Posted on 12/06/2010 10:24:01 AM PST by Academiadotorg
Because the conservatives most likely to be employed in academia are of the neo variety, students may not get an accurate picture of conservatism or, for that matter, America.
In fairness, because many neoconservatives are reconstructed leftists, they can counter the Campus Left in ways that more mild-mannered conservative Ph.D.’s could or would. “The neocons have waged a matchless intellectual war against the practices of America’s tenured radicals,” C. Bradley Thompson writes in Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea. “They have been trenchant critics of the major ideas that have dominated America’s universities since the 1960s, such as nihilism, relativism, historicism, and egalitarianism; they have been on the front lines of the culture war, opposing intellectual trends such as feminism, multiculturalism, environmentalism, postmodernism, deconstructionism and political correctness; and they have challenged the intellectual integrity of politically correct academic programs such as women’s, black, Latino, and queer studies as well as any other kind of ideologically motivated academic programs that now define the American university.”
“The neocons have been particularly good at demonstrating how these ideas have percolated through American culture to affect deleteriously the manners and mores of ordinary Americans.” It’s when their own ideas percolate culturally that neoconservatives inflict nearly irreparable harm.
“Remarkably, at the top of the neocons pantheon of American heroes are three individuals who did as much to destroy American’s individual rights republic as any three figures in American history: Herbert Croly, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt,” Thompson writes. “The is the same Herbert Croly who bragged that his political philosophy was ‘flagrantly socialistic both in its methods and its objects,’
You're right in that the definition usually confers that connotation, but is wrong.
Down-thread it's defined as, "simply a means to justify war...In fact, neoconservativism is actually a liberal justification - nation building."
On this definition, I concur.
Again, I agree.
"Neoconism" is about "global" visions and policies - NOT about national and American visions.
Whioch also means the same thing as taking on all dictatorships around the world. So how is that liberal?
After 9/11 I could sum up my foreign policy as such:
“Death to All Dictators”
That is hardly liberal. I would say it is the BS appeasement attitude of those who think we can get along with dictatorships like Ron Paul and Bucchanon that are suffering from some sort of liberal delusion. Isolationism is not the answer.
American isolationism is not the answer. We will always be a target and dictatorships are the enemy.
Unnecessary American interventionism is not the answer either.
"Nation Building" is not enumerated anywhere in the US constitution, nor the responsibility of the US taxpayer to finance.
Globalist policies are killing US sovereignty and draining valuable resources.
Do you believe the trillion dollars spent in Iraq was a worthy investment?
The liberals use it as a code word for a Jewish Conservative. Check out peaceskank Cindy Sheehan, for example.
It is only the author and others who write articles like his, NOT "the Neocons" themselves, who claim, the troika identified above as "the top of the neocons pantheon of American heroes".
Instead of reading the Ultra-Libertarian critics of "Neocons" to learn what the "Neocons" think and believe, and instead of reading their critics out-of-context critiques, you should read the writings of "neocons" directly.
When the author says: “The neocons have waged a matchless intellectual war against the practices of America’s tenured radicals,”, the reader is given the impression that that is a "Neconservative" battle, when it is a Conservative battle that "Neoconservatives" joined, along with other Conservatives.
Lastly: There is no current active link at the "Accuracy in Media" website, for the text you quoted, searching on either the author, "Malcolm A. Klein", or the author he cited, "C. Bradley Thompson", or the tile of what Mr. Thompson wrote "Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea".
If you are going to bring something to discuss, you need to provide the source, so that readers can read the entire text, and make their own judgments, on their own.
“Death to All Dictators”
In a odd twist, some feel the current leader of the US is becoming a "dictator." Never mind - I'm sure it's just my imagination.
Maybe it IS the answer to stay out of others’ affairs and defend our own borders, I don’t know the answer.
FWIW, I supported the Iraq war at the time and even bought into the idea of spreading democracy around the world. I have since changed my mind and I feel the effort was a waste of a whole lot of money. I don’t think Saddam was a threat to us and again, we got nothing out of it. It would be much easier to swallow the pill had gas prices not tripled in that period. Just a bad taxpayer investment IMO.
It was worth the effort.
“Our contest is not just if we ourselves shall be free, but if there is to be a refuge on Earth for civil and religious liberty” Samual Adams.
Looks like we are on the exact same page.
Saddam Hussein was a serious threat to this nation and the war in Iraq has been necessary and only the future though of course will tell what is and what is not worth it.
So then I guess you agree with the Paulites and other so-called conservatives who throw around the ‘neo-con’ label that Iran has a right to nuclear weapons and is no threat to us?
No, I don’t blindly throw around the neo-con label because I know what the word means. I agree with Ron Paul on some things, but I am not a Paulite. There is no black or white. I would rather save our money in case a REAL threat arises (such as China, Russia, or Germany) instead of spending a trillion dollars to take out a third world dictator that could maybe hit a low flying helicoptor with a bottle rocket.
Exactly.
The events of July 16th, 1945 at the White Sands Proving Grounds in the New Mexico desert effectively destroyed American isolationism as a foreign policy strategy.
“and are by-in-large inside-the-beltway elitists and academics”
And that opinion is brought out by what facts?
Anyone could use some of the names of other “Conservative” writers and thinkers, among the names of publicly well-known Conservatives, and among those not recognized as “neocons”, and using some simple search tools link their policy positions to the policy positions of some prominent incumbent office holders in Washington D.C., and make the same claim. Would that prove those individuals either represent all “Conservatives” or would it prove those persons are simply “elitist academics” directly tied to those prominent incumbents? No.
Conspiracy theories are lazy excuses for not doing your own research, analysis and independent forming of your own opinion.
Academia is an elitist environment - a predominately Leftists elitist environment.
However, having come from that environment does not make one “an elitist” and in the case of most well known Conservative thinkers and writers who have been in academia in some way, in the past or currently (like Thomas Sowell) it most often has made them refugees, or hostages, not “elitists”, of that environment.
“Neo-con” for awhile meant Jews who supported Bush’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That drove Libs nuts, and they couldn’t call them “Dirty Jews”, so they had to come up with a fresh name to denigrate.
I can't understand, much less explain it. Any idea where he picked up this blind spot?
AMEN! You DO know the answer. As American troops were dispatched half-way around the world guarding the Iraqi border, ours was inexplicably a sieve.
FWIW, I supported the Iraq war at the time and even bought into the idea of spreading democracy around the world. I have since changed my mind and I feel the effort was a waste of a whole lot of money. I don’t think Saddam was a threat to us and again, we got nothing out of it.
It takes courage to admit this boondoggle of a misadventure was an ill-advised miscalculation by our CFR-neocon strategists. Saddam's demise did nothing much to rally the Iraqi people. ITMT, our troops behaved magnificently - the end result is NO reflection on them or their A-1 performance.
The truth is, the aftermath has helped cost America our wealth, our prestige, and our faith in those who make such decisions on behalf of We The People.
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.