuse to have our troops in theatre where they can project force.
i) Just an aside - the Soviet Union had collapsed the year before and was therefore in no position to object to our moving into the gulf.

It seems that we saw an opportunity and took advantage of it. I will not comment on current situation but it looks to me like another exploited opportunity or better put, phase 2.

[Burkeman1]

At that time I was a GOP-BOT. If you opposed the GOP you were a commie or a democrat. That was my thinking. If you opposed war you were a commie! For me- conservatism meant that we were right in every war we fought and to question our wars was "left wing". I was not aware of the rich tradition of conservative anti-war and anti-imperialist thought that was actually the true underpinnings of true American Conservatism until the mid 90's. And even then I resisted. What really made me split with "mainstream Conservatism" was the Kosovo War.

[WRhine]

Is it a coincedence that because conservatives like Buchanan and Sobran who both opposed the first Gulf War were then drummed out of the "conservative movement" in 1992 with the publishing of a shameful special issue of National Review entitled "In Search of Anti Semitism" written by Buckley himself? That was the first sign to me that something was wrong with "mainstream" conservatism.

That legendary hit piece on those two highly respected conservatives set the mold for the conservative jihad we see today in the Republican Party today (note: this never would have happened under Reagan). It demonstrated that some "so-called" conservatives were not above using the very same black bag character assassination tactics that the democrats have used on republicans for years.

It has been a long road since and I have had to let go of a lot of deeply held myths since the first time I heard Buchanan denounce the first Gulf War back in 90. (My first reaction was one of anger- but it planted a seed in me).

You have a great free-ranging mind. And you are so young. Yeah, I too was taken back when PJB came out against the first Gulf War but I did not condemn him for it and filed it away as one of the few disagreements I had with his positions. In retrospect, for the same reason you mentioned, I can at least better understand where Pat was coming from. History may yet prove him right.

If one has, as their primary objective, seeking out the real truth of matters it can sometimes lead to some very strange places. And there are quite a few that don’t like hearing the truth.

[liberallarry]

Uh, Yeah! That's all he's really interested in.

Oh ho...so he's a well-known crank. :)

[JohnGalt]

Karl Marx and Hitler were very fond of Lincoln.

Hitler praised Lincoln's consolidationist policy in Mein Kampf and Karl wrote a nice note to Lincoln in 1863.

Whose side are you on?

[JohnGalt]

Yes. One writes for the Weekly Standard or National Review, the other write for the New Republic.

Fred Barnes, of course, hops between both.

[JohnGalt]

I suspect you are what would be called Mainstream Right, not a neoconservative. At some point you will either recognize that Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes are your friends, or that we are your friends.

That is you choice to make.

If I may be so bold, you claim to agree with the 'neocons' on foreign policy, but I strongly doubt you agree to the methodology in achieving their conclusions. It is a difficult thing to speak against the neoconservatives; they use tactics that are anti-intellectual and they scream loudly. In the real world, they attempt to destroy careers if you step out of line.

When Kristol concedes that neoconservatives believe America to be an 'ideology', if you have not read The Communist Manifesto, then what exactly does it mean IYO?

Do you think it odd that Sean Hannity cashes a check for a company whose boss makes money of publishing soft-porn and beaming hardcore pornography around the world?

[u-89]

Even though I understood that the government formulated foreign policy in a large part to benefit certain large businesses I overlooked much of the cronyism, skullduggery and questionable judgment because of the cold war. Being born when the cold war was a daily fact of life plus being an anti communist by natural instinct I did not question the cold war or judge our international meddling harshly because I deemed it all for the greater good. It is only after the cold war that I discovered the conservative and libertarian warnings against the cold war from the 1940s-50s. Over time I came to view things quite differently than I had originally. All that seemed noble was a facade.

At the time of Gulf War One I was ambivalent at first. The reports of the Glasby remarks to Saddam bothered me and the "restore democracy to Kuwait" line really P'ed me off because it was obviously such a cheap, dishonest propaganda ploy. However I was still thinking along the cold war geopolitical strategy mode and thought we should secure the oil. Then Buchanan asked what would Saddam do with all that oil, drink it? No he had to sell it to us to run his economy. In other words our supply was not in danger. That one line caused me to start rethinking our actions. When we encouraged the Kurds and Shiites to rise in rebellion and then left them high and dry I thought it an outrage and a sin to call for such a thing and then sit back. Now I see it as an excuse to set up the no fly zones which is the justification for our permanent presence which seemed to be the real plan all along. (one more side to a multifaceted issue was the business concerns in Kuwait of the who's who in the GOP, which were disrupted by Saddam) No need to analyze Phase 2 - the current situation here and now but I think you and I might see this one with the same clarity.

[XJarhead]

I suspect you are what would be called Mainstream Right, not a neoconservative.

I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with your attempts to mash me into a particular box, particularly when there is disagreement as to how to define each box. I'm generally libertarian domestically. Internationally, aside from some moments of pique, I generally believe that we can best protect the security of this country by trying to export our ideals, and by sometimes defending those ideas with force. I don't think long-term isolation is a viable strategy anymore than I think Galt's Gulch had long-term viability. I'm also not morally confortable with turning my back on all overseas suffering.

At some point you will either recognize that Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes are your friends, or that we are your friends. That is you choice to make.

First, why is it one or the other? Either follow 1) a "statist" conservative who loves FDR and believes in an interventionist foreign policy, or 2) libertarian/conserviative isolationists? Are those really the only two viewpoints that exist on the "conservative" end of the spectrum?

Second, I don't like some of the views Kristol expressed. I particularly mislike his substantive endorsement of the welfare state, albeit on a supposedly limited basis. But I haven't heard Barnes laud FDR and TR in the same fasion, so I'm not going to judge him based on Kristol's remarks.

And that's what really bothers me about this discussion. It's like folk are attempting to discredit everyone who shares some of Kristol's views because of some specific comments Kristol made. Kristol does not have intellectual property rights to his views, and agreement with him on some issues does not amount to an endorsement of every view he holds. It's an attack based-upon ill-defined labels, bordering on the ad hominem.

If I may be so bold, you claim to agree with the 'neocons' on foreign policy, but I strongly doubt you agree to the methodology in achieving their conclusions.

There you go again.... Sorry, but I don't buy into the idea that every so-called "neocon" believes in the politics of personal destruction. It's easy to demonize the opposition that way, but I think its fallacious. Of course I don't agree with that. And I suspect most of those folk would say that's not really what they are doing, and that you are mischaracterizing what they have said. For example, the twisting of Kristol's "against their wills" phrase was rather blatant. I'm not a fan of his, but it was obvious to me he was just saying that many conservatives are currently reluctant to go down that path, and that they need to be persuaded otherwise. Ascribing to him some malevolent methodology struck me as a real stretch.

In the real world, they attempt to destroy careers if you step out of line.

It's this vague condemnation of "they" that bothers me. Point to a specific person doing something specifically immoral, and you've got a discussion. Otherwise, it's just smearing rather large groups of people.

When Kristol concedes that neoconservatives believe America to be an 'ideology', if you have not read The Communist Manifesto, then what exactly does it mean IYO?

I'm confused as to what you are asking when you say "what exactly does it mean, IYO." What is the "it" to which you are referring? The Communist Manifesto? Or Kristol's use of the term "ideology"? And are you asking me what Kristol meant, what I think he meant, whether I agree with that, or what?

[JohnGalt]

Your response is a good example of how the neoconservatives have destroyed debate. Culture defines our point of view as much, and I would argue significantly more, than the Marxist concept of ideology.

I suspect you feel more uncomfortable around people who think Lincoln was a tyrant than around people who defend FDR. (Me, can't stand either, naturally.)

Rather than looks at a political ideology spectrum, trust what you know to be right in your gut, the people you care most about in your life, the priorities, hobbies, activities you pursue with your spare time.

Agreeing on a couple of policy issues also shared by the neoconservatives is a quirk in history, much like the 'alliance' during the Reagan years. Try to separate yourself from the moment. I am sure you are aware that there was a cult of British fascists who longed for war against the Nazi fascists.

IYO, in your opinion. Kristol used a Marxist construct, 'nation as ideology' to define his view of America. I was just interested in an opinion.

[BlackElk]

Whatever happened to Baghdad Bob (There are no Americans in our Baghdad/Pay no attention to those tanks and soldiers bcause they do not exist....)? U-89 will carry on for Saddam right here on FR with, what else, "paleoconservative" (which is neither) support. It is incredible that people who call themselves any kind of conservative are OK with the steady stream of anti-Semitism of the brilliant Sobran who has ruined his career with this stuff; left the formerly sensible Buchanan in ruins; and generally cannot take yes for an answer when the former communists, trotskyites, leftists and liberals, say: yes, anti-communism was right all along, America IS a good nation; quotas are a bad thing that should be stomped; the New Left is not a potential friend but a sworn enemy of all the things that matter; our military should be as strong as we can make it and as prepared to do what is right and good; pacifism and isolationism are ross embarassments to any nation that has any business calling itself one.

That Irving Kristol, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, Walt Rostow (as to the Vietnam War) an a few other substantial men and women of the left had had enough with cozying to communists at home and abroad by their Democratic Party, with rising anti-Semitism, with the curious sexual ambitions rising on the left, but object to "free trade" as a substitute for American jobs, do not associate with the likes of Rockwell, Thomas Fleming, the Rockford Institute, and most particularly, the bottom-feeder of them all, Justin Raimondo, the lavender queen of Pravda's Op-Ed page and of Raimondo's execrable cowardice site: antiwar.com and that Kristol, Himmelfarb, Podhoretz and Decter and many of their friends are Jewish, means that they are not going to be accepted by those of a certain discredited mindset that was bombed to oblivion by Japanese Zeros on 12/7/41.

The original editors of National Review other than Buckley were all refugees from the hard left: Will Herberg, Frank Meyer, Elsie Meyer, Willmoore Kendall, Max Eastman, John Chamberlain, James Burnham, etc. They have serrved the conservative movement well and the United States well. The "paleos" have not and will not with all the nitpiocking, whining and idiot historical evisionism so well-refuted by David Frum's NR piece.

[Restorer]

Whether Karl and Adolph approved of some of Lincoln's actions is comprehensively irrelevant. Classic ineffective guilt by association.

What would be relevant is if Lincoln approved of them.

[JohnGalt]

Adolf and Karl clearly agreed with Lincoln on more issues than I do.

I take that as a net positive in my favor; you can take it however you wish.

[JohnGalt]

For the curious:

"[T]he individual states of the American Union . . . could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states."

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf page 566.

[BlackElk]

Excuuuuuuse me! Karl Marx wrote and published an entire book of dispatches as a London Times reporter on the Civil War. He praised he Confederate leadership (I hate to admit this as an unreconstructed admirer of the South, Jeff Davis, Marse Robert and above all, Stonewall Jackson, but not of slavery) and profusely attacked Lincoln as a rural buffoon with the manners and grace of an orangutan (coming from the, ummmm, eccentric Marx, this was truly remarkable as an attack).

Hitler may well have wrote as you say.

Those who are the conservatives are on the conservative side, by definition. Anyone familiar with "paleocons" knows that they are not. The neocons, a group of eightyish old former liberals are 2/3 of the time on the conservative side and retain a bit of their old liberal views on economics. The title of Irving Kristol's book: Two Cheers for Capitalism about sums up their position.

[RaginCajunTrad]

Kristol hasn't a clue as to what conservatism is all about.
I will quote from Kristoher Tefft. He knows what conservatism really is and could tell Kristol a thing or two.

"A conservative is a person who believes the fundamental purpose of human existence is to lead a happy life and that it is the responsibility of the individual, with his or her family, and through his or her voluntary associations -- churches, service organizations, trade associations -- to cultivate the fruits of his or her happiness, and to help others in need.

...it is not the role of government to define the good life for us and attempt to equalize its realization by the redistribution of wealth, excessive regulation of enterprise, social engineering and far-ranging efforts to fulfill as many desires as possible for as many people as possible.

Rather, the purpose of government is to provide the basic conditions necessary for the common good --...

Government should do so according to what is called the principle of subsidiarity."

Maybe I should post the entire article and get a thread going on it.

[SauronOfMordor]

In Kristol’s case, his primary ideological rationale for military intervention is: "We feel it necessary to defend Israel today" in the name of democracy.

So a neo-con is an ex-Democrat who feels the defense of Israel is more important than the Democrat Party platform?

[Snuffington]

Here's hoping most Americans, Republicans and conservatives, being neither imperialists or libertarian anarcho-capitalists will shun both Kristol and DiLorenzo. Sanity and sensible views ought to prevail over both statist/imperialist zeal, and anarcho-libertarian nonsense.

Hear hear!

[JohnGalt]

I say with all sincerity I have missed your higher brow critiques of the paleo-right in these recent months. That said:

The Letter:

http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

Also:

"In his book Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution [James] McPherson notes, on pages 24 & 25: "Lincoln championed the leaders of the European revolutions of 1848; in turn, a man who knew something about those revolutions - Karl Marx - praised Lincoln in 1865 as 'the single-minded son of the working class' who had led his 'country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.'" Note Marx's comment about the "reconstruction of a social world."

[XJarhead]

Your response is a good example of how the neoconservatives have destroyed debate. Culture defines our point of view as much, and I would argue significantly more, than the Marxist concept of ideology.

Honestly, I have no idea what you mean. I prefer to debate ideas rather than labels. Why not just say "Kristol is wrong because....", instead of attacking the label of neoconservatism? It's far to easy for someone whom you name a neoconservative to opt-out of particular statements made by someone who rather smugly claims to be the intellectual godfather of "neoconservatism". In fact, I think you have it exactly backwards. It's the insistence on debating labels rather than ideas that destroys debate because it will usually degenerate to semantics.

I suspect you feel more uncomfortable around people who think Lincoln was a tyrant than around people who defend FDR. (Me, can't stand either, naturally.)

I don't feel "uncomfortable" around either group. But I have a harsher opinion of those who attack Lincoln because it takes more effort to do so. Most people are taught that both FDR and Lincoln were good. Well-meaning but ill-informed people may believe that about FDR. But you've really got to swim upstream to crap on Lincoln.

Agreeing on a couple of policy issues also shared by the neoconservatives is a quirk in history, much like the 'alliance' during the Reagan years. Try to separate yourself from the moment.

Again, I am having a hard time understanding your point. What do you mean by "separating yourself from the moment?" Am I supposed to disagree with the foreign policy views of some "neocons" because I disagree with them on other issues? I get the feeling you are talking in some sort of buzzword shorthand you normally use in discussing things with like-minded people, but I don't have a copy of the codebook. Like I said above, I prefer to discuss issues, not labels.

Of course I don't agree with everything Kristol or other so-called "neocons" say. But is that really a subject worth discussing? I don't agree with everything every self-described Ayn Rand fan says either. That would be pretty difficult because neither the former nor the latter agree on each and every issue or philosophical question.

Don't get me wrong: Labels can be useful for some broad parameters to get a general concept across, but they are less useful when you're talking about individuals. And particularly when the label is as ill-defined as "neoconservatism". "Communism" -- fine. You've got an accepted founder, an accepted tome, and some clear principles. "Communism" is a pretty useful label. But "neoconservatism"....

I read the link to Ron Paul's article above blasting neoconservatives. He ascribes to them a set of beliefs that individual neocons may or may not have, and describes them in such a way that few reasonable folk would agree. It's a strawman argument. "Here's what I say neocons believe. Aren't they bad." To which most neocons would respond "but I don't believe in all that." It's a pointless exercise because its a rabid overgeneralization.

I am sure you are aware that there was a cult of British fascists who longed for war against the Nazi fascists.

Sure. I just don't understand the relevancy. Honestly, I'm not trying to be obtuse.

IYO, in your opinion. Kristol used a Marxist construct, 'nation as ideology' to define his view of America. I was just interested in an opinion.

Sheesh.... You state that Kristol used a Marxist construct, then said you're interested in an opinion. An opinion as to....whether I agree with him? Whether I agree its a Marxist construct? Whether I agree with his ideology? The specific opinion you are seeking still isn't clear. You just left it hanging.

I'll just say this. I can't agree or disagree with Kristol because I'm not entirely sure what he meant, though I'm quite sure he wasn't endorsing Marxist ideology. I'd have to put words in his mouth before agreeing or disagreeing.

All I can do is tell you how I view America, and then perhaps you can draw your own opinion as to whether I agree with Kristol: I think it is a unique country in that it's very founding was based upon certain ideas. IMO, the central idea was individual liberty. "LEAVE ME ALONE", is how I'd put it. There are a whole host of corollaries to that one, but that's the biggie. In that sense, America is more than just a collection of geographic locations within a set of political boundaries. It's something far more important, and you can lose "America" even if the political borders never change.

Now if you want to consider that some sort of Marxist/Kristollian view of America, fine. If not, that's fine too. But I'm not going to get wrapped around the axel around Bill Kristol's word choice and vague statements.