The Neoconservative Persuasion: What it was, and what it is.

The Weekly Standard ^ | August 25, 2003 | Irving Kristol

[Austin Willard Wright]

Look at Dubya's record. Despite their "small numbers" the neo-con paradigm rules both at home and overseas.

[William McKinley]

"A party that in itself was born out of the dreams of a man who wanted an elected king and the federal government to control all."

I am about halfway through a very in-depth book about the history of the Whig party in America. While there is a lot about the Whigs that doesn't mesh with my own political philosophies, I can't say that anything I have read so far squares with your characterization of the Whigs-- especially this last part. Wanted an elected King? My God, the whole basis for the founding of the party was an opposition to the accumulation of power Andrew Jackson was organizing (they derisively called him "King Andrew").

Similarly, this phrase in your reply was just plain wrong as well:

"A party that claims it 'needs' to take care of things private industry could take care of better and cheaper because it won't get screwed up the first time."

The Whigs never stood for this.

What they did stand for, however, was spending government money on projects which private industry simply could not do at the time. There were projects (road development, canals, et al) for which private industry, back in these early days of the country, would not have been capable of raising. Business was simply not concentrated enough back then.

[JohnGalt]

I think we should bump this thread every day for the next year.

That was nice and all that Kristol produced 600 words for the Weekly Standard, but this piece is a terrible embarrassment and its clear that most have not caught on to the implications.

Kristol makes the case that neoconservatives are separate and are currently aligned with the administration and religious conservatives, but I noted he made no claim that this would continue.

One can argue that he is basically suggesting that traditional conservatives (or older conservatives as he says) and libertarian conservatives should seek a Third Party or, I assume since the system is rigged, attempt a take over of the Ds. Or is there a second agenda item at play. Is Kristol suggesting that since neoconservatives are separate as a movement, they are the ones free to move (see '92) from party to party?

He also reveals what a Northeast liberal elitist with his explanation of what makes America work:

"It was only the prospect of economic growth in which everyone prospered, if not equally or simultaneously, that gave modern democracies their legitimacy and durability"

He is basically suggesting that economic growth is the only way to make a democracy work to avert endless class warfare. This is both Jacobinism and Marxist analysis.

And here it is naked and exposed by the godfather.


I am not sure how this piece, no matter how manipulated can square with the mission statement on the FR homepage.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Actually, private enterprise was perfectly capable of building roads. There was an extensive network of well-maintained toll roads throughout the U.S. Daniel Klein an economic historian has researched this.

[JohnGalt]

So the Whigs stood for corporate welfare and crony capitalism, paid for with Southern tariff revenue?

[William McKinley]

They were very skeptical of imperial Presidents.

They were not isolationist, at all. They founded Liberia. They supported western expansion. They extended the Monroe Doctrine to Hawaii.

What they were, however, was very wary of the slavery issue destroying the union. The majority of Whigs (although it was not unanimous) opposed the Annexation of Texas, for example, due to the fact that they feared it would lead to war with Mexico while simultaneously causing the uneasy balance between the north and south in the US to cause the nation to fracture.

It is difficult to look back upon the politics of those days from the perspective of today, because foreign policy played very little role in elections. The crede that all politics are local may be true today, but it was absolutely true back then. Parties won, and lost, elections primarily on issues close to home. And parties often would push very different messages in different parts of the country, taking advantage of the fact that unlike today, what a party was saying in South Carolina might not be heard in New Hampshire. The Whigs in particular would take both sides on an issue- one side to appeal to the Southern states, and one side to appeal to the Northern states.

[billbears]

Wanted an elected King? My God, the whole basis for the founding of the party was an opposition to the accumulation of power Andrew Jackson was organizing (they derisively called him "King Andrew").

I refer to the beginnings of the party of internal improvers. Hamilton himself argued for an elected king. The Whigs picked up many of his positions along the way. And considering one of their own all but became an elected king....

What they did stand for, however, was spending government money on projects which private industry simply could not do at the time. There were projects (road development, canals, et al) for which private industry, back in these early days of the country, would not have been capable of raising

Exactly, and lining their pockets while they were bankrupting a government

[William McKinley]

You would have made a wonderful Democrat, JohnGalt. That is precisely how Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren and the Democrats parried with the Whigs. Although back then the phrase "corporate welfare" did not exist; the structure of business had not yet evolved to the point where corporations were able to be portrayed as the boogeyman.

Further, the Whigs insulated themselves from charges of crony capitalism by advocating indirect involvement in the development of canals and roads and the deepening of rivers. The tariff monies raised would go to the states. Funded mandates, if you will, rather than unfunded mandates. And despite the ominous sounding rhetoric coming from the Democrats about "Southern tariff revenue", some of the largest support for Whig programs came from the South. North Carolina, for example, badly needed infrastructure in order to have much of the state participate in the market economy. In 1840, the only southern state which did not go Whig was Alabama, for example.

[JohnGalt]

I have no doubt the Democrats of the time were equally corrupt, only what you failed to mention is the uncanny ability the Whigs had in securing of all things subsidies for their agricultural (which includes fishing) operations in the North, again with Southern money.

The Whigs always had a way of being one step ahead in bastardizing the spirit of the Constitution, however.

Jackson was the true Anti-Federalists last stand so it is only logical conclude that permanent government would loath him to the extent that they did.

[William McKinley]

Uh huh. Right.

Hamilton was not a Whig, and he was dead before the Whigs came to be. Hamilton was a Federalist, the same party as George Washington and John Adams.

As for the Whigs bankrupting the government while lining their pockets, there really is not much evidence to support that contention. For that to be a correct assertion, one should have seen Whigs 'benefitting' from corruption more than Democrats, and the historical record simply does not support that contention.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Hamilton wasn't a Whig but he almost certainly would have become one had he lived long enough. It was his ideological home....though he probably wouldn't have liked Lincoln's or Harrison's log cabin routines.

[William McKinley]

Well, I am not here to defend the Whigs. There were some parts to what they did I appreciate, and many I do not.

We disagree wholeheartedly on Andrew Jackson. You see him as being a force against the concentration of power in the hands of the government, and I see the exact opposite.

[William McKinley]

Quite possible. It is also very likely that had John Adams lived that long, he would have become a Whig. And the same goes for George Washington. But that is neither here nor there. They didn't, and if they had they would likely have influenced the party as much as the party would have influenced them.

[JohnGalt]

I see Jackson as a cultural challenge to the ruling elite of the day, not as a noble warrior for sound principals of self-government.

[billbears]

Hamilton was not a Whig, and he was dead before the Whigs came to be.

I realize that!!! My statement was more about his belief systems in line with the Whigs and vie versa. Considering also the 16th President's complete disregard for the Constitution, he was the epitome of what Hamilton would have wanted in an elected king

[William McKinley]

Jackson was the ruling elite of the day. He came into power, and decided to take away power from anything he considered a threat to his power.

There was a national bank? No problem. He'd dissolve it-- and direct the funds to be deposited in banks of his choosing. The legislature is the will of the people? Not any more! Jackson felt he knew better the will of the people than any silly legislature. And so forth.

Jackson was the first politician to successfully exploit class envy to accumulate power.

[William McKinley]

You anti-Lincoln zealots really need to get a life.

[JohnGalt]

That's what I found sound refreshing about him; he did not seem to care about anything, including re-election.

I mean after the Federalist betrayal for everything the Constitution was supposed to stand for in the John Adams administration, the only standard for a President was don't cause Armageddon, and yet the President's who did, (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR) are recalled fondly in government history books. Go figure.

[billbears]

What zealot? Look at what he did and compare it to the powers that Hamilton wanted the President to have. Hamilton wanted a king, Clay gave him one through his protege

[William McKinley]

Look at what he did?

I do every day, when I see the country still existing.

What zealot? A person who looks back over the Civil War and wishes that the outcome was different.