The Neoconservative Cabal

AEI ^ | 9/3/03 | Joshua Muravchik

[WOSG]

"From my experience, they've proven themselves to be left of center on almost all domestic issues."

Well, no. Bill Bennett a supposed "neo-con" has been an effective advocate of conservative domestic and social policies.

James Q Wilson, another one so named, one of the nation's best analyzers of social, welfare and crime policies.
Same with Charles Murray.

Indeed, almost all the conservative "reforms" - education choice, welfare reform, criminal sanctions (eg 3 strikes your out) - have been influenced by conservative thinkers tarred as 'neo-cons'.

otoh, 'paleo-con' Pat Buchanan has embraced leftist/dirigiste trade and employment policies akin to how the French run their economy. The nativist wall-building protectionists hae retreated into socialism as their only mechanism to preserve fortress America.

"Even if they were proven to be 100% correct on foreign policy issues, they're still bad for this country overal."

If you could define who "they" are, and what "they" did that was bad domestically, you might even have a point!

If "they" are folks like David Horowitz, a former Leftist, fighting the good fight against affirmative action, campus radicalism, and the race hustlers, you are quite wrong.

Irving Kristol sees a natural alliance between traditional conservatives and neo-conservatives, who both share the belief that the state must nurture the moral order:

But it is only to a degree that neocons are comfortable in modern America. The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives--though not with those libertarian conservatives who are conservative in economics but unmindful of the culture. The upshot is a quite unexpected alliance between neocons, who include a fair proportion of secular intellectuals, and religious traditionalists. They are united on issues concerning the quality of education, the relations of church and state, the regulation of pornography, and the like, all of which they regard as proper candidates for the government's attention. And since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power. Because religious conservatism is so feeble in Europe, the neoconservative potential there is correspondingly weak. "

[WOSG]

IMHO it is better to describe neo-conservativism as an idea, than as simply those conservatives who happened to be liberal, leftist or Democrat in the past.

e.g. go with the self-description and analyze from there:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp

Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, George W Bush are examplars of the foreign policy approach advocated
by 'neo-cons'.

"just don't equate Pearl and Wolfowitz with Reagan and Churchill. "

Why not? Perle and Wolfowitz were both in the Reagan White House and were implmenters of Reagan's foreign policy.
Reagan foreign policy is Richard Perle foreign policy, pretty much. They are in sync.

"Being a Liberal in the first part of the last Century, until the 30's, does not correlate to being a socialist in the 60's and a conservative in the double oughts."

David Horowitz was leftist in his youth, and one of the most powerful conservative activists we have - he knows the enemy inside and out and knows how to attack them and beat them at their own game. What David Horowitz learned in 1971 from the Black Panthers is EXACTLY what Ronald Reagan learned in 1948 from the Communists in the Screen Actor Guild. Ronald and David had a similar experience - they saw how evil the left could be - and it made them both effective fighters against the evils of the left.

[WOSG]

"Goldwater was the trailblazer who made it all possible and set the ball into motion."

AuH2O was a trailblazer, and he rallied conservatives when we were outnumbered, but the main ball his 1964 attempt set in motion was the biggest 2 years for liberalism in our nation's history (most of the LBJ welfare expansions were passed in the following Congress)
... oh and Ronald Reagan's career.

So creditting the conservative resurgence to Goldwater is like giving Paul Revere credit for the American revolution instead of George Washington!

You say - "Reagan always knew and celebrated that fact."

Reagan had a great quote - “It’s amazing what you can accomplish if you don’t care who gets the credit"

That is why Ronald Reagan was a great politician. Of COURSE he would 'agree' with you. Lesser politicians would grab the credit ... and it's exactly why Reagan got so much more done than any other Conservative in American politics!

[GOPcapitalist]

Goldwater was out there doing the right thing when it wasn't popular. Reagan also did the right thing but by the time he had his moment it was popular to do so - in large part due to Goldwater. It takes a heck of a lot more courage to stand up when the tides of current opinion are against you than to enjoy that opinion when it is swinging in your direction. Both are admirable acts. But Goldwater ignited the revolution. Reagan enjoyed when it had already reached its fullest.

[GOPcapitalist]

He couldn't have cared less about the consequences

Goldwater was mindful of the consequences of either continuing and abolishing Social Security. He simply understood both of them better than most did in his own time and apparently better than you do even now.

[elbucko]

Good answer, But!

In the scheme of things and in the human experience, "converts" are rarely as trusted as "raised ins". David Horowitz is a good example. I like him, I have one of his books. Would I join his army if he had one? yes! Would I follow him into battle? No! Why? Because he wasn't conservative to start with. Now that's not "cerebral", I admit, it's "gut". Most humans tend to be this way about their politics, religion, family and the car they drive.

[WOSG]

In the scheme of things and in the human experience, "converts" are rarely as trusted as "raised ins". David Horowitz is a good example. I like him, I have one of his books. Would I join his army if he had one? yes! Would I follow him into battle? No! Why? Because he wasn't conservative to start with. Now that's not "cerebral", I admit, it's "gut". Most humans tend to be this way about their politics, religion, family and the car they drive.

Now you are making sense - or rather explaining a reaction that doesnt make sense.

I'm not one to share this irrational prejudice against converts. Ever hear of the phrase 'the fervor of a convert'? Our best Convservatives, including Ronald Reagan, were converts from another party; they were strong conservatives because they were attracted to the rightness of the ideas, not merely because of being spoonfed it when young.

I dont share the anti-convert prejudice because it offends those who've grown up in conservative-hostile homes: As a conservative who grew up in a liberal household with the NYTimes every day, I had to *think* about my ideas and defend them in a hostile environment. That - like working iron into steel - led to beliefs that were unshakable for being questioned and tested.

Case in point: I'll take the born-n-raised-red Conservative activist David Horowitz from the born-n-raised-Republican Jim Jeffords (or Lincoln Chaffee or George H W Bush for that matter) any day.

[SauronOfMordor]

I think that is a good, succinct description of the original meaning of neoconservative, especially if you meld it with the concept of most of them being converts from the left.

As far as the Jewish Neocons are concerned, part of the conversion came from the increasing anti-Semitism of the Left, and the realization that the welfare of Israel is incompatible with the Left being in power

[SauronOfMordor]

At least some of the ex-Leftists who became neocons, never really changed their core belief, which is Statism -- the ideology that government can solve all problems. To a Statist, anything good requires a government subsidy, and anything bad requires civil and criminal penalties -- there is no room in their consciousness for the idea that there are a lot of things that government just messes up once it gets involved

Many people think that the Nazis were right-wing. They weren't. The term "Nazi" is short for "National Socialist German Workers Party", which was the full official name if Hitler's group. There was little real difference between Hitler and Stalin -- except in their conception of WHO was to be in charge

Similarly, there is little real difference between many Neo-cons, and the Leftists they "used" to be. They still want government solutions. They still conceive of themselves as being of the "planner" class, fit to dictate to the rest of society what should be done. They just feel that putting an "(R)" rather than a "(D)" after their names will give them more opportunities these days, after Socialism has been so discredited after the fall of the USSR

[rmlew]

MARX WAS NOT JEWISH.
He was baptised, not circumcised. His father was a secularist who rebelled against his family, famous for its rabbis.
Marx had nothing but hatred for Judaism. Go read "On the Jewish Question".

[Luis Gonzalez]

"A neocon would never say "Government is not the solution, it's the problem".

I consider myself a neocon, and I say that, as do most of the neocons I know.

[Luis Gonzalez]

BTW...there is no such thing as a paleocon, which is why there is so much confusion about the definition of the term.

"Paleocon" is a classification made up by the remnants of the Know-Nothings, Birchers, America Firsters, and sundry fringe extreme minority groups attempting to obtain some sort of legitimacy by marginalizing the mainstream conservative.

The proof of that is in the total lack of "paleocons" elected to major political office.

[nopardons]

Yes Luis, there is no such a thing as a " paleocon " and the Founding Fathers weren't Libertarians either, as that term only came into existance a few decades ago, thrown together by some weird types, who melded hippy/lefty Liberalism with a few, more or less conservative positions.

The old " KNOW-NOTHINGS " never actually went away, they just morphed into an even deadlier bunch of fringers, from the Birchers to the Patsies, to other rightish groups, so far right, as to be LEFT !

Lindburg was an isolaationsit, who was also a Nazi sympathizer, BTW.

[jmc813]

I consider myself a neocon, and I say that, as do most of the neocons I know.

FWIW, I've been reading your stuff for a while, and I don't really consider you to be a neo. The neo's I'm thinking of are quite left on most domestic issues, and go out of their way to ridicule constitutionalists/libertarians. I've never seen that from you. I suppose it goes to show what a strange term it really is.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I guess I describe myself as a neo, because I refuse to be labeled a paleo.

Neither term truly exists, to claim that a "paleocon" is a traditional conservative is crap, the general beliefs held by those who label themselves "paleocons" have never been part of American mainstream conservatism.

There has never been a time when mainstream conservative thinking in America has supported isolationalism, protectionism, or any of the other mainstay paleo beliefs.

So, how can something that's never been mainstream be considered traditional?

[William Wallace]

I have to admit that I skimmed this article and completely misread it at first. Given the title and length of the article, I can understand why others assumed it was yet another "Neo-Cons-are-really-evil-Jews" hit piece.

I agree that the term "paleo-conservative" is a misnomer. It isn't paleo because its immediate roots are the America First movement of the 1930s and the Know Nothing movement of the latter half of the 19th century. Traditional conservative thought goes back much further, owing as great a debt to Aristotle and the medieval monks who preserved the wisdom of antiquity as it does to Edmund Burke, Tocqueville and the Founders. It isn't conservative because its central tenets -- isolationism, protectionism and xenophobia -- are antithetical or irrelevant to mainstream conservative ideals.

Paleo-conservatives have more in common with the extreme Left than they do with the mainstream conservatism of Ronald Reagan. Similarly, today's leftists have more in common with totalitarian ideologues than with the liberalism of FDR and JFK. Today's leftists are a loose coalition of Stalinists, environmental Luddites, secular elites and abortion-on-demand extremists united by their loathing of capitalism, interventionism and traditional values. Today's paleo-conservatives are a tatterdemalion rabble of codgers, cranks, anti-Semites and racist rednecks united by their fierce hostility to free trade, immigration and interventionism.

Have you ever noticed that the Left always sides with the totalitarian regimes? It doesn't matter whether the rulers are hostile to religion (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro), indifferent to religion (psychotic secular dictators like Hussein, Mugabe et al.) or religious fanatics (Islamic fundamentalists or ayatollahs). The Left only turns against a brutal totalitarian regime when it attacks another totalitarian regime more to their liking. Thus, the true believers on the Left were not troubled by the Soviet Union's non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany. They were nonplussed and outraged only when the Nazis violated the pact.

If Hitler had not breached the non-aggression pact, the Soviets would not have not sided with the Allies, and the Left would have sided with Fr. Coghlin and the America Firsters, just as the Nation and Justin Raimondo today find themselves in total agreement with Pat Buchanan and the fringe conservatives on the War with Iraq. Strange bedfellows? On the surface, that would appear to be the case, but deep down, not at all.

I used to think the Left behaved the way it did because they embrace nihilism instead of truth. But if nihilism was the answer, the law of averages would dictate that the Left would side with truth, justice and goodness at least occasionally, just as a broken clock is right twice a day. Nihilism does not explain the fearful symmetry between the rantings of anti-American/anti-capitalist Left and those of Pat Buchanan, Lew Rockwell and Joseph Sobran in their contempt of George W. Bush and opposition to the War on Terror.

May I be so bold as to call attention to the elephant in the room, not the symbol of the Republican party, but something uglier.

Anti-Semitism is the glue that unites the loony left and the fringe right. Anti-Semitism is not a political position, but rather a symptom of a spiritual disease or more precisely, the metaphysical refuse of a diseased soul.

[rmlew]

Neocons support the roadmap.
They believe in a Second Palestinians state because they believe that the Palestinians can be reformed.
They are selling out Israel for ideology.

[zacyak]

No, they are just being realistic. The demographics are such that if Israel retains the entire West Bank they would be a minority in a few short years. What then? You are dreaming if you think that the U.S. and the rest of the world would tolerate expelling all the Arabs from the West Bank.

[nopardons]

BRAVO ! That has to be one of THE most logical, cogent, well written, thoughtful postings, to have ever appeared on FR. I tip my hat to you and give you a standing ovation. Well said, well said indeed.

[rmlew]

I don't support expelling the Arabs under peaceful conditions. I just figure taht there will be another war.
In the short run, Israel should secure the best borders it can with the fence. Some YeShA communities will have to be either transplanted or left out in hostile territory. The cynical side of me supports the presense of such communities in Nablus, Hebron, Bethlehem... because they will make for good martyrs when the Palestinians start killing them.
At any rate, teh creation of the second Palestinian sate in most of the West Bank and Gaza strip will only precipitate another war. The PA will try to take over Jordan (ie 3/4 of Palestine) and/or become a base for raids into Israel. When the Israelis respond, the Arab states will move troops into the region. Welcome to another Israeli-Arab war.
Teh UN may want to get involved, but they are not stupid enough to put their forces into a de facto war zone.
Either during or after the war, Israel will settle the issue by expelling the Palestinians to Jordan. The utter failure of negotiated settlement will be clear.
Teh Arabs will complain, but having been defeated, big whoop. The US will complain and probably cut off most aid. That would actually help Israel become self sufficient.

The only way transfer will not happen is if
1) Israel is defeated (in which case the Arabs will slaughter as many Jews as they can)
2) The UN/EU... steps in and decide to accept casualties. Israel will probably not accept this. I doubt that the EU would invade Israel.
3) The Palestinians renounce terrorism. That is about as likely as icescating in hell.