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.