Posted on 03/19/2003 7:57:38 AM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
"I respect and admire the French, who have been a far greater nation than we shall ever be, that is, if greatness means anything loftier than money and bombs."
— THOMAS FLEMING, "HARD RIGHT," MARCH 13, 2003
rom the very beginning of the War on Terror, there has been dissent, and as the war has proceeded to Iraq, the dissent has grown more radical and more vociferous. Perhaps that was to be expected. But here is what never could have been: Some of the leading figures in this antiwar movement call themselves "conservatives."
These conservatives are relatively few in number, but their ambitions are large. They aspire to reinvent conservative ideology: to junk the 50-year-old conservative commitment to defend American interests and values throughout the world — the commitment that inspired the founding of this magazine — in favor of a fearful policy of ignoring threats and appeasing enemies.
And they are exerting influence. When Richard Perle appeared on Meet the Press on February 23 of this year, Tim Russert asked him, "Can you assure American viewers . . . that we're in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?" Perle rebutted the allegation. But what a grand victory for the antiwar conservatives that Russert felt he had to air it.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Funny, the only thing I have ever put forward on this thread is that I think this administration is in the Empire building mode....please pray tell oh wise one, how that can be construed as anti-semitism?
Are you telling us this perverse political spasm some label "neo-con nitwittery" espouses world conquest?
It is refreshing to see some honesty around here in terms of policy debate. When libertarians and paleos complain about neocon plans for empire, imperialism and colonialism they are greeted with derision because the new model of these things does not meet the traditional dictionary definition. Of course neocons have written articles about empire not being a dirty word and the virtues of colonialism but that doesn't stop some around here from denying the existence of this philosophy and current goals. It is kind of frustrating to argue a point about something that "doesn't" exist to the sparring partner.
Personally I do not support the idea of a global government run by the US or the UN, nor US empire or whatever it is called but at least it is finally there in black and white on FR. Thank you.
War is a great clarifier. It forces people to take sides. The paleoconservatives have chosen — and the rest of us must choose too. In a time of danger, they have turned their backs on their country. Now we turn our backs on them."
I'll say it. Loud and proud. It's time for FreeRepublic to turn its back on the proponents of the ideas and the "leaders" of the paleocon movement, as described in the article that is the subject of this post.
Enough.
Enough of their thinly vieled anti-semitism and their vehement and incoherent rationalizations when called on the carpet for it.
Enough of their racism and religious bigotry.
Enough of their pessimism and anti-Americanism. We had our fill of talk of "inevitable decline" and the "end of the American epoch" during the 70's. The far-left was wrong then, and these paleo's are wrong now.
For the love of God, enough of their historical distortions (holocaust denial, Lincoln=Hitler, etc.).
Enough of the fractious, divisive and self-defeating mannerisms and techniques.
I advocate an explicit litmus test for continued participation on FreeRepublic. Denounce the Rockwell/Sobran/Buchanan/Francis, et. al. axis of stupidity and defeatism or face expulsion. Advocate their ideas or quote approvingly the nonsense spewed at their many internet portals of political sludge and get the ole heave-ho.
We're in a war. It's not an imperial war. It's a war for our survival as a nation in a world in which our enemies possess and seek the most destructive weapons imaginable. The time for tolerating this poison within the conservative movement is long past.
As my father, the WWII vet said to me the other night, real patriots believe the American Revolution should be exported with a passion. Freedom is not just for Americans. The world will be safer if more human beings live in democratic nations.
This is a choice for us to make. I've made mine.
As Samuel Adams said, "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms." Dad thinks that somewhere else, Adams clarified that he didn't want to stop in colonial America, that if we believed enough in what we were doing as we threw off the British rule, we would take it to the rest of the world like unstoppable firebrands.
But dad makes it clear that when we export American liberty, we need to show other peoples how to fight for their own freedom. We can't just hand it to them, or they'll let it slip away. If people don't shed their own blood to be free, they have no idea what it means.
My dad has a purple heart. I can't type anymore because I can't see the screen. I will write more on this later when I've tracked down Samuel Adams' words my father is trying to remember from reading them 50 years ago.
Frum's strategy here involves wrapping himself in the flag and making a fetish out of "sides," rather than examining the broader implications of proposed policies. There is a case to be made that the administration's approach doesn't represent our own best interest. And dubious political alliances and racial views aren't any monopoly of paleocons. There's always been a place for them in National Review. The desire to remake the world, power worship, and arrogance of the neo- and NR-cons certainly deserves criticism and perhaps reproach.
At the core of American conservatism has long been a skepticism about the project of forcibly democratizing the world. There's always been debate about just what the "real America" was and whether it could simply be identified with GNP or world power, as well as a tension between the local and the global, between the institutions of a particular society and global ideologies and values. It may be that such skepticism about remaking the world must be overcome now, as it was during past wars and struggles, but skeptics and critics shouldn't be silenced by charges of disloyalty or lack of patriotism. Historically, much of American conservatism reflects their view.
I don't have any use for Fleming, Rockwell and their camp. Francis is brilliant, but hardly an appealing or worthy character. The same is more or less true of Gottfried. The paleocons have squandered whatever chances they've had to make a difference in American politics. They've acted too much out of emotion and pique. They've thoughtlessly embraced some questionable assumptions and causes.
But reading National Review lately, it seems to have been taken over by a similar narrow, self-promoting, ideological clique. There isn't any space in their pages for those who are critical of their own dubious assumptions about the likely consequences of their policies.
At National Review, small-town, main street conservatism has taken a backseat to dreams of global empire. Hence the appeal of Buchanan to some who grew up with such Middle American conservatism. There are no "realcons" -- no faction that represents an authentic, "real conservatism" -- nor could there be. But it does look like a substantial part of the American conservative base -- by no means just bigots and fringers -- has been dumped by NR in its drive to become the house journal of the new American elite.
In a decade, all these hucksters and clowns from Rockwell to Frum, Fleming to Hanson, Raimondo to Goldberg will have been forgotten or universally reviled. Either conservatives will outgrow such food fights and come to address the real problems of Americans, or they'll end up back on the fringes of political discourse.
The paleocon/paleolibertarian vision of chopping up the federal government, and perhaps the country as well, won't come to pass. It's always been more a stupid emotional reaction than a realistic plan. If some government programs are repealed it will be because the average voter is convinced that they no longer serve their purpose, not because one ideological orthodoxy wins out over another.
But today's neocon neo-imperialists are bound to look worse and worse in the future as their deceptions and arrogance are revealed. Just as we have a hard time today understanding why sauerkraut, hamburgers and frankfurters were renamed in 1917, a lot of today's hysteria will baffle us later. Just as we wonder about Wilson's or FDR's or LBJ's rosy expectations in 1917 or 1942 or 1965 -- even if we support their wars -- we'll be puzzled for a long time about today's millenarian rhetoric, even if we go along with GWB's decision.
I envision something like the relationship of France and Monaco. The US will run it's internal system and will run all the foreign policy and military policy for the world. What other nations want to do internally should not be our concern, as long as they are incapable of any external actions.
SO9
To the extent you value your continued participation on this site, you should thank your lucky stars that I have nothing to say about it.
I just don't think that ilk has squat to add to a conservative discussion board and/or movement worth the name. Certainly, they add nothing in terms of being able to win elections and implement policy. And, increasingly, its obvious they have nothing to add to a purely intellectual discussion, other than base, gutter generalizations and bitter cynicism.
We're better than that here.
Never liked Mr. Buchanan. Justin Raimando is just another gay writer with a chip on his shoulder. I like some of Joe Sobran's , but he's been lately consumed with the "jewish thing". I like some of Lew Rockwell , especially the free-market stuff from him and other authors who contribute to his site. I also like Thomas Sowell, Michael Pierce, George Will (on occasion), Cal Thomas, and some others.
But why do you ask? Does it make a difference who I read? Will I be blackballed by guys like you who can't stand "little kids running on your well-manicured lawn"?
Ooops! My mistake. What a pompous maroon!
Perhaps your vision is nothing more than a specter from the evil abyss.
Milton told us in 'Paradise Lost', "He who conquers by force, conquers but half his foe".
What makes you think the any half a$$ed empire will not devastate humanity as all others have?
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.