Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

‘Godfather’ Kristol’s Statist/Imperialist Manifesto (Neo-cons vs. Classical Liberals)
Lewrockwell.com ^ | August 20, 2003 | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Posted on 08/20/2003 1:36:11 PM PDT by Korth

Irving Kristol, who identifies himself as the "Godfather" of neoconservativism, is finally beginning to come clean and admit what neoconservatism stands for: statism at home and imperialism abroad. He makes this candid admission in an August 25 article in The Weekly Standard entitled "The Neoconservative Persuasion."

Congratulating himself for becoming an "historic" figure (at least in his own mind) he declares:

[T]he historical task and political purpose of neoconservativism 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 (emphasis added).

Like all neocons, Kristol claims to be a champion of democracy, but his words and actions often contradict this claim. Consider the language in the above quotation, "against their respective wills." According to the traditional theory of democracy, the role of competing ideas in politics is supposedly a matter of persuasion. Political debates are supposedly aimed at persuading voters that you are right and your rival is wrong. But Kristol will have none of this. He is the "Godfather," after all. What he apparently means by transforming traditiona l conservatives against their will is not to attempt to persuade them to become statists and imperialists like himself, but to intimidate and censor them by conducting campaigns of character assassination against anyone who disagrees with the neocon agenda. He means to purge all dissenters, Stalin style.

This decidedly un-democratic tactic was on display in David Frum’s National Review attack ("Unpatriotic Conservatives") on any and all conservatives who disagree with the neocon agenda of endless warfare around the globe. Indeed, the neocons are well known for resorting to personal smears rather than intellectual debate, beginning with their vicious campaign of character assassination against the late Mel Bradford when he was nominated by President Reagan to head the National Endowment for the Humanities in the early 1980s. That smear campaign established their political modus operandi.

Kristol claims that the three biggest neocon idols are Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Ronald Reagan; all other Republican party worthies are "politely ignored." Teddy Roosevelt, whom the neocons affectionately call "TR," was simply nuts. Mark Twain, who met him twice, called him "clearly insane." In any number of "TR" biographies we learn that after an argument with his girlfriend as a young man he went home and shot his neighbor’s dog. When he killed his first buffalo – and his first Spaniard – he "abandoned himself to complete hysteria," as biographer Edmund Morris recounts.

While president, TR would take morning horseback rides through Rock Creek Park wildly shooting a pistol at tree branches, oblivious to the harm he might do to residents or houses in the area. He once strung a wire across the Potomac River so that he could hang on it while crossing the river because, he said, his wrists needed strengthening. The TR biographies are filled with similar stories of his asinine antics.

Like the neocons, TR was a Lincoln idolater. (His secretary of state was John Hay, Lincoln’s personal White House secretary). After being lambasted in the US Senate over the fact that he had launched a military intervention in the Philippines that costs thousands of American lives and resulted in an incredible 200,000 Philippine deaths, Edmund Morris recounts in his latest biography of TR, Theodore Rex, how he responded to his senate critics during a Memorial Day address to aged Union army veterans. The criticisms against him were invalid, he told the white-bearded veterans of Lincoln’s army, because the mass killing of Philipinos was for their own good – its purpose was to spread democracy. Besides, he said, it was the exact same policy of the sainted Lincoln, so how could anyone object? Southerners were also killed by the hundreds of thousands for their own good, according to TR’s logic.

Like the neocon Lincoln idolaters, TR was a consolidationist who had no respect for states’ rights – or for constitutional restraints on government in general. He loathed Jefferson but idolized Lincoln, naturally. He nationalized millions of acres of land, initiated numerous antitrust witch hunts that were enormously harmful to the economy, imposed onerous regulations on railroads that led many of them into bankruptcy, and responded to the socialist Upton Sinclair’s book The Jungle by regulating food and drugs. (FDA drug lag has been proven to have caused hundreds of thousands of premature deaths due to the inaccessibility of life-saving drugs available in other countries).

His fellow Republicans accused him of trying to concentrate all governmental power in Washington, abolishing state lines, and creating a stifling bureaucracy to control the population. They were right, of course, which is why the neocons love TR so much. (Bill Clinton also said that Teddy Roosevelt was his favorite Republican in all of American history).

Like Kristol, Max Boot, Charles Krauthammer, and many other neocons, TR was infatuated with war and killing. A college friend of his wrote in 1885 that "he would like above all things to go to war with some one. He wants to be killing something all the time" (See Howard K. Beale, Theodore Roosevelt and the Rise of America to World Power, p. 36). As president, he constantly announced that America "needed a war," which is exactly what the neocons of today believe. War – any war – the neocons tell us, gives us "national unity."

TR was a statist in domestic policy, a foreign policy imperialist, and an inveterate warmonger. He was, in other words, the real "Godfather" of neoconservatism.

As for FDR, the neocons idolize him as well because the older ones like Kristol are all former leftists – like FDR – and they have never abandoned their statist beliefs. Further evidence of this lies in the one reason Kristol gives for why neocons idolize Ronald Reagan: Although they had nothing to do with initiating the "Reagan tax cuts," neocons supported them because they believed they would spur economic growth, which in turn would enable them to fully fund the welfare state. (In this regard California gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger is a neocon: In his initial press conference announcing his candidacy he said he wanted to "bring business back to California" so that the Golden state’s massive welfare entitlement bureaucracy could be fully funded).

Kristol claims that democracy used to mean "an inherently turbulent political regime," but not so once a country becomes prosperous. This is a breathtakingly absurd proposition. The very existence of the neocon cabal, at a time of the greatest world prosperity in history, contradicts it. If the neocons are about anything they are about political bullying to impose their will on others – turbulent democracy, in other words. Moreover, in The Birth of the Transfer Society Terry Anderson and P.J. Hill discuss how, as the idea of democracy replaced individual liberty as the reason for government in the post-1865 era, politics inevitably became more and more "turbulent" with one rent-seeking group after another cropping up to use the powers of the state to plunder its neighbors. The transfer state has continued to grow virtually unabated over the last century, making American democracy ever more turbulent and divisive. There has been a relentless shift away from the traditional constitutional functions of government and toward an ever-expanding transfer society. Kristol’s notion that twentieth century prosperity brought an end to "political turbulence" is preposterous and absurd.

Equally preposterous and ahistorical is his further claim that, with prosperity, Americans will become less susceptible to "egalitarian illusions." But the U.S. today is as prosperous as it has ever been, and mindless egalitarianism reigns. Just a few weeks ago one of Kristol’s favorite Supreme Court justices, Reagan appointee Sandra Day O’Connor, wrote a majority opinion that said racial discrimination against whites in college admissions was desirable because, in her opinion, the mixing of skin colors on college campuses – to supposedly promote egalitarianism – trumped the constitution she once swore to uphold. A thousand other examples could readily be used to disprove Kristol’s thesis.

Kristol further admits that neocons do not in any way favor limited government. He mocks the idea of limited constitutional government by calling it "the Hayekian notion that we are on the road to serfdom." He is not just mocking Hayek, but the entire classical liberal tradition, as well as the Enlightenment ideas that informed the founding fathers in their limited government philosophy. In chapter 1 of The Road to Serfdom Hayek lamented the abandonment of classical liberal ideas in countries that had been adopting fascism and socialism (and its close cousin, New Dealism) during the 1930s and '40s by saying:

We are rapidly abandoning not the views merely of Cobden and Bright, of Adam Smith and Hume, or even of Locke and Milton, but one of the salient characteristics of Western civilization as it has grown from the foundations laid by Christianity and the Greeks and Romans. Not merely nineteenth- and eighteenth-century liberalism, but the basic individualism inherited by us from Erasmus and Montaigne, from Cicero and Tacitus, Pericles and Thucydides, is progressively relinquished.

This is what Kristol and his fellow neocons are so opposed to: the same philosophy of individualism that early and mid twentieth century tyrants from Mussolini to Hitler to Stalin understood as being their biggest philosophical roadblock. "Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm of anxiety about the growth of the state," Kristol smugly pronounces, repudiating the ideology of the American founders.

And it is not an exaggeration to say that the neocons repudiate the basic political philosophy of the founders, even if they hypocritically invoke the founders’ words from time to time in their political speeches and writings. Just recall some of the harsh anti-government rhetoric of the founders. To Jefferson, "on the tree of liberty must spill the blood of patriots and tyrants." And, "a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."

Patrick Henry urged his fellow Virginians to take up arms against the British government "in the holy cause of liberty" and warned that it is the tendency of all centralized governmental powers to "destroy the state government[s], and swallow the liberties of the people." This of course finally happened in April of 1865, a month the neocon "Civil War" historian Jay Winik says "saved America."

In his Farewell Address George Washington warned that special interest groups in a democracy "are likely, in the course of time . . . to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, and to usurp for themselves the reigns of Government." Sounds like a perfect description of the neocon cabal.

James Madison pronounced that "it is in vain" to expect that politicians in a democracy would ever render clashing political interests "subservient to the public good." And Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense that "Government even in its best state is but a necessary evil, and in its worst state an intolerable one."

Kristol repeats his old refrain that "libertarian conservatives" are different from neocons because they are supposedly "unmindful of the culture." He is either oblivious to or willfully ignores the fact that it has been libertarian scholars who have done more than anyone to research and write about the damage to the American culture inflicted by the welfare state (family breakup, rampant illegitimacy, loss of work incentives, short-sightedness, slothfulness, etc.). Neocons ignore all of this vast libertarian literature and continue to champion an expanded welfare state while pretending to be protectors of "the culture."

Nor does Kristol acknowledge that it is libertarians who have done more than anyone to expose how the government’s war on drugs has created a criminal culture, a bloody and violent culture, a culture that traps young children into short crime-ridden lives, and a culture that corrupts the police and the judicial system. Neocons all support an even more vigorous war on drugs while pretending to be ever so concerned about "the culture."

I can’t help but point out that the self-appointed neocon culture and morality czar, "Blackjack" Bill Bennett, recently revealed to the world what his idea of "culture" is: Sitting on a vinyl stool at a Las Vegas casino at 3 A.M. pouring thousands of dollars into one-armed bandits while being served free drinks by cocktail waitresses barely out of their teens and dressed like hookers. (Bennett admitted to having blown some $8 million at Vegas casinos in recent years).

In foreign policy Kristol says neocons are, well, imperialists. For a "great power" there are no boundaries to its pursuit of "national interest." He says we have an "ideological interest" to defend, and that means endless warfare all around the globe to ostensibly "defend" that ideology. (And Mark Twain thought TR was insane.) Of course, someone has to decide for us what that "ideological interest" is, and then force the population, with the threat of imprisonment or worse (for nonpayment of taxes, for instance) to support it.

In Kristol’s case, his primary ideological rationale for military intervention is: "We feel it necessary to defend Israel today" in the name of democracy. Well, no we don’t. If Irving Kristol wants to grab a shotgun and take the next flight to Tel Aviv "to defend Israel" then Godspeed, and I will offer to buy him a first-class plane ticket. But leave me and my family out of it.

Translating "we feel it necessary to defend Israel" from neoconese, we get this: "Young American soldiers must die in defense of Israel." Like hell they must. Young Americans who join the military for patriotic reasons do so because they believe they are defending their country. It is a fraud and an abomination to compel them to risk their lives for any other country, whether it is Israel, Canada, Somalia, or wherever.

The Godfather concludes his essay by gloating over how neoconservatism is "enjoying a second life" in the current Bush administration, with its massive expansion of domestic spending, record budget deficits, lying us into war, TR style, and of course killing. Lots of killing. That he used the word "enjoyed" to describe all of this speaks volumes about "Godfather" Kristol and his neo-comrades.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: classicalliberals; conservatives; federalgovernment; freedom; irvingkristol; kristol; libertarians; liberty; neocons; paleoconservatives; republicanparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-180 next last

1 posted on 08/20/2003 1:36:11 PM PDT by Korth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Korth
FDR a republican hero, scary
2 posted on 08/20/2003 1:43:11 PM PDT by luckydevi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Korth
"He means to purge all dissenters, Stalin style."

Character assasination, Stalin style?

Will have to read this again.

Think I missed the MO on some of the 'leaps and bounds' of thought here.

3 posted on 08/20/2003 1:45:41 PM PDT by cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Korth
DiLorenzo bump.
4 posted on 08/20/2003 1:48:16 PM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Korth
Anyone who admires the socialist/statist FDR cannot be a "neo"con; they're a "noncon".
5 posted on 08/20/2003 1:49:10 PM PDT by reelfoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cricket
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/964443/posts

Link to the stunning Kristol admissions of just what the neoconservative represents and how they are distinct from the pursuit of liberty.
6 posted on 08/20/2003 1:49:56 PM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Korth
Howard Dean would fix all our problems tommorow! Join the Dean Team! You have nothing to lose but your chains! Seriously, I think Bush has screwed things about 33% of the time. He spends money we don't have on panderation schemes like the proscription drug benefit. He's trying to fight too big a war with too small a military and he's failed to adequately support US allies such as Israel and Taiwan. However, he screws up far less often than his opposition. Both within the GOP and without. Bush has reduced our taxes, his opponents would raise them. Bush has fought back against Islamic terrorists. His opponents would probably sit around naval gazing and ask Osauma "Why do you hate us?" Bush has finally seemed to realize that most of the international agreements being pumped out of the UN are aimed at reducing America's prosperity. He ditched The Kyoto Travesty and laughed at the latest communist manifesto from the IPCC. He also got us out of the ABM Treaty so that we could continue with NMD. On balance, he'll go down as an average President. Not as good as Reagan or FDR, nowhere near as bad as Jimmy Carter or Warren Harding. He is a man truely blessed by his enemies. I can't even imagine one of the 9 dwarves, Al Gore, Wesley Clark, or Hillary Clinton doing a better job of handling the problems that have been placed on Geaorge Bush's desk.
7 posted on 08/20/2003 1:50:48 PM PDT by .cnI redruM (The Problem With Socialism Is That You Eventually Run Out Of Other People's Money - Lady Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
Vichy Conservatism maybe your cup of team but it is not mine.
8 posted on 08/20/2003 1:52:46 PM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Beats the heck out of warmed over marxism. I have yet to see anything from Howard Dean except capitulation as a foreign policy and just as many, if not more, costly, future-sapping social programs that leave nothing of value after the tax dollars are spent.
9 posted on 08/20/2003 1:56:58 PM PDT by .cnI redruM (The Problem With Socialism Is That You Eventually Run Out Of Other People's Money - Lady Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Korth
To be a conservative, above all else, is to believe in the founding ideals of America. It is more of a way of life than an ideology. It is based on the idea that America's purpose is to provide an evironment for the american people to live their lives, raise their children, worship God, and practice their culture....with as little interference from distant centers of authority as is possible.

Neoconservativism, which is not really conservative at all, sees every bit of this as antisocial and immoral. They harbor a megalomaniacal ideology that demands that individual americans sacrifice themselves on the altar of world empire. Who cares about the constitutional limitations on our federal govt? Who cares about fiscal responsibility? Who cares about the warnings of our founders that we avoid foreign entanglements?

The peasants job is to pay outrageous taxes, give away our freedom, and fight their wars....they are the philosopher kings of Plato's cave, and we are ignorant peasants.

These neocons are not really that different from the marxists from which they so recently sprang. We are now entering a conflict for the very soul of our nation.

10 posted on 08/20/2003 1:58:43 PM PDT by quebecois
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dighton
WFA®
11 posted on 08/20/2003 2:00:21 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
"Link to the stunning Kristol admissions of just what the neoconservative represents and how they are distinct from the pursuit of liberty"

Thanks for link; will check it out.

12 posted on 08/20/2003 2:02:38 PM PDT by cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Korth
The original Kristol admission of how liberal neocon veiws really was posted twice on FR, here and here.

It can not be emphasized enough that Neocons ideology is the very antithesis of conservatism and they say it in their own words. They reject the wisdom of the founding fathers. They reject conservative icons like Hayek, Coolidge and Goldwater. Their heroes are TR and FDR i.e. presidents who forged a strong activist federal government. They are all for liberal social programs i.e. the Welfare State.

On foreign policy it is clear that this old communist and supporter of Trotsky and world socialist revolution, Kristol, sees the USA today as he saw the USSR in the glory days of his youth i.e. a state with an ideology that needs to forcibly spread it around the world.

To sum up - neocons are socialist revolutionaries who would use the force of government to remake the country and the entire world into their version of utopia.

13 posted on 08/20/2003 2:07:19 PM PDT by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quebecois
To be a conservative, above all else, is to believe in the founding ideals of America. It is more of a way of life than an ideology. It is based on the idea that America's purpose is to provide an evironment for the american people to live their lives, raise their children, worship God, and practice their culture....with as little interference from distant centers of authority as is possible.

Very well stated. Beautiful even.

14 posted on 08/20/2003 2:09:02 PM PDT by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Korth
Thomas J. DiLorenzo is hilarious.
15 posted on 08/20/2003 2:11:07 PM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Korth
After being lambasted in the US Senate over the fact that he had launched a military intervention in the Philippines that costs thousands of American lives and resulted in an incredible 200,000 Philippine deaths, Edmund Morris recounts in his latest biography of TR, Theodore Rex, how he responded to his senate critics during a Memorial Day address to aged Union army veterans.

Sheer nonsense. When the Spanish-American War broke out, TR was Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Although a proponent of the war, he was hardly in any kind of position to "launch a military intervention."

He resigned to become a volunteer colonel in the Army. He did not become President till September of 1901, several months after military rule (and almost all of the fighting) in the Phillippines was over.

For most of the period of the Filipino War, he was governor of New York.

It takes a character assassin, someone ignorant of history or with an enormous axe to grind, to blame what happened in the Phillipines on TR.

As far as I can see, this goes right along with just about everything else he writes.

16 posted on 08/20/2003 2:12:37 PM PDT by Restorer (Never let schooling interfere with your education.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: u-89
I was going to ping you, but I figured you would find it.
17 posted on 08/20/2003 2:13:09 PM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Korth
Here's more Kristol quotes:

Irving Kristol writes in Reflections of a Neo-Conservative: "a conservative welfare state... is perfectly consistent with the neo-conservative perspective."

and: "[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."

18 posted on 08/20/2003 2:14:07 PM PDT by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
I check into FR several times a day but somehow I still miss a lot and frequently find threads after they are already old & stale. Please do ping me if there's something juicy going on because I just may have missed it. Thanks in advance.
19 posted on 08/20/2003 2:17:16 PM PDT by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
Please follow one of the links posted above to read the original Kristol article defining neoconservatism. Does the Welfare State and global moral crusades jive with your version of conservatism? That's what this discussion is really all about.
20 posted on 08/20/2003 2:24:39 PM PDT by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
Don't ever expect the truth from this crowd. They exist only because the average reader is ignorant of the real facts.
21 posted on 08/20/2003 2:26:02 PM PDT by Deb (My Tag Skies to Gotham & Con-Fabs With Net Prexies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Korth
What can this movement do other than perpetuate the myth of fascism being consevative? Or of conservatives being neofascists?
22 posted on 08/20/2003 2:29:48 PM PDT by Maccabee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: u-89
I think the author's disdain for the historical facts has a great deal to say about the reliability of his opinions generally.
23 posted on 08/20/2003 2:30:55 PM PDT by Restorer (Never let schooling interfere with your education.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
We now have the ... ultra - super - hyper --- inner circle - upper level - overlord cons !
24 posted on 08/20/2003 2:37:15 PM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: JohnGalt
Well, this should get a rise out of some of the statists here on FR.

Should be fun to watch.

26 posted on 08/20/2003 2:43:20 PM PDT by sauropod (Until Kofi Annan rides buses in Jerusalem, he just won't care. - The Spotted Owl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Scolub
Weeeeeeeeeeeel newbie. I see you have been around here long enough for a smear.

Here's a clue. Not everyone that is disenchanted with W. is a "Jew hater."

Idiot.

27 posted on 08/20/2003 2:45:16 PM PDT by sauropod (Until Kofi Annan rides buses in Jerusalem, he just won't care. - The Spotted Owl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
Ain't it wonderful? The rump-kissers are in full flower on this thread.
28 posted on 08/20/2003 2:46:36 PM PDT by sauropod (Until Kofi Annan rides buses in Jerusalem, he just won't care. - The Spotted Owl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; rdb3; general_re; Chancellor Palpatine
WFA®

If I recall correctly, SCO is asserting previous rights to that expression

;-)

29 posted on 08/20/2003 2:47:23 PM PDT by dighton (NLC™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Somewhat strong/flaming worded--but interesting.
30 posted on 08/20/2003 2:49:32 PM PDT by ninenot (Democrats make mistakes. RINOs don't correct them.--Chesterton (adapted by Ninenot))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Korth
lying us into war, TR style

Number of wars the US got into while TR was President = 0.

Much to his disappointment. :)

31 posted on 08/20/2003 2:52:58 PM PDT by Restorer (Never let schooling interfere with your education.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Restorer; luckydevi; cricket; JohnGalt; reelfoot; quebecois; u-89; AAABEST; Deb; Maccabee; ...
You are mistaken. The military intervention to which he refers is not the battle against the Spanish in the Philipines during the Spanish-American war, but rather the intervention to put down the rebellion of the Filipinos against American rule. The Filipinos wanted independence after the defeat of the Spanish in the Spanish-American war, but we sent troops to put down their rebellion. The battle against the rebels lasted a number of years, and cost a great many lives. This occured under TR's administration, after the Spanish-American war was over.

As an interesting side note, the army had a very poor experience with the 38 colt cartridge (the official side arm cartridge at that time) during this war against the Filipino rebels (it proved to have little stopping power) and this trouble led to the development of a more powerful replacement: the 45acp, adopted in 1911.

32 posted on 08/20/2003 2:56:09 PM PDT by Korth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Restorer; luckydevi; cricket; JohnGalt; reelfoot; quebecois; u-89; AAABEST; Deb; Maccabee; ...
You are mistaken. The military intervention to which he refers is not the battle against the Spanish in the Philipines during the Spanish-American war, but rather the intervention to put down the rebellion of the Filipinos against American rule. The Filipinos wanted independence after the defeat of the Spanish in the Spanish-American war, but we sent troops to put down their rebellion. The battle against the rebels lasted a number of years, and cost a great many lives. This occured under TR's administration, after the Spanish-American war was over.

As an interesting side note, the army had a very poor experience with the 38 colt cartridge (the official side arm cartridge at that time) during this war against the Filipino rebels (it proved to have little stopping power) and this trouble led to the development of a more powerful replacement: the 45acp, adopted in 1911.

33 posted on 08/20/2003 2:56:20 PM PDT by Korth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dighton
Like I give a damn about anything that comes from Rockhead's site. He, his columnists, and subsequent sycophants are beneath contempt to me.
34 posted on 08/20/2003 2:56:59 PM PDT by rdb3 (N.O.T.O.R.I.O.U.S. Nupe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
That "neocon" label paints with an awfully broad brush. Kristol makes some statements in that article that some who consider themselves "neocons" would abhor -- his homily to FDR being one example. The fact that Kristol chooses to define neoconservatism in that fashion doesn't mean that he speaks for everyone who might consider themselves one.

I tend to agree with the "neocons" on foreign relations issues because I think we're pretty much doomed if we isolate ourselves. If the rest of the world goes to hell, we'll eventually follow. Probably not us, but our children and grandchildren will pay the price.

On the other hand, acceptance of the welfare state and adulation towards FDR makes me ill. But I do agree that political platforms calling for the abolition of the welfare state are counterproductive. It took generations to build the welfare state, and anyone who thinks it can be dismantled overnight is living a pipedream.

35 posted on 08/20/2003 2:57:16 PM PDT by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Korth
Read later.
36 posted on 08/20/2003 3:03:54 PM PDT by EagleMamaMT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sachem
Not to be missed...
37 posted on 08/20/2003 3:04:04 PM PDT by gnarledmaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
Like I give a damn about anything that comes from Rockhead's site. He, his columnists, and subsequent sycophants are beneath contempt to me.

And yet you took the time to log in and post a response. On behalf of all the conservatives at FreeRepublic.com, thank you.

38 posted on 08/20/2003 3:05:24 PM PDT by Korth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Korth
I am well aware that he was referring to the Filipino War of Independence. This started on February 4, 1899 and was essentially over by spring/summer of 1901. TR became President in September, 1901.

TR enthusiastically supported the war against the Filipinos, but it is ludicrous to assign him responsibility for it, especially for gettin us into it.

During almost the entire war, he was a colonel in the Army of governor of NY. Hardly the person who can launch military interventions.

39 posted on 08/20/2003 3:12:22 PM PDT by Restorer (Never let schooling interfere with your education.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Oh mercy me! I wonder if all the the other Vicheycons have read the Kristol piece yet? They must be quite angry at the old man after wasting the last few months and expending whatever credibility they once had on the laughable "neocons don't exist" argument. Has Jonah Golberg been fired yet?

I can’t help but point out that the self-appointed neocon culture and morality czar, "Blackjack" Bill Bennett, recently revealed to the world what his idea of "culture" is: Sitting on a vinyl stool at a Las Vegas casino at 3 A.M. pouring thousands of dollars into one-armed bandits while being served free drinks by cocktail waitresses barely out of their teens and dressed like hookers. (Bennett admitted to having blown some $8 million at Vegas casinos in recent years).

ROFL! Prescious.

40 posted on 08/20/2003 3:13:18 PM PDT by Burkeman1 ((If you see ten troubles comin down the road, Nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
Please excuse typos in above post.
41 posted on 08/20/2003 3:13:59 PM PDT by Restorer (Never let schooling interfere with your education.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Korth
I like Irving Kristol. Both he and Norman Podhoretz have made amazing journeys from Communism to reality.

Has Lew Rockwell ever published a piece condemning radical islam, radical islamics, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein or anyone besides Bush, Republicans, the dreaded neo-cons or Dick Cheney?

I seem to remember that just a day or so after 9/11 he blamed those murders on American policies.

Lew, and all of his apologists, are true enemies of the people.

42 posted on 08/20/2003 3:15:56 PM PDT by Deb (My Tag Skies to Gotham & Con-Fabs With Net Prexies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Korth
And yet you took the time to log in and post a response. On behalf of all the conservatives at FreeRepublic.com, thank you.

I was pinged to this thread, thank you very much.

As far as you are concerned, take a look at what ya boy Rockhead said, "Thomas calls the segregation of the Old South, where he grew up, 'totalitarian.' But that's liberal nonsense. Whatever its faults, and it certainly had them, that system was far more localized, decent, and humane than the really totalitarian social engineering now wrecking the country." He's talking about SJ Clarence Thomas here.

DiLorenzo has been shown to be loose with the truth.

Since his site seems to be your cup of tea, screw you and your whole clique. Just goes to show where your head is; up your third point of contact.


43 posted on 08/20/2003 3:20:00 PM PDT by rdb3 (N.O.T.O.R.I.O.U.S. Nupe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Deb
A real amazing journey isn't it? They have gone from slaven worship of the Soviet state and the forcible spread of communisism all over the globe to the slaven worship of the American Federal government and the foricble spread of "democracy" around the globe. Real "intellectuals".
44 posted on 08/20/2003 3:26:09 PM PDT by Burkeman1 ((If you see ten troubles comin down the road, Nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Korth
Read the last paragraph of "Theodore Rex" and its book jacket. You'll find that Edmund Morris adored TR - and that Dilorenzo is a lying, distorting, viscious piece of foul excrement.
45 posted on 08/20/2003 3:27:56 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
Not quite: The war didn't end in 1901- it continued on and off for some time:

http://www.boondocksnet.com/centennial/sctexts/zwick99a.html

46 posted on 08/20/2003 3:35:57 PM PDT by Burkeman1 ((If you see ten troubles comin down the road, Nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Korth
Southerners were also killed by the hundreds of thousands for their own good, according to TR’s logic.

Is this guy still refighting the Civil War? And if he wants to make a sarcastic statement like that then for whose good were all those slaves brought to the Americas? For whose good did millions die in the Middle passage? What a crock.

The fact is "Manifest Destiny" was the wisdom of the time - a justification for European conquest and expansion. And - whether voiced or denied - it's a justification for all conquests by all peoples at all times.

47 posted on 08/20/2003 3:40:01 PM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Is this guy still refighting the Civil War?

Uh, Yeah! That's all he's really interested in.

Lincoln as the Lenin, Stalin and Hitler of the 19th century. Quite amusing, actually, if you have a lot of tolerance for historical inaccuracy and ludicrous distortions.

48 posted on 08/20/2003 3:50:52 PM PDT by Restorer (Never let schooling interfere with your education.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: u-89
Irving Kristol writes in Reflections of a Neo-Conservative: "a conservative welfare state... is perfectly consistent with the neo-conservative perspective."

Conservative Welfare State? What's next? Conservative Marxism? This is definitely one of the funnier oxymorons I have ever read. Though it is clear the “Welfare State” has a home with neo-conservatives.

As others have pointed out, there is little that is conservative with this bunch of Wild-Eyed Zealots. In the interests of Truth in Labeling the CONS should change their name to Neo-Statists. It would end the sullying of true conservatism and be a far more accurate description of their true ideology.

49 posted on 08/20/2003 3:54:59 PM PDT by WRhine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
They must be quite angry at the old man after wasting the last few months and expending whatever credibility they once had on the laughable "neocons don't exist" argument.

I tried to explain this to some Freepers a while back-- that it was the neo-cons themselves that conjured up the term "neo-conservative" to define their ideology.

I'm not sure where the confusion on this started but it was around the time the CONS where coming under fire in the press on the revelation of the now infamous letter. The letter that a number of high profile Cons wrote back in the early Clinton days revealing their plans of global conquest if they ever got into power.

I suspect that their initial reaction upon this disclosure was to deny that their nefarious political movement even exists...lol. Glad to see their God Father clear the air on this.

50 posted on 08/20/2003 4:21:37 PM PDT by WRhine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-180 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson