Posted on 08/16/2006 8:36:15 PM PDT by n-tres-ted
Neoconservatism is hard to pin down as discrete political theory; Mr. Podhoretz [prefers] "tendency." In any case, as a practical matter, it denotes the mentality of those who moved from somewhere on the political left to somewhere on the right, primarily during the late '70s. It had "two ruling passions," according to Mr. Podhoretz. On the one hand, the neocons were repulsed by the countercultural '60s radicalism that came to dominate the American liberal establishment. On the other, they argued for a more assertive, muscular foreign policy (at the time in response to Soviet expansionism). ...
The "war on terror," he argues, ought to be rightly understood as "World War IV," demanding a new set of policies and ideas that will allow the U.S. to cope under drastically altered conditions.
The point of his voluminous WWIV essays ... is to limn the ways in which George Bush has done precisely that. "The military face of the strategy is pre-emption and the political face is democratization," he says. "The stakes are nothing less than the survival of Western civilization, to the extent that Western civilization still exists, because half of it seems to be committing suicide." ...
Does the president understand? ... Hasn't the administration, on the more intractable questions of Syria and Iran, shown by and large the same weakening of resolve? Mr. Podhoretz winces. The question seems to set his teeth on edge. "There are people who ask George Bush to do everything at once," he declares, "instead of picking his shots and moving at a politically viable pace. It's nice as an intellectual exercise, but what is the point of demanding things that no democratic political leader, not even George Bush, could conceivably do at this time? To my mind it's a kind of right-wing utopianism."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Previously someone posted a link to the 75 page essay on WWIV. I've made it through 30 pages.. interesting work.
Neo con accomplishments:
1. End of Taliban government in Afghanistan
2. End of Iraqi Baathist government and its genocidal regime.
3. Capture and trial of Saddam Hussein
4. Pacification and democratization of Liberia with first woman president on the continent.
5. Killing of Zarqawi on the battlefields of Iraq.
6. 60 nation PSI program interdicting North Korean traffic and bringing to an end the WMD program of Libya.
7. Ascendant regional isolation of North Korea by Japan, South Korea and China as negotiated by the US.
8. John bolton (his great acts of crushing UN stupidity are too numerous to name)
9. No major terror attacks on US soil since 911.
10. Pro democracy movements in Georgia, Ukraine, and Lebanon [don't care if Lebanon is too cowardly to presently defend it].
11. Increased terror cooperation from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
12. Increased global alliance with India to attack terrorism and counter weight China.
enough for now
Do you have a link? Thanks.
The left of FDR were pro-labor, but they were anti-fascit and pro-American. The left of McGovern was anti-American and pro (Vietnamese flavor) fascist. Many traditional leftists who viewed the role of the left as supporting "labor" could not stomach any more association with the "new left" and their thinly veiled marxism and support for evil.
applied to the hippie 60's crowd who got religion in the 70's
True in my case.
If you don't think there are people out there who think that the threat of terrorism was made up by Bush to scare us, think again! My spouse and I went to work out today at the community center. An older couple was there watching FOX about the lady who freaked out on the plane. My spouse asked them about it, and they said, "Oh it is just FOX lying again making a big deal out of nothing. It went downhill from there. They started going on about how 9/11 never happened, it was a controlled explosion, Bush killed 5,000 of our boys in Iraq. My spouse was getting pretty hot under the collar. There was shouting match and they left the center. Anyway those people exist and this was an older couple who should have better sense. IMHO.
So-called "Neo" Conservatism is I think a natural evolution of conservatism throughout post-World War II and Cold War America. It was seen that the greatest threat to our classical beliefs was the threat of a Soviet invasion, and it also stems from World War II veterans and military people taking the courage and morals they had on the battlefield and sticking to the Republican party.
Ironically, the only "neo" idea in the political spectrum is anti-warism.
That would put my definition in the vicinity of Bill Kristol's father. The true definition is approximately around there but the real emergence has come from the left who tried to attempt to associate "neo" conservatism with neo-nazi.
If you go back through the writings of people like Podhoretz, Kristol, etc., you'd probably be quite surprised about how little (if anything) they've written in support of most of the issues that define conservatives in this country.
I think the word neo con has been invented to cover up the fact that liberals have not had a foreign policy for forty years.
Took me till 1989 when I had my first child.
Real parenting makes you grow up and realize we don't want our kids to follow in our 70's footsteps.
In past I've speculated that George W. Bush has at his command a logical outgrowth of information technology. That is, software has been created that does for realpolitik what it has done for countless other complex systems.
George Bush, Sr. was known for the ability to juggle endless numbers of foreign policy "linkages"; the idea that thousands of variables impact every foreign policy decision. But while he was a master at this, it is the old way of doing business.
As was the punchline in an old science fiction story, the humans were confronted with a conundrum: "What if the aliens have a better philosophy than science?"
In this case, what if George W. Bush is able to out-strategize anyone else? Literally turn every setback into a win? To always get what he wants in any international situation, no matter how seemingly disastrous it appears to everyone else?
In one of his first presidential debates, he coined the word "strategery", which gave great amusement to the media at the time. However, what if he had at his disposal a means of strategy so advanced that it was a whole new order of strategy? A system that no one else, not even other republicans, had?
Such a system would need a continual imput of data, and would be cumulative. After several years it would almost seem like a fortune telling machine.
Possible? Glad he's on our side.
I must confess that neoconservatism in practice looks suspiciously like socially conservative socialism.
how is democracy promotion like socialism?
To be honest you need to post the "Neo-Con" failures.
There are a lot of them.
After studying this "Neo" garbage for a long time I have decided that I am proud to remain a "Paleo-Con".
No "reaching across the isle", or "compassionate conservatism" (makes me gag every time I hear it) for me.
The party has lost our fiscal-consevative plank in the platform to the Dem propaganda sheep in wolves clothing.
There are two parts to the ONE word Conservative.
If we lose the social-conservative plank it's all over.
Bkmrk for later.
I am not sure there are any paleo con successes.
The neocon failures seem to be unresolved questions-- which again I don't have anything specific on.
If you're talking about neo-conservatism as an idea, I would disagree, but if you mean it as a MOVEMENT, I know exactly what you mean.
No. It was a self-designation by Cold War Democrats who left that party when the McGovernites gained control. Irving Kristol, father of the Weekly Standard's William Kristol, calls himself the 'godfather' of neoconservatism. On domestic issues neoconservatives retain plenty of their Great Society liberalism.
Actually, the vast majority of them are Iranian. It's hard to get an accurate estimation of their ethnic backgrounds, though, because it's such a mismash of Islamic people (there are even Turks and Czechs in the mix).
Think about tax's, national debt, border security, real wages, actual U.S. job growth, etc.........
11. Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
Both countries were not just doing this prior to WOT-- they were doing it much more. In fact, we were funding it ourselves as a strategy. As a comparative matter, the situation is better under neo con policy.
12. India/ China
I would choose India over China any day. They are and will be a great ally. Their economy will surpass China. They are the new super democracy of the 21st century. They have our back by getting China's back.
Iran and Syria
More neocon brilliance here. We have these great base locations for attacking them at any time. The names of these bases are Afghanistan and Iraq. Take a look at a map. It looks much better now than it ever did. We are battle tested and actively deployed. There will be no warm up-- just instant gratification whenever we want to deliver it.
China is horrible but I think capitalism and christianity will continue to unravel them. India is a solid counterweight. North Korea blew it for China by virtually assuring Japanese re-armament which throws another massive counterweight against China. South Korea grows increasingly conservative as well.
Another neo con achievement of Bush is the building of foreign military forces to assist our future coalitions. Canada is one such example.
I'm not sure, but I think you might be mixing up the father (Norman Podhoretz) with the son (John). The former is no dope.
The US economic position has never been stronger. Realize that I tend to view things from a macro perspective of our GDP which means I tend to ignore "biggest ever . . ." arguments.
I need to see percentages of GDP in order to see negative trends and frankly I don't see it.
We have a 13 trillion dollar economy today-- it will be 20 trillion by 2020. We are economically on fire.
Neo-conservative = ex-democrat i.e. RINO.. Republican in drag...
Your youth excuses your misunderstanding of the subject. Google "Paul Gottfried Irving Kristol" and see what you find.
The problem with the term neoconservative is that it is a term that has been usurped by the left and used as a synonym for Jews. Whenever a leftist rants about "neocons" they generally mean "Jews", such as the way the word "cosmopolitans" was also used to mean Jews.
I have no real problem with the term or the political philosophy, or discussing it with sincerity. But when these wild eyes lefties use it, they mean Jew as in "Jews control the government" etc...
Well said. I see you're no stranger to the subject.
Could be. This excerpt of the article refers only to a "Mr. Podhoretz," and I can't read the rest of it because I don't have a WSJ Online subscription. I just assumed it was John, but it could very well be Norman.
A good observation. 'Social democrats' is often applied to them, and 'Jacobins' as well.
Or, maybe you were about to do that.
The early neocons, of whom Podhoritz is one of, were former TROTSKYITES and most of them, such as Kristol ( Bill's father ) were well into adulthood, if not middle age, in the '60s and early '70s.
Most people tell me I'm wise beyond my years.
Google "Paul Gottfried Irving Kristol" and see what you find.
I know who Kristol is, but I'm really not concerned with things like that. There's no solid truth on how man and his thinking have evolved over the years, only people perceptions and theories of them.
The true neocon, I think, is typified by Norman Podhoretz and David Horowitz. They were not just previously on the left in their thinking - they were leftist radicals. But in Vietnam and its aftermath, they saw that their leftist comrades were lying about major things (such as the bloodbath following our bailing out on South Vietnam after the Dems cut off funds) to keep their ideology together. Once they committed themselves to recognizing the truth, they had to abandon the left. But they brought with them a very vigorous thought process that has reinvigorated conservatism and made us stronger and more thoughtful. As Norman P. says, ideas matter.
Beautiful!
Excellent list and there's more...
Any failures? I think a few.
Yup, I know what you mean. And there are those on the right, who ought to be with us, who are the "conservative utopians" who think the president must do everything precisely when they would like, regardless of the organizational problems that have to be overcome.
You again? Once again, the real number is closer to 80%, not 10.
If you have the numbers, please post a link.
The only one jew-baiting here is you, stinky.
But then you have never been a stickler for observing the prohibition against bearing false witness- is that a special dispensation you get from being a "deacon"?
Anything in particular that makes you think that is the case? I'm interested in your thinking.
I've been inclined to think they tend towards supply-side economic principles, which is far removed from socialism. Any specifics you can think of?
This article is mostly on the different types of guns and weaponry used in combat, but it ends with an analysis on the overall situation. A very long read, but worth it:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/133585.php
It's a little dated, but the numbers have been verified for me by everyone I know who's actually in Iraq right now.
We've been through this before.
No false witness here. Just stopped you from embarrassing yourself.
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.