Posted on 04/26/2002 12:36:50 PM PDT by ForOurFuture
The short founding phase was dominated by Irving Kristol's "The Public Interest," a magazine that examined policy questions and dissected liberal assumptions of the 1960s and 1970s. Kristol's collaborators included a liberal like Daniel Patrick Moynihan and a social democrat like Daniel Bell, but it's important to recognize that it wasn't a fully fledged political movement or ideology. It was a policy critique of the Great Society that could be applied by those of a variety of political stripes. There was much to be admired in such a critique of defective policy assumptions and practices.
Phase two focused on Norman Podhoretz and "Commentary," a magazine devoted to Jewish issues, foreign and domestic policy. The elder Podhoretz and his wife had been around earlier, but they weren't quite so prestigious as the elder Kristols. It was the turn to practical politics that benefited Podhoretz.
These were the years of the renascent Cold War and the Reagan administration. In these years the neo-cons were the intellectual vanguard of the administration and their influence spread throughout conservative journals and organizations. The Cold War was the key in these years, though the original critique of domestic policy and the effort to develop new approaches to domestic policy continued.
With the end of the Cold War and the passing of Reagan and Bush Sr., as well as Kristol and Podhoretz, from active life began phase three which is most closely identified with William Kristol, Irving's son, and "The Weekly Standard." The neo-conservatism of phase three is far less intellectual and far more political, focusing more narrowly on Washington, rather than New York or Cambridge. Intellectually, Bill is no match for his parents, but more of a practical politicians. Involvement with McCain hurt Kristol and his associates, but wartime brings them bounding back.
Neo-conservatism III no longer carries the same weight among Republicans or conservative organizations, though it seems to have as great an influence on conservative publications as before. Masters at using words and publicity, the neo-cons always plumped for a larger role for themselves and undercut those partners who didn't have political clout that they could make use of.
A lot of what one could accept in the Cold War, became harder to take in peacetime. To many of us in 1980 Old Poddy sounded like a patriot struggling against the destructive ideas of the time. By 2000, he looked much more like an egotist forever tooting his own horn and promoting his pet causes. John "Young Poddy" Podhoretz, Norman's son, starts at that point and devolves further.
Raimondo and the Rockwellites are right in a lot of what they write about the neo-cons, but the neo-cons would also be right in their condemnation of Raimondo and the Rockwellites, if they deigned to notice them. These political sects generally do accumulate vices over time. It's a result of inbreeding, opportunism and groupthink.
It seems to me that the neo-cons performed many useful services in the seventies and eighties which either aren't so necessary now, or aren't being performed by them. What sticks in the craw are the nepotism, the opportunism, and the attacks they make on fellow conservatives.
Whatever happens in the future, I doubt the neo-cons will be a major influence in ten years. Intent on manipulating public opinion and political developments, present-day neo-cons don't seem to have the shrewdness at discerning deeper, broader and more lasting trends that their parents and predecessors did.
Paleo-Conservatives are more small-government conservatives with a strong slant towards traditional values. They will support foreign policy activism when America's vital national interests are at stake, but they do not support involvment in most conflicts. They are more passionately pro-life and pro-gun. They believe in lower taxes and less government, but they have less patience for rich people whining about taxes. They tend to oppose free trade or at least see it as a sometimes useful policy as opposed to a guiding principle. Paleo-Cons like the idea of tariffs because they like confining the tax man's power to the end of a dock and because they see strong manufacturing as a component of a strong America. The most prominent Paleo-Conservative is Pat Buchanan, but I think most Paleo-Cons support Israel a little more than Mr. Buchanan does.
WFTR
Bill
So it was with FDR, who saw government as Savior, and was unconstrained by any ideology or sense that the government need adhere to the idea of "consent of the governed" that requires a constitutional amendment to expand the power of the federal government over the states and the individual.
Thanks for the history lesson.
Eddie01
Which is why neoconservatism is inherently at odds with the Founders' ideals, and therefore the Constitution.
In contrast to his father, William Kristol seems more concerned with foreign policy, with the specific political battles of the day, and with jockeying for position within the Republican party and conservative movement and less with the "bigger picture." That picture does come out in the war against Islamism or Islam and in the celebration of "bourgeois values." The question is whether bourgeois values are enough. If they were sufficiently threatened they might well be, but when they aren't, do they have the power to inspire?
Is neo-conservatism "dried-up?" I don't know, but it doesn't seem to arouse the same passion. Feeling oneself embattled and fighting in the last ditch enflamed those passions in previous decades. Sitting on top of the world and thinking about how to run it rouses much less passion. I suppose that's the criticism of pragmatic ideologies, not bound to convictions and dogmas. They can become too complacent and administrative, rather than prophetic or transformative.
I think that the Weekly Standard crowd will continue to have media attention beyond their numbers, both due to their ability to promote their view and a media predisposition of comfort in commenting on their world view.
Paleo (or true, orthodox) conservatives were never a large group. All of them could probably fit on the poop deck of Bill Buckley's 'Cyrano,' for cocktails, while they lamented the state of the world and listened to Valenti play the harpsichord.
Since many were rich, had been out of, and away from elective political power for so long, and used to disappointment, they had taken the necessary steps to protect themselves financially and in many ways, forgot about politics, except as a conversational topic. They would rather be right, than rule.
When power came, with the election of Ronald Reagan, some of these guys were taken completely aback. They never got the hang of actually doing anything with their power. Then along comes the popular (OMIGOD) conservative movement, with Rush Limbaugh and the like leading the charge! Then these NEO-CON things, many of whom had actually been Democrats!
Naturally, these people are suspicious of the motives of these upstarts. I mean where were the Kristols and Podhoretzes when Roosevelt was attacking their caste!?
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.