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

Skip to comments.

The Neoconservative Cabal
AEI ^ | 9/3/03 | Joshua Muravchik

Posted on 09/28/2003 5:06:39 PM PDT by William McKinley

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-263 last
To: jmc813
"A neocon would never say "Government is not the solution, it's the problem".

I consider myself a neocon, and I say that, as do most of the neocons I know.

251 posted on 09/30/2003 12:04:59 AM PDT by Luis Gonzalez ("As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." - Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: jmc813; quidnunc; nopardons; hchutch; William Wallace
BTW...there is no such thing as a paleocon, which is why there is so much confusion about the definition of the term.

"Paleocon" is a classification made up by the remnants of the Know-Nothings, Birchers, America Firsters, and sundry fringe extreme minority groups attempting to obtain some sort of legitimacy by marginalizing the mainstream conservative.

The proof of that is in the total lack of "paleocons" elected to major political office.

252 posted on 09/30/2003 12:13:37 AM PDT by Luis Gonzalez ("As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." - Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Yes Luis, there is no such a thing as a " paleocon " and the Founding Fathers weren't Libertarians either, as that term only came into existance a few decades ago, thrown together by some weird types, who melded hippy/lefty Liberalism with a few, more or less conservative positions.

The old " KNOW-NOTHINGS " never actually went away, they just morphed into an even deadlier bunch of fringers, from the Birchers to the Patsies, to other rightish groups, so far right, as to be LEFT !

Lindburg was an isolaationsit, who was also a Nazi sympathizer, BTW.

253 posted on 09/30/2003 12:29:46 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
I consider myself a neocon, and I say that, as do most of the neocons I know.

FWIW, I've been reading your stuff for a while, and I don't really consider you to be a neo. The neo's I'm thinking of are quite left on most domestic issues, and go out of their way to ridicule constitutionalists/libertarians. I've never seen that from you. I suppose it goes to show what a strange term it really is.

254 posted on 09/30/2003 5:55:25 AM PDT by jmc813 (McClintock is the only candidate who supports the entire Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
I guess I describe myself as a neo, because I refuse to be labeled a paleo.

Neither term truly exists, to claim that a "paleocon" is a traditional conservative is crap, the general beliefs held by those who label themselves "paleocons" have never been part of American mainstream conservatism.

There has never been a time when mainstream conservative thinking in America has supported isolationalism, protectionism, or any of the other mainstay paleo beliefs.

So, how can something that's never been mainstream be considered traditional?
255 posted on 09/30/2003 6:02:02 AM PDT by Luis Gonzalez ("As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." - Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley; Luis Gonzalez; nopardons
I have to admit that I skimmed this article and completely misread it at first. Given the title and length of the article, I can understand why others assumed it was yet another "Neo-Cons-are-really-evil-Jews" hit piece.

I agree that the term "paleo-conservative" is a misnomer. It isn't paleo because its immediate roots are the America First movement of the 1930s and the Know Nothing movement of the latter half of the 19th century. Traditional conservative thought goes back much further, owing as great a debt to Aristotle and the medieval monks who preserved the wisdom of antiquity as it does to Edmund Burke, Tocqueville and the Founders. It isn't conservative because its central tenets -- isolationism, protectionism and xenophobia -- are antithetical or irrelevant to mainstream conservative ideals.

Paleo-conservatives have more in common with the extreme Left than they do with the mainstream conservatism of Ronald Reagan. Similarly, today's leftists have more in common with totalitarian ideologues than with the liberalism of FDR and JFK. Today's leftists are a loose coalition of Stalinists, environmental Luddites, secular elites and abortion-on-demand extremists united by their loathing of capitalism, interventionism and traditional values. Today's paleo-conservatives are a tatterdemalion rabble of codgers, cranks, anti-Semites and racist rednecks united by their fierce hostility to free trade, immigration and interventionism.

Have you ever noticed that the Left always sides with the totalitarian regimes? It doesn't matter whether the rulers are hostile to religion (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro), indifferent to religion (psychotic secular dictators like Hussein, Mugabe et al.) or religious fanatics (Islamic fundamentalists or ayatollahs). The Left only turns against a brutal totalitarian regime when it attacks another totalitarian regime more to their liking. Thus, the true believers on the Left were not troubled by the Soviet Union's non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany. They were nonplussed and outraged only when the Nazis violated the pact.

If Hitler had not breached the non-aggression pact, the Soviets would not have not sided with the Allies, and the Left would have sided with Fr. Coghlin and the America Firsters, just as the Nation and Justin Raimondo today find themselves in total agreement with Pat Buchanan and the fringe conservatives on the War with Iraq. Strange bedfellows? On the surface, that would appear to be the case, but deep down, not at all.

I used to think the Left behaved the way it did because they embrace nihilism instead of truth. But if nihilism was the answer, the law of averages would dictate that the Left would side with truth, justice and goodness at least occasionally, just as a broken clock is right twice a day. Nihilism does not explain the fearful symmetry between the rantings of anti-American/anti-capitalist Left and those of Pat Buchanan, Lew Rockwell and Joseph Sobran in their contempt of George W. Bush and opposition to the War on Terror.

May I be so bold as to call attention to the elephant in the room, not the symbol of the Republican party, but something uglier.

Anti-Semitism is the glue that unites the loony left and the fringe right. Anti-Semitism is not a political position, but rather a symptom of a spiritual disease or more precisely, the metaphysical refuse of a diseased soul.

256 posted on 09/30/2003 9:34:47 AM PDT by William Wallace (If the liberation of Iraq was really about oil, was World War II really about sake and marzipan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: zacyak
Neocons support the roadmap.
They believe in a Second Palestinians state because they believe that the Palestinians can be reformed.
They are selling out Israel for ideology.
257 posted on 09/30/2003 12:43:44 PM PDT by rmlew (Copperheads are traitors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
No, they are just being realistic. The demographics are such that if Israel retains the entire West Bank they would be a minority in a few short years. What then? You are dreaming if you think that the U.S. and the rest of the world would tolerate expelling all the Arabs from the West Bank.
258 posted on 09/30/2003 12:53:05 PM PDT by zacyak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: William Wallace
BRAVO ! That has to be one of THE most logical, cogent, well written, thoughtful postings, to have ever appeared on FR. I tip my hat to you and give you a standing ovation. Well said, well said indeed.
259 posted on 09/30/2003 2:02:50 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: zacyak
I don't support expelling the Arabs under peaceful conditions. I just figure taht there will be another war.
In the short run, Israel should secure the best borders it can with the fence. Some YeShA communities will have to be either transplanted or left out in hostile territory. The cynical side of me supports the presense of such communities in Nablus, Hebron, Bethlehem... because they will make for good martyrs when the Palestinians start killing them.
At any rate, teh creation of the second Palestinian sate in most of the West Bank and Gaza strip will only precipitate another war. The PA will try to take over Jordan (ie 3/4 of Palestine) and/or become a base for raids into Israel. When the Israelis respond, the Arab states will move troops into the region. Welcome to another Israeli-Arab war.
Teh UN may want to get involved, but they are not stupid enough to put their forces into a de facto war zone.
Either during or after the war, Israel will settle the issue by expelling the Palestinians to Jordan. The utter failure of negotiated settlement will be clear.
Teh Arabs will complain, but having been defeated, big whoop. The US will complain and probably cut off most aid. That would actually help Israel become self sufficient.

The only way transfer will not happen is if
1) Israel is defeated (in which case the Arabs will slaughter as many Jews as they can)
2) The UN/EU... steps in and decide to accept casualties. Israel will probably not accept this. I doubt that the EU would invade Israel.
3) The Palestinians renounce terrorism. That is about as likely as icescating in hell.
260 posted on 09/30/2003 4:26:38 PM PDT by rmlew (Copperheads are traitors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
I think that just the mere fact that Sharon has started building this wall suggests that he accepts in principle a 2 state solution, even though he's afraid of coming right out and saying so for fear of losing some of his supporters. Even Bush said he wants a Palestinian state. The Israelis wouldn't survive a cut-off in aid from the U.S. coupled with an economic boycott from Europe. They can try and prolong the inevitable as long as possible, but eventually they'll have to concede to some sort of Palestinian autonomy.
261 posted on 09/30/2003 4:57:51 PM PDT by zacyak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
You're too kind, np. Thank you.

WW

262 posted on 10/01/2003 6:35:13 AM PDT by William Wallace (If the liberation of Iraq was really about oil, was World War II really about sake and marzipan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
Now you are making sense - or rather explaining a reaction that doesn't make sense.

Respectfully, I think the reaction is normal. I long ago dismissed the notion of "racism" as being basically legitimate, though it can have superficial influence. I base my conclusion on both personal experience (anecdotal) and recorded history. If racism were as potent as its detractors claim, than how is it that blacks were complicit in supplying other blacks for white slave traders? Or, that the Japanese, though Oriental Asians, were such lousy house guests when the Japanese army paid a visit to their cousins in Korea and China during the last Century. And the Germans,as I recall, tended to have attacked fellow white Europeans rather than other distinct races. IMHO, the answer is that "Groupism", for want of a better word, is the operative dynamic in human affairs and not race. The "group" one is "raised in" or is perceived to belong to, has more power than, I think, we as humans are willing to admit. That's why it seems irrational, it is actually a paradox.

I'm not one to share this irrational prejudice against converts. Ever hear of the phrase 'the fervor of a convert'?

Yes, as well as the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I am not casting aspersions on Horowitz due to his Left Wing origins. But there is something inate in the humand mind that shies away from trusting a "traitor" to ones group of origin too far. Jim Jeffords cannot ever become a Republican again, nor will he ever be trusted, completely by the Democrats. After all, he is a turncoat at worst, a mere brat at best. Either way, he is a man without a party.

As a conservative who grew up in a liberal household...

Exactly! You knew who you were despite your surroundings. You were already a conservative, despite your environment, which is distinctly different than any group you may have been born into, rather than "raised-in". You looked at the world through conservative eyes and processed the information through a conservative mind. Now to me, that does not render you a "Neo-Con", if that's what you claim. You're just a conservative. I would join your army and follow you into battle.

Regards, Buck.

263 posted on 10/01/2003 12:13:17 PM PDT by elbucko (Barry Goldwater, a Leader not a Ruler.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-263 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