Skip to comments.How Bill Kristol ditched conservatism. Great Escape
Posted on 10/03/2002 7:41:50 PM PDT by logician2u
click here to read article
"He is a mole."
Mole? Or opportunist?
It strikes me that, at every turn, Kristol has adapted or created his "ideas" and chosen his standard-bearer so as to attract the most attention for himself and his "ideas".
In this sense, Kristol isn't a mole. He's a parasite.
Buchanan has the nasty habit of calling everybody who doesn't agree with him a "neocon". This creates the misconception that neocons are legion. In turn, Kristol dubs all those at odds with him as "paleocons". Thus, the forces of the paleos are enormously magnified.
So we have two fringes -- one actually Populist, the other some kind of "Manifest Destiny", both irrelevant -- whose inner linings define the outer limits of conservatism.
As for a Bull Moose party, it would be a disaster for the Republican Party, which is why it appeals to Benedict Arnold "War Hero" McCain. Two years out from the presidential election, it looks like Bush has the political skills to ward off any such eventuality, however.
Fractionalizing of various elements has resulted in a power vaccuum, only now filled by such as Rumsfeld and Bush, to a lesser extent Cheney.
There may be a number of academics who could fill the role as spokesman for a conservative "mainstream," but they are routinely bypassed in favor of media-savvy personalities such as Kristol, Will and even William Bennett, who may be one of those "national greatness" fans for all I know. His presence on the tube disgusts me.
I'm convinced that the media turns a blind eye to anyone who can speak with authority with regard to the nation's past and present. They are looking for sound bites only, not anything in depth. It's not even a left-right dichotomy we have to concern ourselves with, as some think. When did you ever see Noam Chomsky on ABC World News, for example? PBS, maybe, but I never watch that propaganda.
Libertarians are just about totally excluded from the major media, with the single exception of Milton Friedman. He gets a pass as a Nobel Laureate and an all-around nice guy, in a non-threatening way. If he wants to repeal Social Security and abolish the Fed, the typical media reporter isn't going to call him on it.
We have to somehow separate the conservatives in government (the few that remain, that is), who are only too well aware of their limitations, from those in academia who are actively formulating plans to roll back federal programs, in anticipation of a new generation of legislators. The former can't really do much because they don't have the votes; the latter can do plenty by educating constituents through on-line journals, newsletters, publications from Heritage and CEI, etc.
The power-brokers like Kristol would never consider going the long route through private citizens (who fall asleep in the middle of their lectures anyway) when they have entree to Capitol offices. They don't really need the media exposure except as it serves as a two-edged sword, keeping others out as they increase their own visibility among the establishment in Washington.
Post 41: If we need to stop criminals police work should suffice.
Police work in the U.S. outside our borders is not work for our police. We have no police that work on a federal level much less with an international scope.
Nations have their own rules for policing.
I associate "hard right"( I definitely consider myself hard right but not a culture warrior) culture warriors with people like Currybot and hold them beneath contempt. You seem like a nice affable guy not some mindless robot spouting off slogans which bash libertarians more than rats.
With terrorist( and commies etc) you have to do unto others before they do unto you.
But is this what everyone thinks conservatives are about? For example there are WOD conservatives on this forum who are not for limiting central power or reducing bureaucracy if it means that individual states will decriminalize marijuana. Most Republicans elected don't appear too interested in reducing bureaucracy or balancing the budget.
My observation is a lot of conservatives want to capture the Federal government so they can implement their way of thinking. Now I personally think having the Republicans controlling both houses of Congress and the Presidency is a good idea so we can get the backlog of judges filled with conservative, non-judicial activist type judges, which means they don't make it up as they go along. But I suspect there are conservatives who do want judges to make it up as they go along - just the "conservative" way - whatever way that is.
As for Kirk's definition - I agree with it completely. But there are plenty of Democrats who would also agree with it. No, not the gay rights, feminazi, race-baiting, "progressive" socialists. But while they make all the noise, they are not the whole Democratic party, either. There's lots of conservative, Catholic, blue collar, Reagan democrats out there still.
So...in what way are FReepers "conservative"? And how many different definitions do we have? And why have we failed to pull in the Reagan democrats? (And we have failed - or the government wouldn't be so closely split.)
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.