Kristol Neoconservatism

Townhall.com ^ | March 22, 2014 | Jack Kerwick

[Pelham]

And Neoconservatives love wide open borders, mass immigration and amnesty.

They can be a bigger threat than our open enemies on the left. Because when the GOPe is in power they will try to ram through rotten policies that the Democrats can’t even manage to pass.

[Pelham]

“It has been reported, on fairly credible authority, that George W. Bush’s Second Inaugural Address was actually scripted by a Neocon writer.”

It was a steaming pile of crackpot utopian drivel. I’d be curious who the Neocon writer was; I’ve always suspected Michael Medved had a hand in it.

[Impy]

I reject BOTH neocon foreign policy AND the Ron Paul kissing the asses of our enemies foreign policy.

[Pelham]

“A former moderate liberal who likes to use american power, especially the military to push american style democracy across the globe... They joined the republican party because the democrats hate the military...”

Close, but they weren’t exactly moderates. The older ones admit to having been fans of Trotsky in their youth.

[Kenny Bunk]

Is it fair to say that the neoconservatives tend to share the social goals and outlook of socialists, but not the usual socialist means and excesses for achieving them? IOW, the neoconservatives want an efficient Welfare State, but with a strong and aggressive foreign policy! It also strikes me that neoconservatives seem to desire intellectual acceptance from the Left.

Sometimes neocons remind me of "Christian Socialism" (except that ta good number seem to be Jews) as originally championed by Pope Pius IX. IOW, "give the people everything they want, but keep them from going revolutionary ... or communist.

[Kenny Bunk]

Ping

[Kenny Bunk]

Great post, Kaslin.

[mac_truck]

Basically, the Neocons are authoritarian liberals who wrap themselves in the flag and spout platitudes about "American greatness" to trick the rubes into giving up their blood, treasure, and liberty to advance the Globalist Agenda - a police state at home and Empire abroad.

Concurring Bump.

[GAFreedom]

How about we hire Americans, at American companies, which make things for sale in America?

As long as a profit can be made from doing that, sure. No profit, no incentive to do so.

I do think ethically minded capitalism can reduce poverty.

I think so too. But I also think a lot of people aren't terribly ethically-minded on capitalism. Short-sighted vs long-sighted is the issue there.

I have railed to no great end on FR about the golden conservative unicorns that supposedly ride in vast herds throughout the American electorate.

Much as I hate it, you're right there. The supposedly vast conservative mass that doesn't vote and doesn't speak are non-existent. The cities are liberal, the country is conservative, and the demographics speak for themselves. Still, we must do the best that we can to promote conservative ideas.

These guys are both from Robert Kagan's Project for a New Amercian Century which has since been rebranded to the Foreign Policy Institute. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

That's the truth! It's the PNAC people who are responsible for the mess we got in under Bush, Jr. Those people literally thought all the Muslims would just throw flowers at us when we "liberated" them. Just more pollyanna crap.

[newheart]

>>The “One Note Charley” clan.<<

LOL

[lonestar67]

I appreciate the detail and substance of your response.

I must admit I still disagree.

I still think there is a dimension to what I would term incremental conservatism that is not being properly thought out and defended here at FR.

I love President Bush. That is not to say I cannot imagine disagreements.

But frankly, I can think of more disagreements I actually had with Reagan.

We should be able to point to and affirm conservative things that I have happened in the past and say YES!

Those things should constitute an empirical basis for attracting people to current politics.

For example:

1. Government shutdown in the 1990s actually did work. It hurt Clinton— helped Gingrich and the Republicans. The Media of course lied about this. But there is no changing the 1995 SOTU by Clinton said “The era of big government is over” He got stopped cold by a thunderous standing ovation in the chamber while conservatives basically gave each other high fives for crushing hillary care and stopping the Clinton spending spree with the shutdown.

2. Republican senates have helped America as they did in the late 1990s. Republicans did bring down the deficit and poverty. Poverty went from 15% to 11% after Republicans CUT WELFARE. Conservatvies forced Clinton to sign welfare reform.

3. Bush did win three good wars against: the Taliban, Saddam, and Charles Taylor. He did serious damage to the Vietnam ethos that still controls our foreign policy. The surge in 2007 was successful. Pretending it was not only emboldens Obama and the other anti-american reactionaries that dominate foreign policy. And yes, ugly as it sounds— the Paulites ride along. Refusing to see the victories in our wars hurts our soldiers the most. We are not scoring political points when we sell them out and agree Bush was bad. Obama is giving all of this away— but we ought to acknowledge what we had and accomplished so our criticism can be meaningful.

If people disagree with particular policies then they should simply say so. I detest that people on FR HATE president Bush. I honestly don’t think people should hate each other at all but that is probably a bridge too far here.

The hate the person model discards all the good conservative accomplishments that people make. If we defend the conservative actions that did work then people will be attracted. That is always how it has worked.

The media and intellectual elite lie but the public can make its own counter arguments.

[jpsb]

"Simple definition of what a neocon is...

A former moderate liberal who likes to use american power, especially the military to push american style democracy across the globe...

Neocon = globalist, anti-constitutionalist that wants to use military force to remake the world to their liking. Big government and big spending are fine with neocons. UnConstitutional laws are fine with neocons. See Bush 1, Bush 2 and McCain for examples of neocons.

There is very little difference between a Rat and a neocon.

[Ohioan]

The Bush Second Inaugural Address was really more confused than "utopian." It was certainly pseudo-intellectual "drivel."

There is nothing utopian about advocating that one nation impose its social priorities on another. And, as observed, the President misused the word "freedom," in at least six conflicting senses. (George Washington vs. George W. Bush.)

William Flax

[Ohioan]

Yes, it certainly may be said that Neocons, like National Socialists in Germany, and the more moderate "Christian Socialists" in other lands, share common socialist values, with other Marxist rooted & influenced movements. The means, often vary, however--as do the chosen scape-goats.

Frankly, in my opinion, the most common trait, is a completely unsupportable acceptance of the idea that people are far more plastic than they are. Thus, those who have a utilitarian rather than a moral perspective on human societies, are sold the idea that Government should control the social environment--including the economic--in order to remake people in a collectivist/egalitarian direction.

With a hopelessly flawed premise coupled with an abandonment of the moral (as opposed to the utilitarian view of a human society), these movements are alike in being incapable of achieving anything both lasting & worthwhile.

William Flax

[ek_hornbeck]

Neocons view the United States as “a creedal nation” with a “‘civilizing mission’” to promote “American values” throughout the world, to see to it “that other governments respect our conception of individual rights as the foundation of a just regime and a good society.” Kristol is unambiguous in his profession of the American faith: the United States, given its status as a “great power” and its “ideological” nature, does indeed have a responsibility “in those places and at those times where conditions permit” it “to flourish,” to “‘make the world safe for democracy.”

To me, the critical difference between the Left and the Right is their views of culture and human nature. The Left believes that you can socially engineer away all of the supposed "flaws" in human nature (or in ingrained culture/religion) to create a Utopia. Rightwingers are much more realistic - they recognize that leopards don't change their spots and work within those parameters, and therefore oppose naive nation-building and "democratization" abroad for the same reasons they oppose the welfare state at home.

In their universalism and childish belief that western-style institutions can be exported to the Third World, or that Third World immigrants will seemlessly integrate into western societies, Neoconservatives are solidly on the side of the Leftist utopians rather than conservative realism.

[Pelham]

“In their universalism and childish belief that western-style institutions can be exported to the Third World, or that Third World immigrants will seemlessly integrate into western societies, Neoconservatives are solidly on the side of the Leftist utopians rather than conservative realism. “

Second that.

[Ohioan]

The idea that any form of social engineering is actually "utopian," is itself hopelessly flawed. People create their cultures; cultures which reflect the combination of the nature of those creating them, and the experiences of their families, down through the generations. The Leftist inspired meddling in other people's cultures has resulted in one atrocity after another. (For examples, see "Democracy" In The Third World.)

What Neocons & others, who share the Dean Rusk foreign policy, which was revived by Clinton & Bush II, have in common is a Compulsion For Uniformity, a trait they share with the Bolsheviks who nearly destroyed Russia & the Nazis that nearly destroyed Germany.

Tragically, in promoting an insane foreign policy, they are helping the still further to the Left ideologues divert attention away from the fundamental fallacies, which underlie all collectivist/egalitarian movements.

William Flax

[Ohioan]

An immigration policy, based upon the easily rebutted fantasy that the peoples of the world are interchangeable, is obviously suicidal. It is also an insult to those, whom the fantasy seekers seek to embrace as interchangeable.

People, whether within an established society or as members of another distinct society, both as individuals and as members of their respective societies, need to take a constructive pride in whom they are; to develop the talents that they have; and to avoid the false counsel of those who try to corrupt them by making them envious & resentful of the success of others--or, conversely, feeling guilty over their own success.

The idea of being lumped together in an undifferentiated humanity, is the ultimate insult to every segment of that humanity. (And, for instance of the absurdity, see Footnote On Egalitarian Compulsion.)

And while on the subject, please do not overlook the disastrous effect of the make-believe world that these ideological crack-pots are promoting on the social cohesion of once happier peoples, across the globe.

William Flax

[Pelham]

A book that needs to be reissued:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Coercive-Utopians-Deception-Americas/dp/0895266180

The Coercive Utopians: Social Deception by America’s Power Players

[Ohioan]

Your book looks interesting.

Actually, I grew up next door to a man who had quit his business to work full time to expose the involvement of so many of the clergy in mainline American Protestant Church denominations, with Communist & Communist Front causes--and this was back in the 1950s. He once wrote a letter to our then Conservative morning paper, in which he compared many of the corrupted clergy to barnyard chickens who gobbled up the feed thrown in front of them, without bothering to notice, whether they were being fed by the farmer, his wife, son, daughter, or some mischievous trespasser.

Sounds a bit like a description of the mental acumen of an Obama voter, calling for "change," in a stadium rally.