Posted on 09/29/2005 12:22:32 PM PDT by kjvail
So you came for a rational discussion, I see.
So you came for a rational discussion, I see.
I don't really expect one no, given the attitude of the Jacobins and fascists that now dominate Free Republic. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad for our nation.
In fact it wouldn't suprise me if the article were pulled, can't have much in the way of dissent from neo-con orthodoxy here. Pretty much every conservative I knew is gone from here, that's why I don't bother with this board much any longer.
(1) The author ascribes the opinions of believing Christians who disagree with his foreign policy analysis to "secularism." In other words, he is accusing them of secret atheism or blatant ignorance of Christianity. However, there are many atheists who support the author's opinions on foreign policy - why can he not in justice be tarred with the same brush? After all, his stance on the Iraq War is in total concord with that of international Communism.
(2) The author labels every idea he disagrees with as "neo-conservative" - however, neo-conservatism is a meaningless epithet. People who are called "neo-conservatives" by the author do not accept this title or his blanket description.
(3) He describes the people he criticizes as being "Darwinian" and obsessed with "power", but the people he characterizes as "neo-conservative" seem to take the opinion that it is America's moral obligation to help those in need - which is hardly Darwinian - and that America's undeniable power should be used to help other countries suffering under tyranny. Anyone true Darwinist obsessed with power for its own sake would use power for raw proprietary conquest - but the people he is critiquing promote the opposite agenda.
A very muddled piece so far.
He describes the people he criticizes as being "Darwinian" and obsessed with "power", but the people he characterizes as "neo-conservative" seem to take the opinion that it is America's moral obligation to help those in need
Yep, that's why we are there.
Oh hey, I got this bridge....
Your continued insults demonstrate your fundamental unseriousness.
It'd be funny if it weren't so sad for our nation. In fact it wouldn't suprise me if the article were pulled, can't have much in the way of dissent from neo-con orthodoxy here.
One of the things that all people who are labeled as "neo-conservatives" are accused of is holding the free market to be sacred.
Yet I see thousands of threads posted each month on this forum that take a strong anti-free trade stance.
So your claim seems pretty ridiculous and hyperbolic on its face.
Pretty much every conservative I knew is gone from here, that's why I don't bother with this board much any longer.
In other words, your and your friends' opinion of what constitutes conservatism is not accepted as law on this board, and your clique has decided to take its ball and go home.
Given your nasty and dismissive attitude so far, I'm not surprised you don't feel at home.
By "there" I presume you mean Iraq.
Oh hey, I got this bridge....
Since you are so omniscient in your cynicism and I am so benighted, why don't you tell us why we are "there"?
And I'll be interested to see how different your analysis is from that of the hard Trotskyite left.
This, I think, is a false note in otherwise very cogent article. Just like there is nothing conservative in neo-conservatism, there is nothing libertarian in it either. The only thing that associates the neocons with darwinian libertarianism is a dislike for Great Society programs that promote deviance. Other than that, they would not mind a big regulatory government at all, they just would steer it in a different than the liberal democrats' direction
'Neo-con' is a euphemism for 'Jew' to most of the ranters.
Who is a bigger fake conservatives: Someone who embraces the welfare state and the 'world community' but opposes homosexuality and abortion, or someone who is mostly indifferent to homosexuality and abortion but opposes the welfare state and endorses American exceptionalism?
THIS should be in the "Religion" Forum.
For my analysis of the Neo-Con Phenomenon:
But you are too hard on Free Republic. There are still many genuine Conservatives here.
There's nothing wrong with realism about the role of power in international politics. Indeed, one criticism about the neo-cons is that they don't take power-politics seriously enough, and mount ideological crusades instead.
A better question might be who are the bigger fake conservatives - self-described palaeoconservatives and palaeolibertarians who take the side of America's enemies and make common cause with Marxists like Lenora Fulani and Cindy Sheehan(Llewellyn Rockwell, Ron Paul, Joseph Sobran, Patrick Buchanan, Paul Craig Roberts, Justin Raimondo, etc.) or other-labeled "neoconservatives" who are softer on taxes and spending than one would like (Bill Bennett, Bill Kristol, Jack Kemp, Paul Wolfowitz, Charles Krauthammer, etc.)?
I'd say the former.
Its clever but bogus.
The author cleverly recognizes that it is the evangelical and Christian communities which are critical to the ongoing support of neoconservativism. Consequently, the author tries to inaccurately foist a secular darwinian explanation for neoconservatism in hopes of alienating the Christian advocates within neo conservativism.
The problem with this conception is that urging the strong to help the weak (including the means of force) is not darwinian. In fact the conservation of force might be the most darwinian move one could make. Neo conservative interventions for human rights and democracy are not promoting the survival of the fittest-- in fact allowing Saddam and other fascist tyrants to slaughter their internal populations would be a charming way for darwinians to carry the day-- such interventions jeopardize the means of the strong on behalf of the weak. Consequently, neo conservatism is far from darwinism.
Nice try-- but this article is fundamentally flawed.
Dear kjvail,
Hey, nice to see you around!
By the way, is there a Cliff Notes version of this thing??
;-)
Seriously, I'll take a stab at it. If I have anything intelligent to say, I'll do so. And probably even if I don't. LOL.
sitetest
Dear kjvail,
Okay, I read some of it.
Not as good as I'd hoped.
Oh well.
sitetest
Yes. You have it right.
The reason to oppose the welfare state at home and totalitarians abroad has nothing to do with Darwin and everything to do with what promotes healthy and productive individuals and societies.
The fact is, palaeocon-beloved Gore Vidal will accuse "neoconservatives" of being dangerous creationist Christian fundamentalists at the same time that the author of this piece accuses them of Darwinist secularism.
Paul Craig Roberts will accuse "neonconservatives" of being powermad cynics at the same time Sam Francis accused them of being unrealistic self-defeating do-gooders.
Lew Rockwell will accuse "neoconservatives" of being anti-market welfare staters while Pat Buchanan will accuse them of being globalist free traders.
"Dear kjvail,
Hey, nice to see you around! "
Just trying to rattle a few cages, see if anyone has woke up from their Bush induced trance yet.
No takers yet, just Annalex whom I already knew.
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.