Kristol from his book Reflections of a Neo-Conservative:
"a conservative welfare state... is perfectly consistent with the neo-conservative perspective." He also wrote elsewhere: "[We] are conservative, but different in certain respects from the conservatism of the Republican Party. We accepted the New Deal in principle, and had little affection for the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism."
Mark Gerson in his 1996 book entitled The Essential Neoconservative Reader:
"The neoconservatives have so changed conservatism that what we now identify as conservatism is largely what was once neoconservatism. And in so doing, they have defined the way that vast numbers of Americans view their economy, their polity, and their society."
For those on FR who are anti-anti-neocons they should examine what philosophy they truly believe in - conservatism or neoconservatism i.e. limited government and maximum liberty or activist government and the high taxes required to fuel it. Despite the rosy rhetoric it can be seen through their own words neoconservatism is actually liberalism in disguise.
Kristol above: "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. "
Please note Kristol rejects traditional conservatives/libertarian heroes like Hayek and also from the article Russell Kirk, Coolidge, Goldwater. He says neocon heroes are TR and FDR i.e. activist presidents who believe in a meddling government and central planning.
Then there is Kristol's take on foreign policy:
- "for a great power, the "national interest" is not a geographical term"
-"A smaller nation might appropriately feel that its national interest begins and ends at its borders, so that its foreign policy is almost always in a defensive mode."
- "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."
What Kristol is clearly saying here is that he rejects the advise and wisdom of the founding fathers about free trade and peaceful relations with all and not to go out into the world seeking monsters to destroy. He compares us to the Soviet Union - conquering the world through ideology. This is why critics of neoconservatism emphasize their Trotskyite origins. It is clearly seen here that these people still believe in world revolution. They do not wish their country to merely be free and to prosper in the world they want to recreate the world into their vision of utopia. This transformation requires coersion, bribery and even force. These people may have abondoned communism but not their revolutionary zeal. To sum it up these people are not conservatives at all, they have manufactured a NEW conservatism which is the antithesis of the traditional American variety.
Actually, paleoconservatism is more recent than neoconservatism.
And I don't believe may people would agree that paleocons, given their small numbers, are entitled to appoint themselves as arbiters of what is, and what is not, conservatism.
As a matter of fact, this business of the paleocons making common cause with hard-left liberals on so many issues leads me to think that paleocons should be drummed out of the conservative movement.
This transformation requires coersion, bribery and even force. These people may have abondoned communism but not their revolutionary zeal. To sum it up these people are not conservatives at all, they have manufactured a NEW conservatism which is the antithesis of the traditional American variety.
Spot-on. That's neoconservatism in a nutshell. The only thing "conservative" about these people is the fact that they are still generally viewed as being slightly to the right of their Democratic counterparts. But compare their beliefs to those of the founders and the neocons end up looking more like socialist revolutionaries.
There may be some truth in that, but I prefer to think in terms of moral responses to being mugged by reality. Be moral but tough in all your dealings. You are not going to stop Islamic terror masters by closing the borders or by nuking oil-rich countries run by insane dictators. If the only remaining option is regime change, install new regime with some liberality and try for a regional transformation.
However, there is some truth to the accusation that USA is becoming an empire. But the phrase "empire of liberty" goes back to the first century of our republic.