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.
A study of some of the themes that have emerged in the Weekly Standard suggests Mr. Kristol seems to be trying to fashion a new ideology, which he hopes will ultimately replace conservatism altogeher.
Several years ago William Kristol, son of the magisterial Irving and the redoubtable Gertrude Himmelfarb, persuaded Rupert Murdoch to bankroll a new weekly conservative publication of which young William would be the editor and publisher.
Thus was born the Weekly Standard, which has been published in Washington ever since. Its circulation is nothing to brag about, being roughly a quarter of that of National Review, the long-time fortnightly standard-bearer of the conservative movement. But the Weekly Standard is must reading for political junkies inside the Beltway, and it has served as a splendid platform for Mr. Kristol, who has become one of the premier Washington spokesmen of the conservative movement, in wide demand on television talk shows.
It was, therefore, no small thing when Mr. Kristol, in the course of an op-ed piece published in The Washington Post early this month, delivered himself of the following thunderous conclusion: "Leaderless, rudderless and issueless, the conservative movement, which accomplished great things over the past quarter-century, is finished."
The precipitating event was John McCain's victory over George Bush in the New Hampshire primary. Mr. Kristol noted that "The three movement conservatives left in the Republican race" (meaning Mr. Bauer, Mr. Keyes and Mr. Forbes) "received a grand total of about 20 percent of the votes," and concluded that this pathetic showing represented the current strength of the movement. Precisely why the passionately reiterated conservatism of both of the front-runners, Mr. McCain and George W. Bush, didn't count in the assessment, Mr. Kristol didn't explain. They may not be "movement conservatives," but both men are solid conservatives by any reasonable test.
In any case, the sight of William Kristol proclaiming the death of the conservative movement certainly looked, at first blush, like a classic case of a man sawing off the tree branch on which he sits.
But it is only reasonable to assume Mr. Kristol has some rational goal in mind. And a study of some of the themes that have emerged in the Weekly Standard under his editorship suggests what it may be. Mr. Kristol seems to be trying to fashion a new ideology, which he hopes will ultimately replace conservatism altogether.
Domestically, the new entrant looks rather more fondly on government than conservatism is accustomed to doing. "Big government" may still be a no-no, but Mr. Kristol rejects "the notion that the highest end of government is to leave us alone." On the contrary, "limited" government may still be activist and "energetic," in the service of a "positive governing philosophy." It isn't altogether clear what this muscular government will do, but - unlike Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey and Tom DeLay - it will assuredly not merely "cut, devolve and dismantle."
Abroad, the American government of Mr. Kristol's dreams will offer the world moral leadership, backed up by whatever firepower it takes. As a "champion of democracy and decency," it will act wherever these ideals are challenged. Mr. Kristol's vision of America, in fact, bears a remarkable resemblance to Charles de Gaulle's vision of France - a mightly nation, redolent of grandeur. Conservative reservations about intervening in foreign disputes where no vital American interest is at stake will be dismissed as old-fashioned if not downright cowardly.
Can a new ideology - a new political movement - be cobbled together out of these rather amorphous materials? Do even Mr. Kristol's principal colleagues at the Weekly Standard agree with him on the subject? It is at least suggestive that Mr. Kristol's obituary for the conservative movement appeared, not as a lead editorial in his magazine, but over his personal byline on the op-ed page of The Washington Post.
It is said that one of Voltaire's disciples once asked him, "I'd like to found a new religion. How should I go about it?" To which the master replied, "It's very simple. Just get yourself crucified and then rise from the dead."
Starting a new ideological movement may not be quite that hard. But I think Bill Kristol will find it takes a lot more effort than he has yet invested in his project. Usually it requires the analytical contributions of a generation or more of political philosophers, working from various points on the periphery of a major political problem - in the case of conservatism, the Leviathan state. And when the job is done, it won't be undone by a New Hampshire primary.
William A. Rusher is a nationally syndicated columnist.
one of Voltaire's disciples once asked him, "I'd like to found a new religion. How should I go about it?" To which the master replied, "It's very simple. Just get yourself crucified and then rise from the dead."
1) Statism and militarism were the new religions during the time of the Pharoahs, not now.
2) Kristol's kind can't be crucified. It takes a wooden stake through their heart to zap them.
Rusher is cogent.
I suspect these were the "conservatives" you were thinking of yesterday.
"....or the birth of something new?"
Mr. Kristol is thinking of calling it afterbirth?
I don't agree with Kristol if the Standard's analysis is correct. But I do think conservatism is evolving. And should be evolving. It has sufferred some outstanding achievements as well as some terrible setbacks. Many of the setbacks have been caused not so much by ideology but in execution of the ideology. Conservative enemies find it too easy to attack the ideology based on the execution of it. Some of the evolution is positive, some of it is negative. Emphasis and guideance should be placed on the positive, while the negative should be snuffed. Problem is that many in the conservative movement see any change as negative, whether positive or negative.
I suspect that this is an attempt to do the same thing Pat Buchanan is pretending to do, the same thing that Bill Clinton and Tony Blair and Gerhardt Schroeder are trying to do, the same thing that the Democratic Socialists of America are trying to do. That is, force a dialectical synthesis where one is not evolving naturally. By repackaging Marxism with a few brightly colored bows and a bold new logo, we're supposed to believe that it's changed.
Inside the box is the same murderous, arrogant, amoral tyranny seasoned with blood. Call it Globalism, Supra-nationalism, Free Trade, the Third Way, the New World Order, or whatever you want. It's still horror writ large.
.... Marxism with a few brightly colored bows and a bold new logo, we're supposed to believe that it's changed.
Inside the box is the same murderous, arrogant, amoral tyranny seasoned with blood. Call it Globalism, Supra-nationalism, Free Trade, the Third Way, the New World Order, or whatever you want.
And if you are [Make that "were," already! Already!] Vicki Weaver and/or her little boy, Sammy -- or are [Whoops .... Make that "were," too] Mr David Koresh and/or ninety or a hundred or so of his family and friends -- and/or are President Milosovich and/or the Christian, Serbian Nation; you might want to call it Marxist-Hitlerist -- and/or the Neo-Axis Alliance.
And for you it is indeed, truly:- still horror writ large!
Great observations, Jack! Thank you.
Death of conservatism? No, the slow death of the Weekly Standard and William Kristol's reputation.
This is a fabulous post! Add Fred Barnes to that list, he has fallen hard for the "Kristol Konservative Karl Marxist Movement" in the Rep Party.
I don't know if anyone saw Kristol on PBS's Charlie Rose Show, but he referred to McClinton as the anti-Clinton and the anti-Gingrich - the new man/god/politician to lead the Rep Party in a new direction. Kristol was hyper-active in his lauding of McClinton and no one could get a word in edgewise as the boyish looking zeal of Kristol completely distorted and discounted GWBush as a legitimate Rep candidate. The other journalist from the Washington Post, I think his name was Balz, tried once to counter timidly Kristol's outrageous claims about McClinton and to put GWBush in true context - but, Kristol was so intent on stating his thesis and promotion of McClinton, everyone was silenced and forced to listen in awe to his sickening drivel.
It was often said that the neo-conservatives were Kennedy-Johnson Democrats who felt abandoned when their party turned left. I suspect that Reagan's electoral victories led some neo-cons, who might have preferred Hubert Humphrey or Henry Jackson, into closer co-operation with the Republicans.
Now that underlying orientation is coming closer to the surface. The '60s/'70s tendencies which alienated the original neo-cons seem quite weak now -- the old "New Left" has been domesticated by holding power, so the neo-cons are moving back towards their original position, if not quite their original party home (Some neo-cons like Kristol's father embraced the GOP, others moved back to the Democrats with Clinton in 1992, others who were affiliated with the movement in the beginning never left the Democrats).
But what's significant here, is that the neo-conservatives -- and the neo-liberals and "New Democrats" -- seem likely to commit the same errors of arrogance, overreaching and presumption that were the downfall of the Kennedy/Johnson Democrats who were their political ancestors. Interventionism abroad and big projects at home will be serious pitfalls for any administration which embraces that tradition.
Looking back over the whole Kristol episode, it seems like "TR" is just a stalking horse for the real ambitions of the "Weekly Standard" crowd. Or to change the metaphor, Roosevelt I was a halfway house on the way back to Roosevelt II, Kennedy, and Johnson.
The original neo-conservative generation had been burned by political hubris, so they shyed away from great political schemes. The children grew up afraid of fire, but as they increased in influence and power and moved into the establishment culture of Washington and New York, they have come to feel a fascination with state power and government as a force for change. Where much of the trouble started in the '60s was with people who had money and security who were looking for "a sense of purpose." And here we are again.
P.S. In the interest of fairness and full disclosure I've got neo-con David Brooks at "Slate" open in another window telling me that the age of Washington is over.
Starting a new ideological movement may not be quite that hard. But I think Bill Kristol will find it takes a lot more effort than he has yet invested in his project. Usually it requires the analytical contributions of a generation or more of political philosophers, working from various points on the periphery of a major political problem - in the case of conservatism, the Leviathan state.
Hey, but you're dealing with Gertrude Himmelfarb's little boy Billy here, buddy!
I wonder if Kristol and McGeezer have ever met face to face. It's hard to envision a venue big enough for those two egos.
Your inclusion of Pat Buchanan amongst a motly crew is misplaced. Pat Buchanan isn't "pretending" to do something, he's doing it. Pat Buchanan will be the Reform Party nominee for President this year. He will lead the effort to address the NWO and most of the other issues you profess to oppose. Your reference to Supra-Nationalism is presumably a prejorative reference to Pat Buchanan's desire that the US not dissipate its armed forces and economic supremacy in policing every one of the sixty or so ongoing conflicts that dot the globe. In leading these efforts, Pat Buchanan will hasten the demise of the Republican Party which, since the presidency of George H.W. Bush, has stood for absolutely nothing.
Kristol was a phoney from day one. I am waiting for the last icon to drop. Hey George Wills when are you going to come out of the closet. Join Safire, Calhoun, Charen and even Krauthammer. Go Pat Go.
There is a kernel of truth in what Kristol says. If the GOP does very well in November: Bush wins the nomination and the presidency and the House remains Republican, then the right will have bought itself some time to sort things out. If the GOP does less well, then the GOP runs a serious risk of disintegration. The greater damage will occur though not among the conservatives, but among the so-called GOP moderates, because the conservatives have a viable ideology and the moderates don't.
In either case, I wouldn't be buying long term subscriptions to the Weekly Standard right now.
Not quite. My reference to Pat Buchanan was to include him in a group of people who are trying to synthesize a new political consciousness from the old models. That doesn't imply that the new visions these groups have is identical. I believe Buchanan's alliance with Fulani et. al. is an attempt to reconcile opposites, just as Schroeder/Blair/Clinton's is to reconcile capitalism and communism. Buchanan is coming at it from a completely different angle, but he is still invoking the same PROCESS, if not the same results.
And my reference to Supra-nationalism most definitely was NOT meant to apply to Buchanan. "Supra" means "beyond." Buchanan certainly does not qualify as a border-eraser or a globalist.
This was not meant as an insult to anyone, but more an observation. I think all these groups are rushing the conclusion, forcing the dialectic. Only an EVOLVED synthesis has any validity; a contrived one -- as I interpret these to be -- loses its moral authority.
The best example of a contrived dialectic is the October Revolution in Russia. It became a hideous farce because it was premature. The "soviets" that replaced the Czar were every bit as oppressive and elitist as the regime they toppled.
I could, and probably will, write an entire thread on this. It's one of my favorite studies in political dynamics.
I suspect that this is an attempt to do the same thing Pat Buchanan is pretending to do...By repackaging Marxism with a few brightly colored bows and a bold new logo, we're supposed to believe that it's changed.
You think Buchanan is a one-worlder? I don't think he is.
Oh, scratch that, I didn't read far enough ahead. Say, about the other...
The best example of a contrived dialectic is the October Revolution in Russia. It became a hideous farce because it was premature. The "soviets" that replaced the Czar were every bit as oppressive and elitist as the regime they toppled.
I'm not a history buff, but wasn't there a February or March revolution that toppled the czar... were they Menshevics? Then the Bolshevics took over in October? I don't remember for sure.
You're absolutely correct about there being a preliminary revolution, driven by popular unrest about Russia's privations during WWI, that forced the Czar to abdicate. A provisional government was formed that was later toppled by the Communists. Regarding Bolsheviks and Menshiviks, they were both communist groups with varying ideologies. Let's see if I can remember this correctly - Bolsheviks ("majority") favored directly making the economy communist, while the Menshiviks ("minority") favored industrializing the mostly peasant economy of Russia first, and then turning it pinko. There also was another socialist group allied with the Bolshis and Meshis called the Cadets. The Bolsheviks eventually destroyed the other two groups.
More sewage spit up by Kristol, perhaps the least principled and most opportunistic of all neo-Con pundits (and that's saying a lot). Let's face it, creatures of Kristol's ilk will jump onto any winning bandwagon.
Conservatism has been dying for over a decade now, and the nomination of a swindler like McCain would be the final nail in the coffin of Republican conservatism. Thus, self-professed "conservatives" have two choices: if they are true to their conservative principles of social traditionalism, faith, protecting the unborn, and opposition to economic and geopolitical globalisation, they will leave the GOP in droves. They will find new homes as supporters of Buchanan or the Constitution party.
The vast majority, however, are concerned with "winning" at any cost. Either they are mindless drones programmed to vote for anyone with the "R" label, or else they are Kristol-style opportunists who will shill for whoever the "winner" is. These will remain in the GOP, and enthusiastically endorse the McCain cult of personality, along with his craven warmongering and his fraudulent, ClinToon style "reform" message.
But the most unforgivable fraud, in my opinion, is a hack like Kristol daring to attach the conservative label to the globalist agenda. The masses have been convinced that jingoism and warmongering are equivalent to healthy nationalism and patriotism. "War is peace, ignorance is strength..." isn't it, Mr. Kristol?
This is a fabulous post! Add Fred Barnes to that list, he has fallen hard for the "Kristol Konservative Karl Marxist Movement" in the Rep Party.
I don't know why these two are called conservatives. Maybe next to Maxine Waters or Al Sharpton but otherwise they sound like liberals to me.
One think I could never figure out is why Dan Quayle had people like Kristol on his staff as VP. I know Dan is very conservative so how could he expect the same service from Kristol that he would get from a real conservative?
The February Revolution actually toppled the Czar and installed the provisional government of Alexander Kerensky. The interim government wasn't sufficiently radical for Lenin and Trostsky, so they overthrew it in October of 1917 and began their blood purges. Trotsky actually put together the Red Army from former imperial troops, and molded it into a formidable fighting force. But he was eventually deposed in 1929 by Lenin's successor, Josef Stalin. Trotsky was murdered with an axe to the head by one of Stalin's agents in Mexico City in 1940.
Kristol was a plant on Quayle's staff just as Bush was a plant on Reagan. Cheer up Buchanan people. I have been listening to some people. retired union people. Pat has their vote.
Mr. Kristol rejects "the notion that the highest end of government is to leave us alone."
Since that principle is one of the fundamental premises of the Constitution and being a conservative, at least used to mean staying as close to that document as possible.
Mr. Kistrol can go ahead and birth that new ideology.
He will be going without me.
I'm not a history buff, but wasn't there a February or March revolution that toppled the czar... were they Menshevics? Then the Bolshevics took over in October? I don't remember for sure.
No, the Mensheviks were with the Bolsheviks until they were deleted. The first revolution was in fact a Liberal one, replacing the Czarist regime with a democratic government. I don't think it had much influence outside Moscow - the country was in a state of total chaos.
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.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |