Posted on 01/20/2004 9:24:58 AM PST by Theodore R.
Purging the Neocons
January 6, 2004 Did you know that the word neoconservative often shortened to neocon is an ethnic slur? Neither did I, but some, er, conservative pundits have set me straight.
David Brooks of the New York Times says of the people labeled neocons that con is short for conservative and neo is short for Jewish. So when other people call these people neocons, you see, theyre really calling them Jews, which for some reason is anti-Semitic.
This must come as a surprise to Irving Kristol, who long ago cheerfully, indeed proudly, accepted the term. Though Jewish himself, he never suggested that you had to be Jewish to be a neocon. His Irish friend Daniel Patrick Moynihan was also called a neocon in those days, as are a number of other notable non-Jews today.
Kristol is still known as the godfather of neoconservatism and in a famous bon mot defined a neoconservative as a liberal who has been mugged by reality. The neocons were known for a qualified skepticism about the welfare state, though, unlike traditional conservatives, they accepted it in principle. Kristol wanted to ditch a lot of conservative baggage about limited government, the free market, and the U.S. Constitution. Nothing particularly Jewish about all that. (Kristols son William, by the way, is also a leading neocon.)
So whats the problem? Well, the neocons broadly agreed with conservatives about foreign policy. They were anti-Communist and wanted an activist, some would say aggressive, U.S. foreign policy. And a lot of them, many of whom happened to be Jewish, especially wanted the United States to fight Israels enemies. In the last few years, neocon has become synonymous with these particular neocons, though its perfectly possible to adopt the neocon philosophy in principle without being either Jewish or pro-Israel.
In the real world, people cant help noticing that a pro-Israel faction has come to dominate the neocon movement. To say this, however, is to court the charge of bigotry. I like to define a bigot as one who practices sociology without a license. There are certain social realities which it behooves one to discuss in euphemisms and circumlocutions. To talk about them bluntly is bigotry; to talk about them in academic lingo may be permissible.
Raising alarms about neocon influence is sometimes also called a new form of McCarthyism. But of course lots of things hundreds, would be a safe estimate have been branded a new form of McCarthyism, including any observation that communists and their sympathizers actually did infiltrate the administration of Franklin Roosevelt.
The real Joe McCarthy rose to prominence by affirming, none too academically, not only that there were Reds under the bed, but that a lot of them were in the bed with their pinko friends. This forced liberals to make sure that they kept a careful distance from Stalins little helpers, who had infiltrated the liberal movement and often hid behind liberal fronts. The Reds often found liberal causes handy for their own purposes.
Is there a lesson here for the neocons? I think so. Like the liberals of yore, they have carelessly allowed their movement to be infiltrated by Zionist partisans and agents who have brought suspicion on all of them. And just as the liberals of McCarthys day had to purge Communists from their ranks in order to preserve their good name, its up to patriotic American neocons surely the great majority to weed out the Israel-firsters among them.
At stake is the good name of the neoconservative philosophy. It would be a disaster to its principles for the general public to get the false impression that those principles are nothing but a front for agents of a foreign power who want to trick us into wars against our own interests.
Any genuine political philosophy can stand on its own feet. It must never be reduced to any particular interest if it is to have a broad appeal to ordinary people. The exposure of people calling themselves neocons (or taking shelter behind the label) as chums of the Israeli Likud threatens to discredit all the truly principled neoconservatives, who must now show that they represent a universal creed, not a narrow sect.
Otherwise, neoconservatives may find themselves once again mugged by reality.
The problem, Joe, is that the term "neocon" is so sloppy and ill-defined that for some people it probably does mean "Jewish." It has become stylish for pundits all across the political spectrum to berate the "neocons" for sins from stock market manipulation to warmongering, but each of them seems to mean a different group of people. It's a term that ought to be dropped off at the retirement home for useless, feel-good neologisms.
I would agree. I recently came across a poll showing tha slightly more than 50% of American Jews were against the war in Iraq, a war that ostensibly indirectly benefits Israel. It stands to reason that the vast majority of those who identify themselves as neocons would be non-Jews.
Where did you come across this poll?
What is really showed what that 50% of the people self-identifying as "Jews" who were selected to participate in this poll were against the war in Iraq.
It does not in any way represent the opinions of "50%" of American Jews since 100% of American Jews did not participate in this poll.
Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
Hang out with Holocaust deniers, get people to believe you're an anti-semite.
Most Paleos are traditionally very sympathetic to the Palestinians.This is a function of the knee-jerk antipathy towards anything neocons support. Other are Arabists because they want to appease the Arabs/Muslims and.or view Israel as the cause of our problems in the region. On the otherhand, virtually all paleos who believe that defending Western civilization trumps the isolationist impulse are pro-Israel. Some go so far as to support transfer as the solution for the Palestinian problem. My friend Robert Locke was banned from TAC over this issue. Other Zionist paleos include Lawrence Auster (and most people posting on his blog, ), John Derbyshire, and John O'Sullivan. There are even Jewish Zionist paleos including Don Feder and Ilana Mercer.
Any genuine political philosophy can stand on its own feet. It must never be reduced to any particular interest if it is to have a broad appeal to ordinary people.
Sobran is just plain wrong. The word "neoconservatism" is used in two rather different senses.
"Neoconservatism" as an ideology will be around for a while. It refers first to to the to the disillusionment of former liberals with liberal social experiments, second to the efforts of conservatives to adapt to changing circumstances, most particularly to the modern "mixed economy," and third to a more realistic view of foreign affairs. "Neoconservatism" in this sense does have a broader appeal, and has influenced people who would never claim to be neocons, even people who hate neocons.
The word is also used in less "philosophical" contexts to refer to the foreign policies (and much less often domestic policies) advocated by a given circle of thinkers and activists most commonly known as neocons. One can draw on or adhere to the philosophy without advocating the specific policy recommendations of these thinkers.
It may be that neoconservative foreign policy will decay or collapse. No foreign policy line lasts forever, and there have been real problems with the neocon point of view. But such a decline or fall isn't going to throw everyone into Sobran's political camp -- not by a long shot.
Following your link, it does appear that Sobran quotes Shahak concerning unflattering depictions of gentiles in the Talmud. It is my understanding that the Torah is the main text of Judaism and the Talmud is merely a collection of Rabbi opinion, so I wouldn't necessarily be surprised that some un-pc stuff got in there, but that doesn't make Sobran a liar - just someone with perhaps a bit of a jewish obsession. Here is a link to an authoritative jewish source that pretty much concedes that what Sobran says about the Talmud is essentially true. http://www.daatemet.org/daathalacha/en_gentiles.html
As far as Buckley getting a pass on his critisizing of Israel, I assume people cut him a break because he did after all dump Sobran and basically called Pat Buchanan an anti-semite. What seems to occur in these cases is that somebody starts out dissing Israel, then the attacks and name calling set in, until finally the person who has been set up thusly becomes even more hostile and obsessed with Jews. Kind of a vicious cycle.
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.