The Neoconservative Cabal

AEI ^ | 9/3/03 | Joshua Muravchik

[WOSG]

"They do that to cover up their liberalism on domestic issues. For fun, ask them if they think that overall the New Deal was a good thing."

The New Deal was a bunch of cr*p. It lengthened the depression. Funny thing is, go to AEI and you can find a scholar or two to make that same case.

Piling on to the "neo-cons" is a bunch of cr*p too. The people who've been right from day one on the war on terror have been castigated and labelled in the most vicious way.

What the Left and paleo-cons are doing to the neo-cons+ Ashcroft is what the Left in the 1950s did to McCarthy. One bashed the Anti-Communist, the other crowd bashes the anti-Jihadists. Same dirty technique 50 years on.

History repeats itself.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Yes, because they think the American Revolution was launched only for their own personal benefit."

Or that the ideals, rights, and priviledges guaranteed by that revolution applies only to them who (legally) reside here.

[William McKinley]

Because I figure if you replied to the thread, you were reading the thread, not doing a hit and run. And frankly, I couldn't care less if it irked you if in fact you had been doing a hit and run.

As for fantasizing over what you find scary, I did nothing of the sort. You said so, yourself, in post 90, as anyone who clicks that link can see for themselves.

[GOPcapitalist]

Goldwater's heyday came before the present-day concept of conservatism became crystalized.

Goldwater's ideology is what crystalized what has been until now the concept of conservatism in America. He also solidified conservatism's identification with the Republican party. No less a source than Reagan would agree with those facts.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Give or take a decade or two...according to some here.

[William McKinley]

Quite.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Reagan agreed with that forty years ago, but situations change making people change right along.

Reagan himself changed in his lifetime.

[GOPcapitalist]

Why the hell are you arguing with me?

I simply answered your question about who the most important modern conservative is/was.

For the record, I do believe that those who call themselves neoconservatives tend to also reject the fundamental doctrine of Goldwater conservatism (which, at least until right now, has also been the defining doctrine of "traditional" American conservatism).

[risk]

Sorry I don't feel like knocking off a few thousand words tonight on military adventurism by all of washingtons political desk jockeys since LBJ.

I think we didn't lose the Vietnam war because we were "adventurist." And I think we should have fought it. We lost it because it was run by people who didn't think we should win it. In fact, I think that thinking should be what you and I both strive against today.

The travesty is that much of that thinking is alive and well in the Council for Foreign Relations, and they still feed the State Department its ideological marching orders.

Am I supposed to break down and admit that I'm a neo-fascist or something?

No, I had nothing of the sort in mind. I'm just trying to get you to see that isolationism then wasn't very different from what it is today.

[GOPcapitalist]

situations change making people change right along.

Power also tends to corrupt and so forth. Reagan fortunately resisted its corrupting effects but even at the end of his presidency one could easily characterize his root ideology as Goldwater conservatism.

[William McKinley]

I'd agree with what you wrote there.

But I would point out that there is a huge difference between 'those who call themselves neoconservatives', which is a small demographic, and 'those who are called neoconservatives by paleos, mainstream media, and leftists'.

If I repeated myself at the end there is up to those who read this thread to decide.

[nopardons]

I am a PURIST , when it comes to the meanings of words, terms, and certain presentations of operas, plays, and opperettas.

I have tried, repeatedly, heatedly, and without, I'm most sorry to say, to get the correct deffinition/useage of the term " neocon ", used here.So, in order to impress upon those, who have so destroyed the term, I resort to the factual representation of what their misuse has done. Ergo ... RONALD REAGAN IS A NEOCON .

Now, you and I and those who invented the term know, with certainty, that this is so large a stretch, as to be laughable. OTOH, if this term is to be misused, then what the heck ... I'll play their game and show them up and in spades. :-)

[tpaine]

From what I can tell, you are ascribing to me views I do not hold. So I am asking you, to please clarify what you are saying, and if you are saying I believe something in particular, please substantiate your assertion.
-billy Mc-

Pot - Kettle

And, -- she had the guts to make her assertions to your face..
-- But - that's right, - you don't care.

[nopardons]

Nailed in one ! You're absolutely correct.

[William McKinley]

OK, gotcha. Now I understand where you are coming from. You were confusing me for a bit there.

[WOSG]

He is responding to a label which has been foistered on people. It's like labelling a group of people something and then complaining when that group refuses to define the label. One of his major points is one which I have made repeatedly-- the term neoconservative as it is used by the left and by the paleoconservatives has no meaning. You say he can't tell you what it is-- and that is because no one can. Any attempt to define neoconservatives omits the majority of the people who supposedly are neoconservatives.

Well done. Succinct and correct!

The attackers of 'neo-cons' have to use a bait and switch. They are attacking a robust pro-freedom interventionist foreign policy, one that most conservatives share; but they want to make it seem to be a narrow agenda of a bunch of Zionists. So "what they want" is defined in one way - broadly; "who they are" is defined another - narrowly. This makes a broad foreign policy viewpoint seem to be the product of a cabal.

It's the old Ad Hominem argument dressed up in fancy rhetoric.

I am a Catholic, Texan, pro-Bush, pro-War-on-Terror, pro-liberation-of-Iraq, anti-Communist, anti-Islamofascist-Jihadist, pro-freedom-oriented-foreign-policy, pro-traditional-values, small Government Conservative. Who happens to think Paul Wolfowitz would be ten times better as Secty of State than Colin Powell.... Am I a "neo-con"?

[William McKinley]

Anyone can hit the link back to your post and tell if I put words in your mouth.

I did not.

And you are right, I don't care what you think.

[risk]

No, it makes you a patriot in the tradition of Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin, who both sought to export the American Revolution.

[nopardons]

Sorry about that. I am usually as clear as can be; or so I tend to think. LOL

[quidnunc]

GOPcapitalist wrote: Goldwater's ideology is what crystalized what has been until now the concept of conservatism in America.

Only because until Goldwater, the main difference between the GOP and the Democrats was one of class and social standing.

While Goldwater was for limited government, his social views were decidedly libertarian and in some cases liberal.