Putting paleo-conservatives and libertarians like Ron Paul in the same group? That's even a bigger stretch than this:
Posted on 10/03/2007 4:49:06 PM PDT by Forgiven_Sinner
Have America's troubles in Iraq sounded the death knell of neoconservatism, the political ideology that is said to be behind our presence there? Over the past year, there has been no shortage of voices saying so, many with undisguised glee. Abroad, the Times of London heralded "the end of an ideological era in Washington," while the Toronto Globe and Mail reported with satisfaction that neoconservatism has been "decisively wiped out." Observers here at home have agreed. To the historian Douglas Brinkley, Democratic electoral victories in November 2006 spelled "the death of the neoconservative movement," while at National Review Online John Derbyshire wrote that "all the buzz is that neoconservatism is as dead as mutton."
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
The author basically says neoconservatism was the right approach to communism and has proven to be the right approach to the war on terror. Even its critics advocate similar policies.
He defines neoconservatism as a moral approach to foreign policy, recognizing evil nations and acting accordingly, trusting in the US military rather than diplomacy and the UN.
Among the main goals of the paleoPaulistinians is to restore a sense of cowardice in foreign policy that would shame Cain, a paralysis arising from reluctance to deal death blows to those abroad who deserve them, a desire to play economic and trade "Let's Make a Deal" (ill-gotten gains uber alles) regardless of the price to be paid by others, a desire to cut military expenditures as easily as one might cut wasteful social programs, a desire to recruit those amorals on domestic policy (pro-aborts and pro-perversion types) to dilute GOP morality and get back to a miniGOP of the green eyeshade and sleeve garter variety.
Thanks for posting a most worthwhile article.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Nothing “neo” to me.
I am the same person I was when I voted for Reagan.
Never understood this label. Seems a label the left takes delight in.
Us Neocons are never wanted until we’re needed.
Putting paleo-conservatives and libertarians like Ron Paul in the same group? That's even a bigger stretch than this:
Thanks for posting. Puts neoconservitism in perspective rather than defining it by a few recent names in the news.
When he wants to say nice things about the neocons' goal of exporting democracy he mentions that there were a bunch of elections held soon after Iraq was invaded.
Then when he wants to warn against Fukuyama's position with regard to Islam, he mentions all of the nasty Islamists who came to power through the very same elections that he had previously lauded.
And this is just one of many weasely self-contradictions in the piece.
He claims that some neocons wanted to put in a dictator right after Saddam was deposed, even mentioning Chalabi. But Chalabi was the one that claimed there would be no need for lots of troops as we were going to be welcomed by peasants with flowers in their arms.
He claims that the liberals and the realists have no strategic plan and so there is nowhere else to go but neoconservatism.
A quick Google search reveals libraries of books and articles written by liberals and realists on what we should be doing instead of invading and getting bogged down in Iraq.
And the greatest nonsense is that he tries to isolate neoconservatives from particular strategic decisions, e.g. de-Baathification, insufficient troop levels, disbanding the Iraqi army, etc.
Either the neocons are pure idealists and should never have been trusted to launch a real war, or else what pragmatism they have is insufficient and likewise should have disqualified them as warmongers.
The whole idealist vs. realist debate is a silly canard.
If there is no reason for a particular foreign policy then there will be no motivation to craft a pragmatic plan. If there is no pragmatic plan, then no ideal, no matter how lofty, will be successfully implemented.
We need both ideals and pragmatism.
We failed to create a democracy in Russia, and we have failed to create a democracy in Iraq.
China and Singapore do not have pure democracies yet seem to be on tracks which will result in their countries approximating ours a lot sooner than Russia and Iraq.
Evidently the neocons were unable to actualize their ideals and only made a mess of things in the process.
This is a just a silly apology for all their nonsense.
Neoconservatism may be a philosophy, but I suspect that there is something much more powerful underlying it.
Years ago, when George W. Bush was running for President against Al Gore, NBC Saturday Night Live made fun of him at a mock debate, for using the word “strategery”, when he meant “strategy”.
However, inadvertently, they may have stumbled on to something.
Typically, people tend to think tactically, in limited and linear terms. But they are invariably beaten by those who can intellectually reach out and grasp possibilities in a non-limited and non-linear manner. It is somewhat like the difference between playing checkers and playing chess.
The best strategists in the world are like chess masters, thinking many moves ahead for both themselves and their opponents. This is the very essence of “realpolitik” at the international scale, and has been since time immemorial. The better strategist usually wins.
But here is a good question. What if somebody thought up an even grander way of strategy? Something as far beyond chess as chess is above checkers.
George H.W. Bush was renowned for the complexity of his intrigues, as both head of the CIA and perhaps the most accomplished ambassador to China the US has ever had, with an understanding of “the Chinese way”, as good or better than that of the Chinese themselves.
George H.W. Bush’s strategy added the concept of “linkages” to the chess game of realpolitik. Linkages are all of the connections between nations, not just the particular subject of debate at hand. Between two powerful countries, there might be thousands, or tens of thousands of important linkages. So in his strategy, you would never play just a single game, but a vast number of games simultaneously, to achieve not a win or loss in a single game, but an overall win among the vast number of games being played.
To this, I believed that George W. Bush added his own enhancements. The greatest of these is to never accept a “loss”, as such. Instead, a setback is just a disguised opportunity in strategy. And one that needs to be exploited.
But between these two men, and their brain trusts, I believe they have created a strategy above strategy, a 3rd dimension to the game that nobody else has. And as such, calling it “strategy” is no longer appropriate.
It should be called “strategery”. It should be as associated with George W. Bush as the word “normalcy” is to Warren G. Harding.
And hopefully, strategery will be uniquely in the US foreign affairs arsenal for a long, long time, before any foreign power even learns of it.
One of the greatest lessons of economics is the concept of "sunken cost": just because you have lost a lot of money in a particular investment doesn't mean you should continue pooring money down that rat hole if the investment going forward is a bad idea.
Never accepting a loss in the political realm is even more dangerous than in the economic realm where all that is lost is money.
The best thing Germany and Japan did after WWII is to accept the fact that they had lost and could then go on to reform their governments and economies and be welcomed into the free market and international community.
Do we want Al Qaeda to adopt this policy of never accepting a loss? or China?
The idea that Bush wants to make the world safe for democracy is silly enough given the realities of the world. But claiming that in conducting this policy he will never accept a setback of any kind is sheer lunacy.
Not at all.
materialism (of any variety) < “economics” < a < b < c < d <.... < defense of Western Civilization < morality for its own sake.
If you can get other private citizens to join you, then you will more likely be successful.
If you expect all of this work to be subsidized by the U.S. Government, then you are going to need to get a consensus of Americans to agree with you.
Calling everybody that disagrees with you a coward is not a very successful strategy for gaining such support.
Even if I agreed with you that making the world safe for democracy is a good thing, then neocons are obviously not the best people to implement the plan.
Rather than being like Nixon (all strategy and no rationale), the neocons are all rationale and no strategy.
Going into a country that had been kept together artificially by a vicious dictator for decades, removing the dictator, and expecting the country NOT to go back into chaos was sheer stupidity.
You need to find another group from which to get the tactics and strategy necessary to implement your plan for worldwide democracy.
If ever the US succumbs to the mindless materialism of the Marxist left (i.e. Mrs. Arkansas Antichrist) or the libertoonian right (i.e. paleoPaulie, Al Qaeda's soulless surrenderman in America), then those projects will be temporarily interrupted until the USA regains its senses. There is no chance whatsoever of paleoPaulie or any windtunnel like him becoming POTUS. That leaves us with Hillary or civilization. There are so few libertoonians that it probably makes no difference whether they opt for civilization or for Mrs. AA.
What is needed is a consensus of White House and Congress to continue war efforts. That cowards have a theoretical possibility of temporarily predominating makes them no less cowards. Cain is no more of a conservative hero now than ever despite paleoPaulie's most strenuous efforts.
I don't personally care much for the chances of Haitians ever emerging from a several centuries long tyranny and, unlike Iraq and Sudan, Haiti is rather short on oil reserves. As to Afghanistan, if you don't think it is strategically important, take history lessons.
Oh, and BTW, what part of I am not going to debate with you what you imagine Scripture says or does not say don't you grasp. Your imaginings as to Scripture are of no interest to me. If you want to make believe that paleopeacecreepism or mindless materialism have something to do with conservatism, then we can fight on that score.
Making believe that those hopelessly mired in peacecreepery are not cowards does a disservice to truth and accomplishes nothing politically either. If you happen to think that abortion or sexual perversion are individual rights or that war is not an acceptable and often necessary extension of political strife, then we have nothing to discuss. I seek only sensible and reliable allies.
I also don’t recall saying anything about worldwide democracy. This is simply another delusion of the paleolibertoonians that anyone who favors war is somehow a Wilsonian globalist. Actual conservatives are not internationalists but INTERVENTIONISTS (when, where, and how WE see fit to intervene in our own national interests) and sometimes NATIONALISTS. A lot more bloodshed from Islamofascist ranks would have been a very good idea but the paleosissies would have joined with the other antiAmericans of the left to thwart effective action like making Fallujah flat, black and glowing in the dark and drowning the ruins in pig blood from the sky.
Who are the leading neocons in the military service [or ex]?
You're calling the shots now? Damn....we'd better start packing.
If you expect all of this work to be subsidized by the U.S. Government, then you are going to need to get a consensus of Americans to agree with you.
Errr...last I looked, these efforts are being supported financially by the U.S. government.
Did the rest of the country forget to ask your permission?
Shame, shame, shame on us!
So, is this some sort of commentary on the American Revolutionary War? Perhaps you should have a greater understanding of this country's own history before you start spouting off at how no other country could possibly come out of those conditions with a cohesive and responsive government. If it is possible elsewhere (and it was and still does happen), then why can't we (the U.S.) be patient enough to allow the Iraqi people to find their footing. I'm sure that the French didn't give up on this country in helping is to achieve our Republic. Shame on you for not having enough morality, intestinal fortitude, and caring for your fellow man to at least provide for and encourage their chance for a secure future.
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.