Posted on 06/13/2005 1:58:18 PM PDT by quidnunc
Question: Can you give me a basic summary of the history and central tenets of neo-conservative ideology? Being a knowledgeable pundit on foreign policy, can you present a view of neo-conservatism that isn't so distorted with half-truths and conspiracy theories? Are there alternatives to neo-conservativism that don't border appeasement?
Hanson: The neo-conservative movement that grew up around William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Nathan Glazer, and other New York disenchanted liberals in the 1960s and 1970s (who often wrote in Commentary and the National Interest), was initially prominent for domestic critiques: realization that the Great Society and the following 60's generation values were not merely failures, but pathological with long-term damage to American society.
In terms of foreign policy, these former Democrats (their connection with Leo Strauss is tenuous and largely a creation of the conspiracists) felt that the McGovern peace candidacy was dangerous, and, post-Watergate, that Jimmy Carter was a disaster in his naiveté about communism. Yet they also showed their earlier FDR and Scoop Jackson idealism in believing that Nixonian-Kissingerian realism wrongly accepted the status quo of global communism: hence their support for Reagan's rollback policies.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at victorhanson.com ...
FYI
Among other things, VDH fails to mention that neo-cons (many of whom regard FDR as a hero) are well to the left of free market conservatives and libertarians on economic isssues.
He called it perfectly. I read this guy everyday, one of the more talented columnists in the country right now. I'm a proud neocon, even though I catch hell from both sides for it.
bump to read later
I've finally gotten around to getting one of his books. Can't wait to start reading it.
tag
How about "conservative" without the neo? Or how about post-neo conservative. I don't know how you can bear to be led by the likes of William Kristol.
The term neo-con sends some into an apoplectic irrational rage.
I recall a caller on the Michael Medved show using the term. It took Mr. Medved several minutes to settle down and discuss the origin of the term. I don't recall Mr. Medved's explanation but I've always heard it originated with the American left com-symps, fellow travelers, communists, socialists, 1950s "progressives," and the 1960s New Left. It was a pejorative term used to smear the traitors to the cause.
I've read articles by "neo-cons" during the Trent Lott silly hubbub demanding that Lott and all racists paleo-cons be purged from the Party. It was then that I knew that the neo-cons were former liberals who brought their stupid tricks with them to the Republican Party.
They are welcome to our side! and I am not a Republican but I like what Dr. Hanson said, I too support Israel and the neo-con (calm down, no offense intended) war plan in the Middle East. Just stop with the stupid liberal tricks, please! You're in the Party of (mostly) grown-ups.
Oh, one more things. Do kick the evil paleo-cons out of the Republican Party -- the new (I hope) Minutemen Project party can use them as citizens take on both legacy parties. TIA.
"Hegemony" -- a favourite word of the academic left. I thus do my bestest to avoid using it.
And you're right about it being "Irving" and not "Bill". Bill was probably 15 in the 60s (at best) and would have scarcely had enough time to be "illusioned" let alone disillusioned by the New Deal.
Hanson also leaves out Gertrude Himmellfarb -- Bill's momma.
So what do you call people like myself who are with the paleo-conservaties on social issues, but the neo-conservatives on foreign policy?
exactly. They are fools for believing government "solves" many problems. They believe in an activist government in many areas that would absolutely appall our Founders. They don't believe in the wisdom of Governments best that governs least They are mostly located in the DC area and can't view issues objectively. They think without Washington, we couldn't function. It is interesting to hear Kristol at times, but I don't agree with a lot he says. What Kristol and many other neocons fail to understand is that our Republic is great not because of our government, but is great because of the Constitution restricting government (allowing capitalism to flourish) The idiots like McCain don't have a clue.
Hanson made a mistake in an otherwise interesting analysis. It wasn't William Kristol. It was Irving Kristol, the father of William Kristol.
"Neo-conservative" is yet another dishonest projection by new national socialists who believe they're conservative. But when national socialists (falsely known as "paleo-conservatives") get into office, they quickly find that socialism is the only way they can hold onto power. They then accept that fact and use totalitarian government to carry out their extermination campaign against whoever they perceive to be their enemies.
Most who call themselves "paleo-cons" now are western and eastern European socialists. Others are individuals whose grandparents or great-grandparents migrated to the USA between 1880 and 1920. Such pagans identify more with the countries of their ancestors than they do with the USA, and all of their ancestors (and often they) were Democrats.
national socialists ="paleo-conservatives"??? I don't think so. I am not very warm to paleos, but I do believe you are off track here. Perhaps we should define what national socialist is and what a paleo-conservative is and you could show me how they are the same (or different).
Of course. You can't get on with 'policeman of the world' nonsense and more big government with actual conservatives left in the party
Sticking our heads in the sand did a lot to prevent 9/11, huh?
Oh yes. Involving ourselves in the business of nation states over the past 100 years when it was none of our business has worked out so well. Vic needs to go back to writing about ancient Greece.
And the neo-cons will more than likely, if not already, start to lose their influence over the next few years as the police action in Iraq wraps up.
Don't worry though, they will not have learned in a generation when the Iraqi democracy now established has returned to a theocracy. That'll be so much better. And we'll have the likes of Vic to thank for it
Sure. Slobodan Milosevic's friends were communists. But they would be happy enough to use national socialism to enforce their one prevalent wish, if they were allowed to take power. So are many of the "paleo-cons" who advocate for the military alliances (Iran, Syria, etc.) and recent internal changes of the Russian Federation. So are those in Britain who spread obvious hatred against Israel and recycle old conspiracy stories against Jewish people. So is David Duke, who recently named his organization "EURO." Justin Raimondo is another example. So is Pat Buchanan.
Would a nation follow the main wish of such leaders without national socialism (or even communism)? ...of course not.
Paleoconservatives:
federalism
nationalism
critical of the welfare state
critical of overreaching national power usurping state and local authority.
question free trade
critical of immigration
isolationist
National Socialists:
authoritarian/totalitarian
superiority of the White, Germanic, Aryan or Nordic races
anti-Semitism
rejection of democracy, with as a consequence the ending the existence of political parties,
labour unions, and free press
nationalist
corporatism - in which legislative power is given to corporations that represent economic,
industrial and professional groups
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.