Neocons See Bush Speech As Victory

NewsMax ^ | 1/23/05 | Carl Limbacher

[wagglebee]

President Bush's Inaugural address may have bothered traditional conservatives but it brought joy to the hearts of the neoconservative wing of the Republican party, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Described by the Los Angeles Times as "that determined band of hawkish idealists who promoted the U.S. invasion of Iraq and now seek to bring democracy to the rest of the Middle East," the neocons couldn't have been more enthusiastic about the policy enunciated by the President.

In one dramatic gesture, the President speech revived what had been seen as the sagging fortunes of the neocons who had virtually disappeared from the political scene during the presidential campaign as a result of continuing problems with the U.S. role in Iraq - a role frequently blamed on the neocons.

As noted by the Times, for at least a year now the neocons have kept low profiles and toned down their rhetoric. During the campaign, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, one of the leading and most coherent voices for invading Iraq and a prominent neocon, virtually disappeared from public view. He has reemerged with the announcement that he will keep his top Defense Department post.

So also with other well known neocons gathered around the President who had been rumored to be disillusioned with the group. Once Bush proclaimed in his inaugural address that the central purpose of his second term would be the promotion of democracy "in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world" - a key neoconservative goal, the Times reported that "suddenly, the neocons were ascendant again."

"This is real neoconservatism," Robert Kagan told the Times. Kagan, a foreign policy expert and a leading exponent of neocon thinking, had sometimes criticized the administration for not being neocon enough. Now he says "It would be hard to express it more clearly. If people were expecting Bush to rein in his ambitions and enthusiasms after the first term, they are discovering that they were wrong."

Not everybody saw it that way. "If Bush means it literally, then it means we have an extremist in the White House," Dimitri Simes told the Times. Simes, president of the Nixon Center, a conservative think tank that espouses the more pragmatic policies of Richard Nixon. "I hope and pray that he didn't mean it[and] that it was merely an inspirational speech, not practical guidance for the conduct of foreign policy."

A top administration insider who met with reporters Friday to explain the meaning of the speech sidestepped a question whether it represented endorsement of neoconservative ideas. "I've never understood what that neoconservative label means, anyway," he said, refusing to be identified by name because, he said: "We should be focusing on the president's words, not mine."

He added that Bush's words making democratization of other countries the center of his foreign policy was the administration's job one. "It is a top priority for his second term," the aide said. "He's raised the emphasis. He's raised the profile. He's made it clear that he's going to turn up the pressure a bit. He's going to try to accelerate the process."

Another senior administration official and prominent neoconservative told the Times Bush's theme reflected several "lessons learned" in the last 30 years. Chief among them, he said, was an argument that neoconservatives often made about the Soviet Union and, more recently, Iraq: that a central goal of the United States should be "systemic change" - changing hostile states' regimes, not merely their policies.

But he also warned, "A policy promoting democracy also has to be a realistic policy. We have to consider what are the risks of overly rapid change? What's the downside?"

According to the Times Irving Kristol, considered by many to be one of the grandfathers of the neoconservative movement, defined the movement as "forward-looking, not nostalgic. cheerful, not grim." In domestic affairs, he wrote, neocons tend to accept the need for a strong federal government, not a weak one.

In foreign policy, he insisted they believe in a broad definition of the national interest, not a narrow one; they are more willing than most traditional conservatives to commit American power, including military power, to such causes as democracy and human rights.

"Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces," Kristol wrote in 2003. "No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary."

Last year The Christian Science Monitor defined neoconservatives as those who "envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the U.S. has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon."

In this capacity, the U.S. would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of 'failed states' or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the U.S. or its interests.

In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the U.S., it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong U.S. leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants."

Giving more credence to the idea that the Inaugural address was essentially a restatement of neocon policy, there were echoes of much of the above, except for the inherent bellicosity, in the President's speech.

Among the other signs of a neocon resurgence, the Times cited a two-hour pre-speech seminar assembled by White House political aide Karl Rove and chief speechwriter Michael Gerson that included several leading neocons - newspaper columnist Charles Krauthammer, Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins University and Victor Davis Hanson of Stanford's Hoover Institution.

Another sign of the administration's bent cited by the Times: the departure of several of the leading realists of the first term, notably Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and his closest aides while leading neoconservatives, including Wolfowitz, are staying. And at least one, National Security Council aide Elliott Abrams, is said to be in line for a more prominent job at the State Department or NSC.

[wagglebee]

Described by the Los Angeles Times as "that determined band of hawkish idealists who promoted the U.S. invasion of Iraq and now seek to bring democracy to the rest of the Middle East," the neocons couldn't have been more enthusiastic about the policy enunciated by the President.

The Los Angeles Slimes will never understand what America is really about. Bush's speech reminded me of Reagan, it was that great.

[Arkinsaw]

The speech was an Inaugural Oratory, not a specific policy speech. The media continues to attempt to spin this as some sort of division in the Republican Party. The reason for that is obvious. They have no power, so their only viable strategy is attempt to divide Republicans so that they have internal difficulty in going forward.

[Mach9]

Could not agree more! VERY upset with Peggy ("over the top") Noonan et al.

[wagglebee]

The leftist media spent eight years under Reagan saying that he was tearing the GOP apart, they didn't understand what was actually happening.

[isthisnickcool]

A search on the term "neocon" on google resulted in about 550,000 hits. A search on "neolib" had only abnout 8,500.

The use of the term "neo" has only been widly used in recent years in the term "NeoNazi". The left and the media are not being subtle.....

[MaxMax]

Im curious, what is the new meaning of neocon these days?
The media uses it as if it should be a degrading insult.
Interesting.

[Alberta's Child]

The term "neo-conservative" has been used to describe that element of the GOP that once considered themselves liberal, but now call themselves "conservative" when it suits their agenda to do so.

The term "neo-liberal" is something of an anachronism, since very few people with an IQ over 80 who ever considered themselves conservative would ever become a liberal in any sense of the word.

[calex59]

I am not sure what a "neocon" is. I am a slightly right of center conservative who believes in American values and spreading freedom around. I don't think Bush meant that we were going to invade every country that wasn't a democratic Republic.

I believe we need to pursue and finish the Iraqi war. I believe we need to keep an eye on Iran , and if need be, take action. I believe in freedom of religion, speech, right to keep and bear arms and all the other freedoms our bill of rights conveys on us.

I believe we need to get out of the UN. I believe that we need more family values in this country. I believe we need to do something about illegal immigration and that means we need to deport ILLEGALS. Illegal being the key word.

I believe in Americans having the freedom we once injoyed retored to us. If that is a neocom I guess I am one. I only vote republican because at this time it is the only party in which some of the leaders believe the way I do and the closest one is Bush, minus the immigration thing and I won't hold that against him. We all have our quirks.

[carlr]

Simes, president of the Nixon Center, a conservative think tank that espouses the more pragmatic policies of Richard Nixon.

This appears to be a contradiction in terms.I don`t think Nixon would qualify as a die heart conservative.He was anti-communist but was from the moderate (Rockefeller)wing of the Republican party.

[wagglebee]

Although Nixon did have the nutcase Pat Buchanan working for him.

[isthisnickcool]

Im curious, what is the new meaning of neocon these days?

I went to dictionary.com and this is the best I could find:

ne·o·con·ser·va·tism also ne·o-con·ser·va·tism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-kn-sûrv-tzm) n. An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s: “The neo-conservatism of the 1980s is a replay of the New Conservatism of the 1950s, which was itself a replay of the New Era philosophy of the 1920s” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

My view is that the left and the MSM are using "neocon" as if it equals "conservative". It's been obvious to me that they use the term "neo" because of the term "neoNazi". If they needed to point out "new (neo) conservatives" why not just say "new conservatives"? Or "newcons"?

They don't call John Kerry a "neoloser". Why not? Would they call this post a "neopost"? Nope.

Sneaky little devils aren't they? Why even use the term in the first place? Nobody on the left or in the MSM using it could likely give any data on how many "new conservatives" there are. But that's not the point anyway. The point, in addition to the Nazi name linkage, is to give people the impression that there are a bunch of "new" conservatives. Which "explains" why Bush won. Whereas the truth is that the vast majority of the country is conservative and always has been.

[Ginifer]

Neoconservatism is a somewhat controversial term referring to the political goals and ideology of the "new conservatives" in the United States. The "newness" refers either to being new to American conservatism (often coming from liberal or socialist backgrounds) or to being part of a "new wave" of conservative thought and political organization.

Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives are characterized by an aggressive stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government.

Neoconservatism is a controversial term whose meaning is widely disputed. The term is used more often by those who oppose "neoconservative" politics than those who subscribe to them; indeed, many to whom the label is applied reject it. The term is sometimes used pejoratively, especially by the self-described paleoconservatives, who oppose neoconservatism from the right. Critics of the term argue that the word is overused and lacks coherent definition. For instance, they note that many so-called neoconservatives vehemently disagree with one another on major issues.

As a rule, the term refers more to journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and institutions affiliated with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and with Commentary and The Weekly Standard than to more traditional conservative policy think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Heritage Foundation or periodicals such as Policy Review or National Review. The neoconservatives, often dubbed the neocons by supporters and critics alike, are credited with or blamed for influencing U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) and George W. Bush (2001-present). Neoconservatives have often been singled out for criticism by opponents of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, many of whom see this invasion as a neoconservative initiative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)

[isthisnickcool]

Hmm...

And who would be the poster boy for this? Ahnold? Sure sounds like him.

[Southern Federalist]

It's funny -- when I was growing up, conservatives were people who wanted to roll back Communism and liberate the captive nations. Now all of a sudden "hawkish idealists" are "neo"-cons. It has clearly become a term that the Left, Republican "moderates" (i.e. the Republicans who lost elections for decades) and the far Right (who lose primaries, not elections) use as a smear.

If "neo-con" can include Krauthammer, Ajami, and Hanson, it can include anyone who believes that America ought to act vigorously on any principle whatsoever. Krauthammer has recently argued against "democratic globalism," Hanson is a conservative populist with an immense sense of history, and I can't imagine what Ajami has done to get on this list besides argue against appeasing Arab dictators and the "Arab street." At least this article found some "neo-cons" who aren't Jews, but that just means that the term has gone from having an ugly implicit meaning to having no meaning whatsoever.

Besides which, the President's speech was not neo-con, it was theo-con. It was based on natural law, as Jody Bottom has pointed out in the best commentary on the speech so far, the belief that the universe has a moral structure so that "interests" cannot in the long run be separated from questions of right and wrong. Nothing Neo about it; it goes back on one side to Plato and Aristotle and on the other side to Moses and the prophets. Nothing the President said precluded a prudent and "realistic" application of moral principle; in fact, he stressed that more than he often has in the past. America does not have unlimited influence, fighting tyranny is the work of generations, there is no one model for democracy, democracy cannot simply be imposed by force of arms, etc., etc.

The opposition to the speech is mainly people who don't want to see that we are fighting a battle as big as the Cold War, one that can't be reduced to small terms or comprehended by small vision. People have all sorts of reasons for not wanting to see this, some innocent, some not, but it's blindness all the same.

[MaxMax]

Thank you for the link.

[Ginifer]

Your more than welcome.

[carlr]

ne·o·con·ser·va·tism also ne·o-con·ser·va·tism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-kn-sûrv-tzm) n. An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s: “The neo-conservatism of the 1980s is a replay of the New Conservatism of the 1950s, which was itself a replay of the New Era philosophy of the 1920s” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

Interesting that "new" conservatism dates back to the 1920s according to this.

[isthisnickcool]

I liked the commentary link you posted.

So, if we look at what Bush was saying and we list the things he "believes" on one side of a ledger what currently organized "religious" or political construct of any size would list as it's "beliefs" things that would be opposite of Bushes?