Posted on 09/18/2009 1:13:45 PM PDT by EveningStar
Irving Kristol, 89, a forceful essayist, editor and university professor who became the leading architect of neoconservatism, which he called a political and intellectual movement for disaffected ex-liberals like himself who had been "mugged by reality," died Friday at the Capital Hospice in Arlington.
He spent much of his career in New York but had for the last two decades lived at the Watergate apartments in the District. He died of complications from lung cancer, said his son, William Kristol, the founder and editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“A former Trotskyite, no one influenced American conservativsm more than Irving Kristol. An intellectual giant and American man of letters will be sadly missed.”
I guess it’s pretty easy to see why conservatism went into a nose dive over the past 10 years when it’s leading influence was a Trotsky communist.
Ron was “mugged by reality”, in his case the Hollywood commies he was dealing with.
Liberal like a lifelong rat who said he never left the Democrat party but changes his party 4 years before his run as Gov and 10 years before his first run for President. Admirer of FDR and the New Deal. Elected and re-elected 7 times as President of his union. Expanding abortion and raising taxes as Gov. Constantly praising and hang out with the rat Speaker of the House. Record breaking national debt...liberal like that? Reagan was a Neo-Con.
Since Irving Kristol coined the term, his definition should be final.
Kristol's definition of a neocon/neoconservative is a liberal who has deigned to accept even one conservative principal
The left has sought to co-opt the meaning. They like to define words, control language. Liberals cannot tolerate even the thought of one of their own leaning to the right.
In particular, liberals have been successful in defining "neoconservative" as a pejorative.
We can see the success of liberal language/thought control on this thread.
yitbos
I'm sure there are a few other FReepers who might have something to say about your dumb post.
hahahahaha! good thing you're not God... there would be no chance of redemption...
Especially if you like shrimp.
Dino, you sound like someone who knows your Leo Strauss.
Contrary to what the simian populists think, "neocons" are not, as a rule, "free traitors." This is more a libertarian thing, with the neocons having been hostile to ANY opening of political and economic relations with China.
Lets hope so, cause you're not very good at refuting the truth.
Today you learned some history about the man whose name you use.
I don't judge Reagan for starting out liberal and getting smarter with time. I also don't think his legacy is diminished by admitting the truth of his human flaws. Conservatives are the people who demand Sanford stepdown, rats back up their team and forgive grand dragons of the KKK, drunken killers who swim from the scene of the crime, or homo escort services run from congressional offices.
Woe to the imperfect Republican...except for Reagan who walked on water, and came to conservatism by immaculate conception
Baloney. While Reagan was an ardent anti-communist and the ultimate cold warrior, he wasn't an extreme foreign policy interventionist. The one time Reagan did intervene was in Beirut Lebanon. It was a foreign policy blunder to put US forces in the middle of a civil war and in harms way without proper rules of engagement. After taking some limited military strikes against the terrorists, Reagan made the right move by withdrawing our forces. Today, many "neocons" trash Reagan for not expanding a regional conflict into WWIII in order to get revenge for the Marine Barracks and US Embassy bombings.
We've been here before. Your take on Reagan continues to be off the wall. Truth is, conservatives want a return to the successful Reagan era policy agenda of the 1980`s, when we had solid leadership based on traditional American values and beliefs. And respect for the Constitution.
>>>>>Today you learned some history about the man whose name you use.
LOL I learned that you're still a clown. Lets set the record straight, bozo.
Reagan may have come into this world a liberal Democrat, but he died a conservative Republican. In between, Reagan was a Republican longer then he was a Democrat and a conservative longer then he was a liberal. Reagan started his political re-education and switch to ideas centered around conservatism, lower taxes and limited government during his years as a spokesman for General Electric in the 1950`s. In 1952 he voted for Eisenhower, then again for Ike in 1956 and later for Nixon in 1960.
While Reagan always admired FDR`s leadership style, he came to reject the New Deal. Even publicly stating that FDR wanted Social Security to be eventually privatized. Reagan's fading hope that the Democratic Party would reverse its march to the liberal-socialist left ended in 1962 when he finally joined the Republican Party. Btw, Reagan ran for President the first time in 1968, not 1976.
Reagan was firmly in the prolife camp and clearly did not favor abortion on demand, personally or as a matter of public policy. The 1967 Therapeutic Abortion Act that Reagan signed into law as Governor of California, DID NOT grant abortions on demand. It was advertised as a compassionate law that would be used to deal with the difficult abortion cases. The liberal medical community in California saw this as an opportunity to circumvent the system, expand and abuse a limited law into granting abortion on demand. Reagan's worst fears were realized, but reversing the Therapeutic Abortion Act wasn't an option. Even if Reagan had decided to veto it, he would have been overridden by the state legislature.
As Governor, Reagan returned $5-billion to California taxpayers in the form of four tax rebates. This offset the tax increases agreed to with the Democrat legislature. Reagan was successful in welfare reform, ultimately decreasing welfare rolls, reducing waste, fraud and abuse, saving billions of dollars for taxpayers. Reagan also left California with a balanced budget, along with a fiscally sound and growing economy.
For your information, a President doesn't control the purse strings. The Congress does. The Democrats controlled the House in the 1980`s and had control over the budgets during Reagan's Presidency. Reagan's good relations with conservative House Democrats and Speaker Tip O'Neill helped get his tax cuts and military build up through the House and passed into law.
Reagan left office in 1989 with the lowest tax rates since the 1920`s; a booming economy; historic deregulation of the federal bureaucracy; a smaller federal budget, as a percentage of GDP; reductions in welfare state spending and expansion; a falling annual deficit; a much stronger military and national defense; and a huge victory in winning the Cold War and dismantling the Sovet Empire, freeing some 500 million people from totalitarian rule.
From glancing at your FR homepage, looks like you want to return to the failed domestic policy agenda of Bush43 and the incompetents running the GOP. After losing in 2006 and 2008, looks like you've learned nothing.
lol.
We've been here before. Your take on Reagan continues to be off the wall. Truth is, conservatives want a return to the successful Reagan era policy agenda of the 1980`s, when we had solid leadership based on traditional American values and beliefs. And respect for the Constitution.
Truth is you have yet to refute one of my points.
>>>>>Today you learned some history about the man whose name you use.
LOL I learned that you're still a clown. Lets set the record straight, bozo.
Reagan may have come into this world a liberal Democrat, but he died a conservative Republican. In between, Reagan was a Republican longer then he was a Democrat and a conservative longer then he was a liberal. Reagan started his political re-education and switch to ideas centered around conservatism, lower taxes and limited government during his years as a spokesman for General Electric in the 1950`s. In 1952 he voted for Eisenhower, then again for Ike in 1956 and later for Nixon in 1960.
So you agree Reagan was a rat and a liberal before switching GOP. That was the gist of the 1st sentence of my "dumb post." I also aluded to Reagan's famous quote, "I didn't leave the rat party, the rat party left me." I'll take your silence as concession on that point.
While Reagan always admired FDR`s leadership style, he came to reject the New Deal. Even publicly stating that FDR wanted Social Security to be eventually privatized. Reagan's fading hope that the Democratic Party would reverse its march to the liberal-socialist left ended in 1962 when he finally joined the Republican Party. Btw, Reagan ran for President the first time in 1968, not 1976.
We now agree on my 2nd sentence...Reagan was an "Admirer of FDR and the New Deal." My 3rd sentence "Elected and re-elected 7 times as President of his union." was overlooked by you.
Reagan was firmly in the prolife camp and clearly did not favor abortion on demand, personally or as a matter of public policy. The 1967 Therapeutic Abortion Act that Reagan signed into law as Governor of California, DID NOT grant abortions on demand. It was advertised as a compassionate law that would be used to deal with the difficult abortion cases. The liberal medical community in California saw this as an opportunity to circumvent the system, expand and abuse a limited law into granting abortion on demand. Reagan's worst fears were realized, but reversing the Therapeutic Abortion Act wasn't an option. Even if Reagan had decided to veto it, he would have been overridden by the state legislature.
"Compassionate abortions" nice. So then I guess you believe signing "compassionate" abortion rights is OK especially if the rats will override a VETO. Sounds like expediency to me. So this very long paragraph along with the next one show we agree with my 4th sentence "Expanding abortion and raising taxes as Gov."
As Governor, Reagan returned $5-billion to California taxpayers in the form of four tax rebates. This offset the tax increases agreed to with the Democrat legislature. Reagan was successful in welfare reform, ultimately decreasing welfare rolls, reducing waste, fraud and abuse, saving billions of dollars for taxpayers. Reagan also left California with a balanced budget, along with a fiscally sound and growing economy.
For your information, a President doesn't control the purse strings. The Congress does. The Democrats controlled the House in the 1980`s and had control over the budgets during Reagan's Presidency. Reagan's good relations with conservative House Democrats and Speaker Tip O'Neill helped get his tax cuts and military build up through the House and passed into law.
One could say the same thing about Bush's bipartisanship. It helped get his tax cuts and military build up through the House and passed into law. we now agree with my 5th sentence "Constantly praising and hang out with the rat Speaker of the House."
Reagan left office in 1989 with the lowest tax rates since the 1920`s; a booming economy; historic deregulation of the federal bureaucracy; a smaller federal budget, as a percentage of GDP; reductions in welfare state spending and expansion; a falling annual deficit; a much stronger military and national defense; and a huge victory in winning the Cold War and dismantling the Sovet Empire, freeing some 500 million people from totalitarian rule.
Which has nothing to do with my 6th sentence "record breaking national debt...liberal like that?"
From glancing at your FR homepage, looks like you want to return to the failed domestic policy agenda of Bush43 and the incompetents running the GOP. After losing in 2006 and 2008, looks like you've learned nothing.
Also unresponsive to any of my points. It's not that I disagree with a word you wrote, aside from the personal attacks on me, it just that none of it is pertinent to the disagreement you have with me. You have conceded each point and offered up your opinion why my factual points don't count. Your search of my home page for more irrelevancies, with which to muddy the waters further, indicates you probably know your argument is weak. IMO Your hyperbolic personal attacks weaken your weak argument.
Washington rarely gets anything right. Bush got it pretty close to right in taking out rogue nations Afghanistan and Iraq as a response to 9-11. I would have preferred we take out Iran and N Korea too, but Dubya has a foreign policy record rivaling Reagan. I sure wish McCain was in charge of unfinished work.
Thank you for affirming my points even as you call me ignorant. If the definition of Neo-Con is a liberal whose been mugged then we have made a good argument that Reagan was a Neo-Con.
>>>>>Truth is you have yet to refute one of my points.
Come on. You couldn't be more wrong. Not even liberals believe Reagan was a "Liberal... lifelong rat". But you do! LMAO
>>>>>So you agree Reagan was a rat and a liberal before switching GOP.
Wrong. I never posted that. I gave you the facts. You chose to ignore the truth and embrace a pack of lies. So be it.
>>>>>I also aluded to Reagan's famous quote, "I didn't leave the rat party, the rat party left me." I'll take your silence as concession on that point.
Everyone knows that story. Reagan wasn't kicked out of the Democratic Party. Reagan left the Democrats on his own because their liberal politics clashed with his conservative politics. In 1962 Reagan's decision was embraced by both conservatives and Republicans. That decision you obviously have a serious problem with, 47 years after the fact.
>>>>>We now agree on my 2nd sentence...Reagan was an "Admirer of FDR and the New Deal."
Wrong again. You said that, not me. I said: "While Reagan always admired FDR`s leadership style, he came to reject the New Deal". Also, the fact that Reagan was an actor and SAG president was never an issue.
>>>>>"Compassionate abortions" nice. So then I guess you believe signing "compassionate" abortion rights is OK especially if the rats will override a VETO. Sounds like expediency to me."
Wrong again. The liberal Democrats who controlled the California state legislature wanted a bill that would grant abortion on demand. IOW, abortion for any reason. Reagan told them he wouldn't sign such a bill. He did sign the Therapeutic Abortion Act of 1967, which did not grant abortion on demand. It did place strict limits on abortions. Reagan clearly won that battle hands down.
One more time. Spending goes through the Congress. Again, during the Reagan Presidency the Democrat House was responsible for the purse strings, aka. allocation of funds. The annual Reagan budget was DOA. Wake up already!
>>>>>It's not that I disagree with a word you wrote ...
LOL You can't be serious?!
>>>>>Thank you for affirming my points even as you call me ignorant.
Wrong on the first part and wrong on the second part. Fact, I never called you ignorant, but if the shoe fits....
Anyone who runs around Free Republic and attempts to undermine the Reagan legacy, deserves everything they get thrown at them.
Lastly. Neocons do not support limited government or tax cuts for that matter. If anything, Reagan was mainstream conservative who leaned towards the politics of paleoconservatism. And a loyal Republican till his death.
Very funny stuff. See you around.
Neoconservatism Made Kristol Clear
by Michael Tennant
Memo to Irving Kristol: Get yourself to a secure, undisclosed location immediately if not sooner. You are in grave danger. No, you needn’t worry about receiving threats from left-wing loonies like Al Gore or his disciple, the Unabomber. You don’t even have to fear the paleoconservatives and libertarians. You should, however, keep your eyes open for members of the National Review/Wall Street Journal crowd. IMPORTANT: If you receive a package in the mail from David Frum, call the bomb squad immediately!
Why do I say Irving Kristol had better keep a close eye on his allies on the “official” right? Simply this: He recently wrote a piece for The Weekly Standard in which he spelled out exactly what neoconservatism is. What’s worse is that ol’ Irv’s description of neoconservatism proves that it is everything its critics have said it is—and worse.
Now that “the ‘godfather’ of all those neocons,” as Kristol describes himself, has spoken on the subject (and written a book entitled Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea), the NR/WSJ crowd can no longer plausibly deny the existence of such a movement, as some have tried to do. In addition, they can no longer plausibly claim that neoconservatism is merely another form of traditional conservatism. Nor can they plausibly insist that neoconservatism has anything at all to do with the American founding and tradition of limited government and avoidance of entangling alliances. Kristol has blown all these arguments out of the water.
Kristol first points out that neoconservatism had “its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s,” just in case anyone had any doubts about its ancestry. At this time the grassroots of the Republican Party, and indeed much of Middle America , was still largely wedded to the ideas of small government at home and a reasonably prudent foreign policy abroad. Barry Goldwater—who Kristol says is “politely overlooked” in the neocon pantheon of “20th-century heroes,” while FDR is included—had, after all, been the Republican presidential nominee in 1964; and Ronald Reagan, who at least espoused relatively conservative ideas even if he didn’t follow through on most of them once in office, was to be elected president in 1980. In other words, neocon ideas were not the ideas of the mainstream right at the time, and their prospects weren’t even looking very bright.
So, says Kristol, “one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.” It’s easy to see the liberal—and, indeed, Straussian, as Kristol claims Leo Strauss as one of the forerunners of neoconservatism—mind at work here. We, the enlightened ones, will “convert” you, the unenlightened, from your backward, parochial ways to our progressive, global ways; and we will do so against your will, by deception if possible, by force if necessary.
The only genuinely conservative idea Kristol attributes to the neocons is an affinity for “cutting tax rates.” Even there, however, Kristol hedges. It’s not that “the particularities of tax cuts . . . interested” the neocons, and it certainly isn’t the case that they view tax cuts as a moral imperative. They are interested in tax cuts only insofar as those cuts “stimulate steady economic growth,” presumably so the natives do not become restless when their bread and circuses peter out and start clamoring for the emperor’s head. Kristol notes that the neocon “emphasis on economic growth” has led to “an attitude toward public finance that is far less risk averse than is the case among more traditional conservatives.” “Neocons,” he adds, “would prefer not to have large budget deficits, but it is in the nature of democracy [and here he may be onto something] . . . that one sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth.” In other words, to heck with the future! Open the floodgates of the treasury while at the same time reducing the revenues coming in, and don’t worry about how your children and grandchildren are going to pay the bills. What matters now is economic growth to keep the sheeple fat, dumb, and happy so that we neocons can retain and expand our power at their expense.
In case what he has written thus far has still failed to convince the reader that neoconservatism is merely a variant on liberalism, Kristol then opens up both barrels with his description of the neocon view of the state. “Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study [note that he doesn’t say implement] alternative ways of delivering these services. But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on ‘the road to serfdom.’ Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable.” Why, really, should they be alarmed? The state is their god, and they derive their power from expanding its reach. As far as Kristol is concerned, the “19th-century idea” of government as the enemy of human freedom “was a historical eccentricity.” Here again one can see the Marxist mind of “former” liberals at work: The total state is inevitable, so why fight it? Accept it, enjoy it, and get as much as you can out of it. Stop fretting about lost liberty. As a result, “[n]eocons feel at home in today’s America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not.”
Now for the big subject of the day: “foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention,” as Kristol puts it. That, of course, is because neocon foreign policy is exemplified by precisely the foreign policy that the Bush administration has implemented, contrary to Bush’s paean to a “humbler” foreign policy while campaigning. It seeks to dominate the world at any cost, sending troops to far-flung countries ( Afghanistan , Iraq , Liberia ) in pursuit of, well, hegemony, in the guise of bringing liberation and democracy to the oppressed of the world. It is completely contrary to the vision of the Founding Fathers and to the American tradition, which is why it had to be imposed on us against our will as well.
Kristol claims that “there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience.” He lists three “theses” guiding neocon foreign policy and adds, parenthetically, “as a Marxist would say.” (The apple certainly doesn’t fall far from the tree. Does it, Irving ?) Those three theses—that patriotism is a good thing, that world government is a bad thing, and that statesmen should be able to distinguish friends from enemies—seem relatively harmless. To be fair, Kristol is right in saying that there are no core principles behind neocon foreign policy because these three “theses” seem to have little or nothing to do with the paragraphs that follow.
Essentially, neocon foreign policy is that might makes right. Oh, Kristol doesn’t come right out and say this, but his words add up to the same thing. For “a great power,” he writes, “the ‘national interest’ is not a geographical term.” That is, U.S. foreign policy should not be confined to safeguarding the territorial United States . Oh, no. We must be concerned with the entire world. “A larger nation has more extensive interests. And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns.” Yes, according to Irving Kristol, neocon foreign policy applies equally to the Soviet Union and the United States, both of whom have (or had, in the case of the Soviets) “ideological interests” which trump mere territorial concerns. Kristol further notes that since the U.S. “will always feel obliged to defend . . . a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces,” the neocons thus “feel it necessary to defend Israel today.” Apparently only the holding of elections, not what those elected governments’ policies are, matters to neocons, and even then they’re more than willing to give some leeway to cooperative dictators. Once again, I must give Kristol credit for being accurate in his assessment that no central principles (other than the one left unmentioned, spelled p-o-w-e-r) guide the neocons in their quest for “national greatness” (as Kristol’s equally arrogant son, William, put it). It’s clear, though, that this power-grubbing, world-dominating foreign policy is certainly not in the interest of the average American, which is why he has to be converted against his will by the neocons.
Kristol continues to celebrate the power of the U. S. , and he notes that “[w]ith power come responsibilities, whether sought or not, whether welcome or not. And it is a fact that if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you.” The neocons, of course, are not content to let the world find uses for the power they’ve worked so hard to achieve. As a matter of fact, they’re more than happy to “find opportunities to use it.” Whether those “opportunities” are in the best interest of the country or the world is irrelevant; all that matters is that the neocons are the ones finding the opportunities and wielding the power.
Finally, in case any doubt remains as to whether the Bush administration qualifies as neoconservative—and there are still some out there who believe it remains fully within the American conservative tradition—Kristol puts all doubt to rest. Bush and his administration, he says, “turn out to be quite at home in this new political environment, although it is clear they did not anticipate this role any more than their party as a whole did.” Face it, says Kristol: We’ve won, and you traditional conservatives in the Republican Party never saw it coming and still don’t know what hit you. Unfortunately, he’s right.
What’s not to like about neo-cons? Their plans sound inter-denominational to me. There is no linkage between the neo-cons and the Jews and any attempt to say otherwise is said to whitewash a despicable political agenda called neoconservatism.
Mark Levin is a loud mouthed idiot.
Keep repeating the “shrimp” canard.
It’s working so well to isolate, personalize, and ridicule Dr. Paul.
In fact, he can barely get 191 votes for HR1207, his bill to Audit the Fed.
You should go tell a bar full of Texas Gulf Coast shrimpers that they don’t deserve to get back some of the taxes they send to Washington.
I’ll donate $100 to charity to see YouTube of the ensuing hilarity and ‘teachable moment.’
Youre certainly entitled to your opinion but Kristol never had Levin’s ratings and neither was he ever called THE GREAT ONE. Im not sure what your problem is with Levin and honestly I could care less.
There's no way to stop you from hating Reagan. But as long as you wiseguys and trolls keep taking cheap pot shots at Reagan, willfully ignore the facts and lie about his legacy, I'll be there to defend him. Also, if I was you, I'd come up with better debate tactics then engaging in revisionism, obfuscation and whining. Very ugly.
>>>>See you around.
No doubt.
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.