Victor Davis Hanson Ping !
Let me know if you want in or out
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 ...
Self-described "paleo-conservatives" can spout rhetoric and project what they are upon the people they hate (Jews and real US conservatives like myself) all they want to, but I could quickly and easily post more than 100 pieces of evidence that those who call us "neo-cons" are nothing more than...well, idiots like those who wrote the following.
"Eurolegal Services"
"US Neoconservatives"
http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/usneocon.htm
(Most excellent reference here! ...full of exposure of the neo-Nazi and socialist nature of those who call themselves "paleoconservatives")
"How Neoconservatives Conquered Washington – and Launched a War"
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html
(shows the left nature of fascism and those who call themselves "paleoconservatives")
Let me know if you want in or out
Sane.
Perhaps because many of the most prominent neo's were not politicians, but intellectuals and thus were under suspicion of elitism or pulling levers behind the curtains. Many, but not most, were Jewish and supported democratic Israel. Liberals were suspicious that others had hijacked their concern with democracy and human rights, but in a context of strong American muscularity. Conservatives felt neo's were Johnny-Come-Late opportunists and were soft on social issues, thus diluting and confusing Republican causes. After Iraq, calling someone a neoconservative was the equivalent of being slandered as a communist or fascist — much of the suspicion engendered by anti-Semitism ('wily, liberal Jews in the shadows mesmerizing good 'ole Americans to do their bidding for Israel'). All in all, rarely has such a legitimate ideology been so slandered without consequences or apology.
http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/usneocon.htm
So the other article believes that neo-cons have great influence in the Bush administration and the author suggests that they have a strong interest for Israel -- it's his opinion. And, I also think it's true and it's not a bad idea to support the only democracy among the several Arab Islamic countries. The author apparently disagrees. Where's the hatred?
RE: "the neo-Nazi and socialist nature of those who call themselves "paleoconservatives""
We're off to a great start. I am a proud Goldwater paleo-conservative. I proudly remember the early days of the modern conservative movement. Many of us blue-collar guys and gals supported Goldwater and disliked the internationalist Rockefeller Republicans.
I also remember the stupid liberal tricks of the 1960s. To wit, concerns for the breakdown in law and order was derided as "Lawn order" and anyone expressing concerns over the rioting and law violations in general was ridiculed and called Racist! by the liberals.
When I opposed sending too much power to government employees in Washington, I was ridiculed for being for "states rights" therefore for that reason I was a Racist! said the liberals.
The liberals and the Rockefeller Republicans said that we were "hawkers of hate."
Now it's 2005 and because I don't agree with you totally (apparently) -- I am a neo-Nazi. That implies that in your opinion I am likely all those thing the liberals called me in the 1960s years before that switched to the conservative side and brought their stupid, name-calling tricks with them. Go figure.
Al Sharpton and his defenders scream "racist" against every critic while the neocons reflexively scream "antisemite" against their critics. For this reason, how can either be taken seriously?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp
The Neoconservative Persuasion
From the August 25, 2003 issue: What it was, and what it is.
by Irving Kristol
08/25/2003, Volume 008, Issue 47
"[President Bush is] an engaging person, but I think for some reason he's been captured by the neoconservatives around him."
--Howard Dean, U.S. News & World Report, August 11, 2003
WHAT EXACTLY IS NEOCONSERVATISM? Journalists, and now even presidential candidates, speak with an enviable confidence on who or what is "neoconservative," and seem to assume the meaning is fully revealed in the name. Those of us who are designated as "neocons" are amused, flattered, or dismissive, depending on the context. It is reasonable to wonder: Is there any "there" there?
Even I, frequently referred to as the "godfather" of all those neocons, have had my moments of wonderment. A few years ago I said (and, alas, wrote) that neoconservatism had had its own distinctive qualities in its early years, but by now had been absorbed into the mainstream of American conservatism. I was wrong, and the reason I was wrong is that, ever since its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s, what we call neoconservatism has been one of those intellectual undercurrents that surface only intermittently. It is not a "movement," as the conspiratorial critics would have it. Neoconservatism is what the late historian of Jacksonian America, Marvin Meyers, called a "persuasion," one that manifests itself over time, but erratically, and one whose meaning we clearly glimpse only in retrospect.
Viewed in this way, one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism 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. That this new conservative politics is distinctly American is beyond doubt. There is nothing like neoconservatism in Europe, and most European conservatives are highly skeptical of its legitimacy. The fact that conservatism in the United States is so much healthier than in Europe, so much more politically effective, surely has something to do with the existence of neoconservatism. But Europeans, who think it absurd to look to the United States for lessons in political innovation, resolutely refuse to consider this possibility.
Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the "American grain." It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked. Of course, those worthies are in no way overlooked by a large, probably the largest, segment of the Republican party, with the result that most Republican politicians know nothing and could not care less about neoconservatism. Nevertheless, they cannot be blind to the fact that neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters. Nor has it passed official notice that it is the neoconservative public policies, not the traditional Republican ones, that result in popular Republican presidencies.
One of these policies, most visible and controversial, is cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth. Neocons are familiar with intellectual history and aware that it is only in the last two centuries that democracy has become a respectable option among political thinkers. In earlier times, democracy meant an inherently turbulent political regime, with the "have-nots" and the "haves" engaged in a perpetual and utterly destructive class struggle. It was only the prospect of economic growth in which everyone prospered, if not equally or simultaneously, that gave modern democracies their legitimacy and durability.
The cost of this emphasis on economic growth has been an attitude toward public finance that is far less risk averse than is the case among more traditional conservatives. Neocons would prefer not to have large budget deficits, but it is in the nature of democracy--because it seems to be in the nature of human nature--that political demagogy will frequently result in economic recklessness, so that one sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth. It is a basic assumption of neoconservatism that, as a consequence of the spread of affluence among all classes, a property-owning and tax-paying population will, in time, become less vulnerable to egalitarian illusions and demagogic appeals and more sensible about the fundamentals of economic reckoning.
This leads to the issue of the role of the state. Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative ways of delivering these services. But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on "the road to serfdom." Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his "The Man Versus the State," was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. Though they find much to be critical about, they tend to seek intellectual guidance in the democratic wisdom of Tocqueville, rather than in the Tory nostalgia of, say, Russell Kirk.
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.
AND THEN, of course, there is foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention. This is surprising since there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience. (The favorite neoconservative text on foreign affairs, thanks to professors Leo Strauss of Chicago and Donald Kagan of Yale, is Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War.) These attitudes can be summarized in the following "theses" (as a Marxist would say): First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. Precisely because we are a nation of immigrants, this is a powerful American sentiment. Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. International institutions that point to an ultimate world government should be regarded with the deepest suspicion. Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies. This is not as easy as it sounds, as the history of the Cold War revealed. The number of intelligent men who could not count the Soviet Union as an enemy, even though this was its own self-definition, was absolutely astonishing.
Finally, for a great power, the "national interest" is not a geographical term, except for fairly prosaic matters like trade and environmental regulation. A smaller nation might appropriately feel that its national interest begins and ends at its borders, so that its foreign policy is almost always in a defensive mode. A larger nation has more extensive interests. And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns. Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.
Behind all this is a fact: the incredible military superiority of the United States vis-à-vis the nations of the rest of the world, in any imaginable combination. This superiority was planned by no one, and even today there are many Americans who are in denial. To a large extent, it all happened as a result of our bad luck. During the 50 years after World War II, while Europe was at peace and the Soviet Union largely relied on surrogates to do its fighting, the United States was involved in a whole series of wars: the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Kosovo conflict, the Afghan War, and the Iraq War. The result was that our military spending expanded more or less in line with our economic growth, while Europe's democracies cut back their military spending in favor of social welfare programs. The Soviet Union spent profusely but wastefully, so that its military collapsed along with its economy.
Suddenly, after two decades during which "imperial decline" and "imperial overstretch" were the academic and journalistic watchwords, the United States emerged as uniquely powerful. The "magic" of compound interest over half a century had its effect on our military budget, as did the cumulative scientific and technological research of our armed forces. With power come responsibilities, whether sought or not, whether welcome or not. And it is a fact that if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you.
The older, traditional elements in the Republican party have difficulty coming to terms with this new reality in foreign affairs, just as they cannot reconcile economic conservatism with social and cultural conservatism. But by one of those accidents historians ponder, our current president and his administration turn out to be quite at home in this new political environment, although it is clear they did not anticipate this role any more than their party as a whole did. As a result, neoconservatism began enjoying a second life, at a time when its obituaries were still being published.
Irving Kristol is author of "Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea."
You said paleos were national socialists - that is just plain untrue. As for the rest of your links they sound more like DU Rat stuff to me - in fact so do you.
I think you mischaracterize Goldwater as a paleo - I picture him more as a libertarian myself. My 2 cents. I do not claim to have made an exhaustive study.
Nor am I an expert. I do know what I believed about Goldwater's views in 1964.
I know that years later Senator Goldwater expressed views that may have alienated some of the 1960's crowd had he made known those views. I believe Goldwater had homosexual friends or relatives or something.
Which reminds of a story from 1960s era when laws began to be passed. Jack Benny had a unique way of walking sometimes. Nothing bizarre just uh.. different. I suppose "swish" would be descriptive.
Phil Harris a long time bandleader and comic with Jack Benny commenting on the walk exclaimed to Benny at the time, "Hey, Jackson! I see they made your walk legal." I don't remember if I saw it during a performance or I was told the story.
A notion which I second. In his later years, Goldwater alienated many Arizona Republicans, newly morphed into Christian fundamentalists, with his libertarian positions, such as gays in the military. Because of this, Goldwater has never gotten the respect he deserves from the state GOP.
"I don't know how you can bear to be led by the likes of William Kristol."
Truer words were never spoken. I want to bash that Skeletor lookalike's teeth in every time I see him yammering on TV. It's not just his politics...he just oozes arrogance.
"Jack Benny was not gay! He was married to Mary Livingstone for over 40 years. Jack was simply playing a character that embodied every negative personality known to man. His on-screen posture with his hand to the cheek and his feminine walk was played simply for laughs but tragically anyone born after 1960 won't "get" the humor and might think he was gay without knowing the truth."
http://www.jackbenny.org/wwwboard/messages/890.html
I know. I did not suggest that he was.
But it's good that you made sure the youngsters know.
We could joke about those things in the old days. I really liked his radio shows and later his TV shows. That was comedy! Real comedy. Especially the radio. Nearly all the greats had radio shows.
And besides, his voice is an incoherent whining, condescending mumble, and his smile reminds one of Star Wars' Senator Palpatine.
Cheers!
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.