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

Skip to comments.

How Bill Kristol ditched conservatism. Great Escape
The New Republic ^ | 5/28/2001 | Franklin Foer

Posted on 10/03/2002 7:41:50 PM PDT by logician2u

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-83 last
To: x
Megabump
51 posted on 10/03/2002 9:35:35 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: x
You've made some good points, x.

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.

52 posted on 10/03/2002 9:38:45 PM PDT by logician2u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
If I had a family I might risk what( assuming uncivilized commie nazi islamic enemies here) they would do to me during capture but otherwise speaking as a civilian( meaining no disrespect to any veterans) I don't think I'd let myself be taken prisoner if they torture and brainwash the real you dies just as surely as if you went down fighting.
53 posted on 10/03/2002 9:41:20 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: m1911
Post 30: We should be an example for the world, not a policeman.

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.

54 posted on 10/03/2002 9:43:09 PM PDT by UnBlinkingEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
Many hard right culture warriors like myself feel the same way

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.

55 posted on 10/03/2002 9:45:48 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: weikel
McCain has always been since he was a child a bit coarse...he even admits this. He's a bit of an egomaniac and acts like he's the "lone wolf". How he behaved in Hanoi is between he and G-d. I wasn't there and the stories are conflicting to say the least but I do think it's conceded that he refused to leave when offered for whatever reason.

He's just not my cup of "conservative" tea.
56 posted on 10/03/2002 9:46:49 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: UnBlinkingEye
The non initation of force principle is the dumb part of the libertarian plank it should be replaced with the leave people the h*ll alone principle.

With terrorist( and commies etc) you have to do unto others before they do unto you.

57 posted on 10/03/2002 9:48:00 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: x
[Kirk] declared that religion, family, and private property and its yield, as well as law and order, were the foundations of a conservative society ... 'My kind of Republican Party is committed to a free state, limited central power, a reduction in bureaucracy, and a balanced budget'" Goldwater

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.)

58 posted on 10/03/2002 9:48:24 PM PDT by dark_lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: weikel
I'm a culture warrior about most issues. I'm soft on pot though, even though I haven't smoked it for 2 decades plus.

My own personal views on abortion have been more of a watershed of my swing from moderate left to hard right over the past 22 years than anything else.

Being Southern, I was already strong RKBA even though a lefty.

I'm a bit of an Imperialist too so the Buchanan crowd might label me a neocon....lol...labels are funny things.

Aside from a few things, I miss the old morality of my youth.....maybe decency is a better word.

I do indeed have big issues with "self-derived" morality and objectivism but I don't go looking for fights here. In fact, it's been awhile.
59 posted on 10/03/2002 9:54:10 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
I lean very heavily towards objectivism politically though I disagree with them on some philosophical grounds.
60 posted on 10/03/2002 9:56:22 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: UnBlinkingEye
Nations have their own rules for policing.

And nations have interests other than ours in formulating those rules, and enforcing them. The Taleban certainly had rules for their own police and I got no indication that deterence had pushed them toward cracking down on anti-US terrorist groups. I suspect that they are not the only regime with policing rules that put my safety fairly low on their priority list. Your suggestion seems to be that for those states, and those that may even support anti-US terrorism, threat of destruction is the answer. I think on the other thread you referred to that as "bullying".

61 posted on 10/03/2002 9:59:03 PM PDT by m1911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
"He is a mole."

Exactly, all he ever does is whine about the republicans.
If he were any kind of patriot he would attack the true scum that abounds in this gov't (Congress Critters and dem holdovers) that continue to fester the wounds of division!
62 posted on 10/03/2002 10:00:44 PM PDT by NYTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: weikel
Don't feel bad...Currybot doesn't care much for me either. I find him/her rather incomprehensible plus he/she has a tendency to frequently pursue scorched earth tactics and evade substance and declare victory and leave.

Currybot and I may vote alike but we have distinctly different attitudes.
63 posted on 10/03/2002 10:01:09 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Probably correct.
64 posted on 10/03/2002 10:01:51 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke
He [Kristol] and his fringe are really just media marketable conservatives...great for TV filler

Agreed. He's a decent talking head (even though I disagree with a lot of his positions). Problem is his whining, nervous, cracking voice and his stupid and constant smile makes for difficult TV viewing.

65 posted on 10/03/2002 10:03:14 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: UnBlinkingEye
I'm off to bed, I'll check in tomorrow.
66 posted on 10/03/2002 10:07:13 PM PDT by m1911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
I share every one of the politcal positions you posted (and probably a few more you didn't). 5 different people would give us 5 different labels, no doubt.
67 posted on 10/03/2002 10:12:40 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
The article itself is somewhat incoherent but the final message appears to be that the neo-cons have lost influence within the "movement" rather that steering its course.

Let's hope so. The neo-cons have always been a mile wide, inch deep phenomenon in the Republican Party and for good reason. Their polices of unlimited immigration, de-industrializing "not-so-free trade" deals, and ambivalence on social issues like abortion do not resonate well in the TRUE conservative majority. If their numbers weren't so large in the media, you'd never hear of them.

68 posted on 10/03/2002 10:20:24 PM PDT by WRhine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
How do your repeal social security?

That will happen when it goes bankrupt. 25 years from now or less SS will not exist...at least not in its present form. Whatever replaces it will be a self-sustaining, investment based, actuarially sound system because, in the end, the truth does dictate what has to done.

69 posted on 10/03/2002 10:33:20 PM PDT by WRhine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
Great questions. I think the Reagan Democrats started to desert in the short recession of 1991-2 and as the culture war died away more of them left. Pretty remarkable that with someone so symbolically on the wrong side of the culture wars as Bill Clinton running, conservatives couldn't make more of moral and social issues, so there's some factor I don't see. Maybe the country was tired of eternal conflict, or maybe economic opportunities interested Americans more. Maybe we recognized that we have more in common with each other, or maybe we recognized that the big social changes had already happened and got used to some of them.

The other thing is that a lot of Reagan Democrats probably did go over to the GOP permanently. Today's Democratic base is very different in terms of sex, generation, race, region and profession from what it was in 1940, 1960 or 1980. They've made up for the loss of older, middle class white men with minorities, a younger generation, the more affluent, and, especially women.

I suspect most conservatives are pretty clear on what they want from politics. But many Americans today aren't very much like those voters of past years who only thought about politics once every four years. We are more like New Yorkers with a dozen parties on the ballot than old time Middle American straight ticket voters. We have all manner of media to agitate us and get us to think about the big picture. It's a characteristic of a rich country with affluence and many media outlets. So we're not just looking at the picture of what a President or Congress can realistically do in 2 or 4 years. We're looking at the big picture of what we'd ideally want the country and its governing philosophy to be, rather than about the questions that any President or Congress is likely to resolve.

70 posted on 10/03/2002 10:35:14 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: WRhine
That will happen when it goes bankrupt. 25 years from now or less SS will not exist...

That is the only way it will happen.

71 posted on 10/03/2002 10:35:27 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: WRhine
That will happen when it goes bankrupt. 25 years from now or less SS will not exist...

That is the only way it will happen.

72 posted on 10/03/2002 10:35:29 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: logician2u
Step 5: We can have world peace and end all disease, starvation, etc.

Step 6: Al Gore can develop a personality.

Hey... you were on a roll...

73 posted on 10/03/2002 10:38:40 PM PDT by streetpreacher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
That is the only way it will happen.

Sad but True. I keep hoping that somehow, someway, someday soon this 3rd rail of politics will stop delivering lethal current to those who try to touch on the reality of SS. Regrettably, for the foreseeable future, the punting game continues as the debt ratchets up ever more.

74 posted on 10/03/2002 10:47:18 PM PDT by WRhine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: UnBlinkingEye
I think we are a great nation and a good people, but I am in total opposition to U.S. hegemony. I support the ideals embodied in George Washington's Farewell Address.

We should be an example for the world, not a policeman.

Deterence worked.

Deterence worked? You mean "working"? Deterence perfectly describes the Bush doctrine of preeminence.

As for Wahington... discover time travel, go back 200+ years and then show the President a video clip of Hiroshima and 9/11... then see how he changes his farewell address.

I'm sure you're not claiming to Mr. Washington divine omniscience, are you? And, after all, it was just a farwell address, not an ammendment to the Constitution? Unless Mr. Washington also layed claim to sinless perfection (did he really tell the truth about chopping down the cherry tree?), we would do well to understand his words in the context of their time.

75 posted on 10/03/2002 10:49:42 PM PDT by streetpreacher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: x
The Reagan Democrats DID start to desert in the short recession, but I think it's much more complicated than the culture war dying away. Ten years of unremitting propaganda against the Reagan Revolution, combined with the fall of the Soviet Union had a tremendous effect. Combined with Bush's tax increase (and signing of such monstrosities as the ADA), the effect was to demoralize Reagan conservatives. The RD's no longer had an anti-communist issue and, frankly, Bush had killed the conservative movement, so they left. Had it not been for Clinton, it would still be in extremis. Perversely, Clinton was responsible for the reinvigoration of the Republican party (and, at least temporarily, for the ascendancy of conservatism).
76 posted on 10/04/2002 4:44:48 AM PDT by jammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Rye
Other conservatives would label us variably. Liberals would not....all my liberal "friends" view me as basically just plain evil...lol
77 posted on 10/04/2002 8:45:14 AM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
My liberal friends usually agree with my anti-WOD position, and the wealthy ones among them agree with my advocacy of abolishing the estate and capital gains taxes. But for the most part, I'm considered pure evil as well.

I always found it interesting that although the majority of liberals are anti-WOD, the vast majority of liberal politicians are pro-WOD. It seems whenever I hear about a politician having the guts to come out of the closet as anti-WOD, he's a Republican.

78 posted on 10/04/2002 9:38:51 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: logician2u; UnBlinkingEye; Stavka2
Last night, a thread was started (which I can no longer locate) on the topic of, generally, how did we get to the current state of affairs where America has become the least respected, most feared nation in the world.

What has happened to U.S.? Posted by UnBlinkingEye

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/761886/posts?page=1,50

While UnBlinkingEye was the biggest whiner about peace at any cost a couple of others joined in. The worst of them was a Ruskie called Stavka2.

79 posted on 10/04/2002 12:45:22 PM PDT by Between the Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnBlinkingEye
I have a vague memory of that thread too.

You need to get your vague a$$ back over there and answer some of the people you ticked off. Or are you just gonna start something and then run and hide? The thread is still going.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/761886/posts?page=396,48

80 posted on 10/04/2002 12:49:27 PM PDT by Between the Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
You need to get your vague a$$ back over there and answer some of the people you ticked off. Or are you just gonna start something and then run and hide? The thread is still going.

Not everyone was ticked off, I didn't hide and I'll be back...

81 posted on 10/04/2002 1:13:12 PM PDT by UnBlinkingEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
Sounds like you need to get YOUR ARSE back there and answer some of the posts back at you, instead of slinking off to another thread and bringing your tid bits over, out of the usual context. Whiner...look into your own mirror.
82 posted on 10/04/2002 1:18:27 PM PDT by Stavka2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: WRhine
Aside from all of that, the neo-cons would be the architects of a disasterous foreign policy.
83 posted on 10/04/2002 6:22:29 PM PDT by Phillip Augustus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-83 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