Posted on 08/28/2003 7:35:28 AM PDT by u-89
I didn't know I was picking an argument with you, but I will repeat that for most who use the term "neo" the intent is to shut down the argument by ad hominem without addressing the actual policy disagreement. If your policy dispute is with Kristol and Boot, then the term may have some validity. But I normally see it used to apply to anyone who favors the war against the Talibs and the Baathists, and who sympathise more with the Israelis than the Palestinians. If that is your position, then defend it and we will enjoy the exchange.
If I happen to agree with Boot or Kristol on some items, I probably also agree with you on some others. Labelling me a "u89er" would do little to advance an argument, nor does labelling me a neo, or a parrothead, or anything else.
Boot adds: ''I prefer the more forthright if also more controversial term American Empire - sort of like the way some gays embrace the `queer' label.''
I repeat what I said earlier. I laugh at writers who invoke the term "empire" with regard to the US. They use a term they half understand to describe something they don't at all understand. That includes Boot, and Buchanan, and every leftist writer I ever read.
I refer you to Irving Kristol... he says neocons are all for the welfare state
Again, if your target is Kristol, your comments and your use of the term "neo" is apt. But the term is normally used in shotgun fashion against everyone who favors confronting our enemies on their own turf, rather than on ours. If they wear an "R" next to their name, they probably do not favor the welfare state, so the term would be misapplied. Its only purpose, then, in this case would be to shut down discussion.
I recognize that there could be a legitimate utilitarian argument concerning whether or how or where we confront our enemies, and I would still recognize you as a fellow Republican, or a fellow conservative if you disagreed with me on those terms. You at least agree on the founding principles of the republic, and most probably agree that they are worth defending, differing with us on the how and where. I respect that position even if I disagree with it.
For the folks on the left, they don't even accept the founding principles, and they do not agree to defend them anywhere, not in Central Asia, not at the borders, not anywhere.
He also thinks... great nations like the US are ideologically driven... and should spread their vision throughout the world.
The US is ideologically driven. It is not an ethnic nation in the sense that France or Germany is, it is ideology that binds us. The fact that half the country no longer believes in the founding principles does not alter that fact, that it is the values closely held by the other half that hold us together. And as for whether or not we "should", the fact remains that we "do" spread our vision thoughout the world. Whether we should do so by design is fodder for discussion, but the fact is that we do, just by breathing, just by existing, just because that is the way we are. You are a revolutionary on the world stage without planning to be, without wanting to be, because your, our, values put the lie to the values that undergird most of the rest of the world. That makes us a magnet for trouble. Some of us err on the side of bold, some of us err on the side of prudence. Post 9/11, I vote for "bold".
CSM's September expose: Dance Fever Blistering Denny Terrio or Adrian Zmed? Who put the meat into Motion?
Coming in October - "Club Bludgeoning" Could that be Dr. Ruth Westheimer being the stone cold diva shakin her moneymaker on the floor for the East Village hepcats rattling like a blender full of croquet balls on "puree"?
Coming in November - Three's Company's Untold Story: Grab the children and run: Randy insatiable nymphomaniac Mrs. Roper lives upstairs and Pig humping horny lizard Larry lives next door. Somthin's gotta give. Towels. Lots of towels.
December - Supersize my Diet Coke and No Ketchup on the Cheesburger Kiddie Meal for my Young Lady friend CSM follows Scott Ritter and his companion on a luncheon date at the Fairfax Burger King Restaurant.
This Neocon stuff is so damn boring.
Here’s a United States Marine, Roger McGrath, writing in Chronicles magazine (best American monthly by far) about war:
And who is to do it? Certainly not the neoconservatives. They use such terms as moral clarity and the need to project our power — but it is to be done with someone else’s body. A conversation I had with a budding neocon reveals their version of moral clarity. Who was included when he said ‘we’. He looked at me as if I were a bit dense and said, ‘We, the United States.’ ‘Does that mean you?’ I asked. ‘No,’ he replied, ‘the guys in the army.’
McGrath goes on to ask the neocon whether our boys should be put in harm’s way for interests that have nothing to do with the defence of the United States. ‘Are you willing to do what you call the right thing with your own body?’ asks the Marine. ‘Those guys are volunteers — they chose to do it. I’m just finishing my degree and have a good job lined up.’
Need I say more? The neocon is not a soldier and does not plan to become one. Soldiering is for others. In a republic, it is the job of citizens. In an empire, it is imperial forces who do the fighting. Another Marine, Major-General Smedley Butler, twice decorated with the Medal of Honour, making him one of only two Marines in history to win the greatest battlefield decoration twice, had this to say about war: ‘War is just a racket...I believe in adequate defence of our coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes here, then we’ll fight. I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. I would only fight for the defence of our homes and for the Bill of Rights.’
....(I can still remember the stink of dead human flesh) — and the Yom Kippur war, I decided war was not such a good thing after all. All Quiet on the Western Front attests to a common humanity transcending nation, race, and religion. Erich Maria Remarque became a pacifist because he had fought the war in the trenches. The neocons never have and do not plan to, and do not deserve the right to send anyone to die except themselves.
---------------------------------------
Those of us who oppose nation building, policing and peace keeping, intervention and meddling see the world differently than many of those who support these things. That is why we think the military should be used only for strictly defined self defense. How many in our armed forces volunteered to spread our values around the world? I'll wager they signed up to defend The United States. As Taki said the "big thinkers" don't have plans for themselves beyond lucrative jobs - usually in government, think tanks or as pundits - and stock holdings in defense contractors. We conservatives don't think highly of communists and socialists but at least people like the Abraham Lincoln Brigade put their own lives on the line to fight for a cause in which they believed. How many of the cheerleaders for global hegemony disrupted their lives, their careers, their families lives to enlist in the army for the duration it will take to create the Pax Americana they envision?
I don't look at debate as an argument. I was simply trying to respond to what I interpreted as a differing view on the subjects at hand.
> but I will repeat that for most who use the term "neo" the intent is to shut down the argument by ad hominem without addressing the actual policy disagreement.
I submit the charges of anti-semitism against critics of neoconservatism are used for precisely the reasons you stated above. Please see the contents of my selected neocon quotes in the main post and several of the following "rebuttals."
As far as labeling someone or ones neocon it seems to be a logical necessity as we humans need to label things in order to communicate. How can we discuss a certain vision of the world if the adherents deny they exist, as has been the attempt of serveral "neocon" columns"? Just because neoconservatives do not share a monolithic and uniform view of every issue does not mean there is no such thing as a group or school of thought. Since no two people agree on every topic naturally there will be variations of neoconservative thought just like every other group. Generalizations simply are conducive to communication. I have experienced neocons arguing trivialities simply because they do not wish to have the main topic examined i.e. the ramifications of their foreign policy and to a lesser extend their domestic policies.
As far as empire is concerned there is the historical definition which you use and therefore reject the current usage. Then there is the new and revised version which is what we now have. It is not simply the opponents of current policies that use the term empire. The proponents have written fairly extensively trying to whitewash and polish the term so it can become respectable and embraced.
Lastly there is a difference between the US being founded by a certain ideology, living by it and being an example to others and exporting that ideology through military conquest. Kristol and his fellow travelers (first generation neocons) were communists of the Trotskyite order in their youth. They opposed Stalin because Stalin (in the 20s and 30s) set about to consolidate power in the USSR and build up the nation. The Trotskyites wanted a world socialist revolution to be waged. They were dreamers and Stalin was a realist. It is obvious from their writings that Kristol and Co. may have shifted their earlier communist views (though they still believe in quasi- socialism) but they have not lost the world revolutionary zeal of their youth. Using their own statements to understand them the rest of us can then see a a wrong headedness in and danger to the implimentation of their vision. National Defense is used as their justification and most conservatives reflexively leap on board. Who could be against National Defense? Well some see their plans as dangerous, risky, perhaps even suicidal. It is our patriotic defense of the nation that brings us to oppose neocons.
Yes well some view the Weekly Standard as a mouthpiece for the war party and feel their information is cooked or at least their interpretations to be. As for me I read as much as possible to try and verify stories, learn more and then form an opinion. Sure the messenger needs to be factored in but one should not let the source alone discredit facts or views.
As for the Taki quotes I could have written them myself but I saw his article and he said what I was thinking so I posted him instead of my own screed. You know war can be the easy way to deal with a situation. Other processes might not bring results quickly or what one exactly desires but it is wise to avoid wars. Planning to rearranging the world is megalomaniacal. Doing so through war is evil. Sending the least among us to do one's dirty work is even more reprehensible. So is using a horrible situation as an excuse for one's ambitions. But at least people like Alexander or Napoleon went into the field with their armies. Not so our Washington D.C. armchair "generals."
"The Monitor asked a leading US foreign policy expert, Walter Russell Mead, to place neoconservative beliefs in historical context.
- "..in the early part of the [19]th century when it was clear that the British empire was not going to be as strong and the Unisted States was growing. And you had people like [James Polk and John Q Adams] and others beginning to think ... "What if America is going to become an imperial nation? What does that look like?" "
We've been struggling with 'empire' ever since 1812. Our view has never changed since the children of the Founders- we will act as is in our best interests.
Not a dime. I hate federal welfare programs even more than you do (that's why I oppose tariffs and trade protectionism as well), but I'm not willing to give Hillary Clinton the Presidency because Medicare spending went up.
I suppose you wrote me that message to belittle me as a chickenhawk, and that i would have other people fight these wars for me.
Actually though, i just enlisted in the National Guard, and i plan to do the SMP ROTC program after i graduate basic and AIT (my ship date is in January). And i plan to go active duty in the ARMY as an infantry officer.
Still, i agree with your premise that U.S. soldeirs should not be put on the firing line for issues that have no effect on National Security. But many questions in the NeoCon quiz are about the Cold War and the War on Terror, which do have an effect on national security. It was on those questions in which i stated that the possible answers weren't hawkish enough. The quiz sill labeled me a neocon though even though i answered negatively on nation building etc.
Because they produce far more results for conservatives than the Pat Buchanan paleo crowd ever has or will.
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.