As I recall, some posters were quite upset that we are no longer the beacon of freedom and example for other countries to follow but rather thought of as a bully to the rest of the world. Others took exception to the word bully and accused the original poster of being a member of the Hate America First Crowd, etc. They insisted they were the genuine conservatives, since they were preserving America from the terrorists while the anti-war faction was inviting our destruction.
Without getting into the pros and cons of first strike, pre-emptive attack and advanced concepts such as MAD, I believe it is necessary that we FReepers understand which way the conservative movement has drifted since the end of the Cold War.
As a start, I am posting this article, originally published in that formerly left-wing but now respectable journal of opinion, The New Republic, over a year ago. It provides some background on the evolution of neo-conservativism from a pseudo-libertarian, don't-trust-the-government movement of former socialists and New Dealers to the "national greatness" conservatism as practiced openly by McCain and Kristol and, without a doubt, in the closet by any number of others, both in and out of the Bush Administration.
I would welcome any comments, as well as links to articles on Free Republic that supplement what Mr. Foer writes.
And please, for the sake of discussion and faster loading of the page for people using a dial-up account, refrain from inserting huge graphics that only clutter the screen and detract from the subject at hand. We are all perfectly aware of what happened on September 11, 2001.
And what's wrong with "leave me alone" conservativism? It still holds an appeal for me; as it would the Founding Fathers.
I am at a loss to understand how the conservative "movement" has drifted. The term neo-con is a misnomer but it will suffice for the subject of this article. The article itself is somewhat incoherent but the final message appears to be that the neo-cons have lost influence within the "movement" rather that steering its course.
If you read through this article, you get a picture of Bill Kristol's behavior through the last few years, and it is obvious that as I have often pointed out, he chooses positions and personalities which are detrimental to the Republican party. He isn't a conservative at all.
He is a mole.
This article fails to document his long campaign to get Colin Powell to run as the Republican nominee in 2000. This is the same Colin Powell which Kristol now routinely trashes.
Kristol was originally backing Powell because he knew it would cause a split in the Republicans. Now he trashes Powell as Secretary of State, for the same reason.
So, thanks for posting this article, as it documents other incidences of the same type of behavior.
He and his fringe are really just media marketable conservatives...great for TV filler but not representative of any constituancy that votes.
When he went for the Nixonian Phase of McCain, I quit even listening to him 90% of the time.
As I recall, some posters were quite upset that we are no longer the beacon of freedom and example for other countries to follow but rather thought of as a bully to the rest of the world. Others took exception to the word bully and accused the original poster of being a member of the Hate America First Crowd, etc. They insisted they were the genuine conservatives, since they were preserving America from the terrorists while the anti-war faction was inviting our destruction.
Without getting into the pros and cons of first strike, pre-emptive attack and advanced concepts such as MAD, I believe it is necessary that we FReepers understand which way the conservative movement has drifted since the end of the Cold War.
I have a vague memory of that thread too.
There is an interesting discussion of neo-conservatism and paleo-conservatism at the weblog of Harvard Law School's Federalist Society (if you can get beyond the fact that it combines three great banes of society: Harvard, lawyers, and student politicians). Interesting quote there:
"I have been, and am still, a traditional conservative, focusing on three general freedoms- economic, social, and political ... Russel Kirk's The Conservative Mind, published [in 1953] was also important to me. Kirk gave the conservative viewpoint an intellectual foundation and respectability it had not attained in modern society ... [Kirk] declared that religion, family, and private property and its yield, as well as law and order, were the foundations of a conservative society ... 'My kind of Republican Party is committed to a free state, limited central power, a reduction in bureaucracy, and a balanced budget'" Goldwater, pp. 109-112. I think this summarizes mainstream conservatism as well as any other statement and I don't understand everyone's fascination with a war on the fringes.
That pretty much does sum up the common understanding of conservatism. The neos are too quick to increase the power of the federal government, when we ought to be trying to reduce it. I don't think we can or should repeal everything done since 1964 or 1932 or 1913 or 1860 or 1787. Practicality and responsibility dictate that some federal agencies will remain. Anarchy is not a conservative goal, and conservatives will have to make peace with some forms of federal regulation and oversight. But that doesn't mean being enthusiastic over increaching the scope and reach of government power.
The article is fascinating, but I don't trust the New Republic very much about conservatives. What's significant is that all this has been obscured by the shift of debate to foreign and military affairs. When the dust clears, we may well find Kristol's neo-conservatism enthrowned as the new conservative orthodoxy, or we may find a bitter battle over domestic policy and the size and role of the state.
Like the gingham dog and the calico cat, neos and paleos, lovers of TR and FDR on one side and haters of Lincoln and Hamilton on the other may end up devouring each other, leaving the way open for political leaders who directly address the voter, rather than courtiers who seek to become power brokers. Goldwater and Reagan, do seem to be a good guide. Though they were most critical of the general trend of government intervention since FDR, I don't think they opposed environmental protection or the regulation of banks and financial markets.
As for a Bull Moose party, it would be a disaster for the Republican Party, which is why it appeals to Benedict Arnold "War Hero" McCain. Two years out from the presidential election, it looks like Bush has the political skills to ward off any such eventuality, however.
What has happened to U.S.? Posted by UnBlinkingEye
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/761886/posts?page=1,50
While UnBlinkingEye was the biggest whiner about peace at any cost a couple of others joined in. The worst of them was a Ruskie called Stavka2.