Neoconservatism’s deadly influence
This is the best article I have read to describe what the Neoconservative agenda is about. Do you think they have destroyed the conservative movement? Do you think this is why NEOCON President Bush has expanded governement more than any other in our history?
FREELIBERTY-Neoconservatism’s most prominent adherent wants it to be linked to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal socialism and, because of its rejection of “isolationism,” to be further identified as a champion of meddling in the affairs of other nations. The opposite of isolationism, of course, is interventionism, a tactic favored by all neoconservatives. Earlier, in 1983, Kristol claimed that “a conservative welfare state is perfectly consistent with the neoconservative perspective.” Old-line conservatives would justly label the phrase “conservative welfare state” a classic oxymoron. By 1993, in a piece he authored for the Wall Street Journal, the Godfather lauded Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and Medicaid, even a cash allowance for the children of unwed mothers. Virtually any socialist program can count on support from the neoconservative camp.
As for interventionist meddling, neoconservative Charles Krauthammer candidly presented the movement’s attitude in a 1989 article appearing in Kristol’s journal, The National Interest. Boldly calling for the integration of the United States, Europe, and Japan, he yearned for a “super-sovereign” state that would be “economically, culturally, and politically hegemonic in the world.” Not satisfied with such a novel creation, he further urged a “new universalism [which] would require the conscious depreciation not only of American sovereignty but of the notion of sovereignty in general.” And he added: “This is not as outrageous as it sounds.” Maybe not to a neoconservative, but a real conservative and especially a constitutionalist wouldn’t hesitate for a moment in labeling such ideas “outrageous.”
John, excellent article, indeed! And I do like the source for articles of this nature – The New American, which, of course, is the John Birch Society. Before those on the left dismiss the source, I would suggest that even those on the left who are aware of John Birch, give it begrudging acknowledgement as being accurate and truthful. But they hate it as it’s against their agenda. As for me, I try to go where the TRUTH leads me. Thanks for this article John.
Hugh
THAT’S RIGHT BABY. DON’T BE SO SKEEERED! I go wherever: moveon.org. Huffington, corporaqte watch, New American. And I emerge a BETTER CONSERVATIVE!!!
I wouldn’t be quick to jump on some of their conclusions as they use Kristol’s words from his book selectively. When you leave out whole phrases and put …. in, the entire meaning can be changed and they didn’t cite where in the book they got the quote, it would seem to be hard to check.
Anyhow, the history of the neocons has been well known to me for quite a while. I was surprised at the articles animosity towards William F. Buckley though. I wonder if they have always felt that way about Buckley. They seem to name the rest of the neocons as they have been known to me for a while. I also found it interesting that they called Reagan a “willing partner.” The thing is, I think they might have been a little too over the top w/r/t Bush I. The neocons were extremely mad that he didn’t march into Baghdad after Gulf War I.
Benjamin Balant: Neoconservatism “represents the culmination of the fitful love affair between America and its Jews.” (In a review of Nathan Abrams, Commentary Magazine, 1945-1959, in The Weekly Standard, December 11, 2006)
FYI
Irving Kristol began his political life as a member of the Young People’s Socialist League in the 1930s. He considered himself a Trotskyist throughout his years as an undergrad at the City College of New York. But sometime after graduation, he experienced a complete and total change of heart. Kristol described himself as “a liberal who was mugged by reality.”
He helped to found what would be called the Neoconservative movement, a radical organization whose goals he would ultimately describe as: “to convert the Republican Party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.”
In 1953 England, Kristol founded the magazine Encounter, secretly funded with seed money from the CIA by way of the Congress for Cultural Freedom.
http://www.nndb.com/people/389/000048245/
Mike, thanks for the link to the Weekly Standard article, a neo-con periodical. I read both the Weekly Standard article and reread the article from The New American. I reaffirmed a previously held opinion I had of the New American with this effort. As I have stated on other threads in this blog, and as I believe is reinforced in this Weekly Standard article, is the fact that the intellectual basis of “Neo-Conservatism” is Trotskyite/Jewish. The New American mentions all the names of key individuals associated with the Neo-Con movement, yet fails to mention even once the term “Jewish” or “Jew”. The Weekly Standard mentions these two words numerous times. I bring this out as it is germain to the issue in that a foreign influence or peoples is greatly impacting our nation’s policies. It’s almost laughable that the New American names the names, but doesn’t point out the foreign influence. But that’s how The New American always is – they have their politically correct aspects about them. Sorry about the rambling, but hopefully I made my point.
Hugh
The last thing I would want to do is “run the numbers” on slavery or Trotskyites or whatever. But suffice it to say that some of the best minds are on both sides of this stuff.
Bill, certainly today “the best minds are on both sides” – I agree. But the Neo-cons run the Republican party today, and the Lib-cons, as John calls them (twins?) run the Democrat party. My point is that the origin of neo-conservativatism is Trotskyite/Jewish, not American. And I do think it very important to understand that point. Foreign influences are greatly impacting our nation. And this latest crop of third world illegal aliens will greatly transform this nation – for the worst, in my opinion. I take great umbridge at all this.
Hugh,
Not all the people are jewish. Jeane Kirkpatrick is a born again christian and Daniel Moynihan is Catholic. I wouldn’t say that any of them aren’t Americans because clearly they are. Just because you don’t like their ideology ( and I don’t like it either) doesn’t make them not Americans.
This “New Deal plus interventionism” definition of neo-conservatism always confused me. Every administration we’ve ever had, regardless of party, was interventist, including Reagan (see Central America, Middle East…); nothing new there. Reagan and Bush buffalo’ed the wingers with there “not the world’s policeman” talk, but NEVER backed away from interventionism.
For me, the real defining element is the over-the-top, idealism and militarism. Instead of dominating the world with some subtlety (economically via trade deals, militarily via black ops), they said, “we are the strongest country in the universe, no one is in second place, and might makes right, PLUS we are morally superior, everyone else should model themselves after us, so, fall in line or die”.
It’s arrogance and idealism that defines neocons.
Paleocons deride neocons.
Sort of like Homo erectus complaining about those johnny-come-lately Neanderthals.
.
Lefthook
You’re right. They purport to spread American ideals yet they reduce cities to rubble, promote torture, puppet regimes, empire, kick in doors and disarm innocent people, use weapons which are banned, form entangling alliances and destroy alliances with bad diplomacy, grow government and monopoly power, waste taxpayer money, commit high crimes, thwart the Constitution, intimidate Americans and the world, destroy the middle class with free trade and open borders, fight terror with terror, and more. And the worst part is David O’rear thinks all conservatives are the same.
Caroline, re your post #9.
You missed my point. I’m talking about the ORIGION of the NEO-CON philosophy, not current events. Back to my post #8, today we have, as Bill states it, “great minds on both sides”. And that’s true, and shows the power of the intial introduction of the neo-con concept by the foreign influences. And also, as I’ve stated before, not al Jewish folks are Neo-cons!
Dave
Facts are conservatives stood up while LIBCONS like Clinton, Gore sold out our Country!
John,
You’re kidding right? More Republicans voted for what you are screaming about than Democrats. Name one Republican other than Paul who stood up to the neocon agenda for the past six years? Seems they were all too happy to further it.
caroline
WAR
The whole Bush 1 foreign Policy team lead by Scowcroft warned Congress and Bush 2 about Iraq? This while Hillary and Kerry were charging forward!
TRADE AND IMMIGRATION
Hunter,Tancredo. Jones…. have all been very outspoke
about this issue. I do not disagree that most on both sides are hypocrites about trade and immigration by splitting their support on the issue to give corporate donors big loopholes on any reform.
John,
There were lots of Democrats who voted against the war yet you want to blame 2 democrats and no republicans WHEN ALMOST EVERY REPUBLICAN IN THE CONGRESS VOTED FOR THE WAR! Truth of the matter is that the Republicans are waaay more responsible for this mess than anyone else. They are the ones that falsified the information, not the democrats. Bush even was talking about going after Sadaam in 2000 so you can’t complain because you voted for him!! Anyone who ever voted for Bush is responsible for this disaster!
Hunter is a neocon through and through.
caroline
You do not want to talk about the sell out of America via trade and immigration policy from Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy……
I am not just blaming Democrats, but for them to say their hands are not dirty via Trade, Immigration, War is just wrong!
John,
I sometimes repeat the following statement that Neal Boortz once said:
(paraphrasing)
Today’s Democrat Party’s platform is almost identical to the Communist Party of America platform of 1960.
Today’s Republican Party’s platform is almost identical to the Democrat Pary platform of 1960.
The article that you linked to proves this point. If anyone doubts this, then re-read that article.
And I share your distaste for “big gov’t Republicans” who seem to dominate the party these days.
And, regarding domestic policy, Caroline ought to LOVE the neocons since they are much closer to the Left than the more pure conservatives.
But, having said that, I don’t like this “all or none” regarding isolationism/interventionism.
The article implies that one must be either isolationist or interventionist… and ignores the fact that there are varying degrees… and that VERY few are one extreme or the other.
Does anyone doubt that a hypothetical President Goldwater would have probably been even tougher (and more interventionist) on Cuba’s during the Cuban missile crisis than Kennedy?
Does anyone doubt that a if Reagan were president when our embassy was taken over by Iran… that Reagan would have been tougher (and more interventionist) on Iran than Carter?
And if one must be classified as isolationist or interventionist, then count Reagan and Bush I in the interventionist category. Perhaps we shouldn’t have rescued our citizens from Grenada? Perhaps we should have allowed Saddam to keep Kuwait and proceed into Saudi Arabia?
My point is that using this word “neocon” as a dirty word and trying to apply it to every Republican who supports the Iraq war is insane and dumb and rather juvenile.
I do agree every Republican or Democrat who supports the war are not NEOCONS.
That is why you have to look at spending, trade and immigration and then look at the person.
Great.
And one more thing I’d suggest is that MOST Republicans or Conservatives who are very angry about overspending and very angry about our lack of progress in containing and slowing immigration…
…but MOST of these same people don’t see eye-to-eye with you on trade.
In fact, MOST conservatives fit this mold I described.
In fact, compared to the average, I think I lean more your direction than most conservatives… which goes to show just how “at odds” with most conservatives you are over trade.
But I think both you AND most conservatives are wrong on trade. Most conservatives have bought too much into “free trade” at all costs. You are too much of a protectionist.
The ideal policy is somewhere in between. (where exactly, i don’t quite know)
But I’m glad you are out there “educating” conservatives about the errors of their “free trade at all costs” policies… but just please don’t classify them all as neocons only based on their trade policies.
Why do you call me a protectionist?
If I say there should be no subsidies or tariffs for Countries that have laws that grant workers rights, practice human rights and do not turn a blind eye to theft. And that we should penalize Countries that cheat via IP theft, environmental, slave and child labor… I am lost by your comments
In theory, your position sounds great and very reasonable. But in practice, it would put us into a great depression if implemented overnight because, frankly & sadly, MOST third & second world countries fall short of those critera… including China and many other large-scale trading partners.
(But, then again, we are probably financing China’s future conquest of the world and our great grandchildren are going to be asking “what were we thinking?”)
A new book every American should read:
And read a resounding tribute to Paul here:
John,
The problem isn’t me. The problem is that you can’t admit that you support a party who is very supportive of things like NAFTA. I didn’t say Democrats don’t have any responsiblity but I disagree with you who says they have ALL the responsiblity while ignoring the Republicans part.
caroline
I have been very critical of my own party on trade and immigration.
Read one of my press releases
Rep. Tom Price Outsources Immigration Law
By John Konop
Republican Candidate for U.S. Congress (6th district)
America is no longer in charge of American immigration laws. Huge multinational corporations have built in a loophole by lobbying Rep. Tom Price and other members of Congress to pass the CAFTA trade agreement.
Immigration Reform Doesn’t Begin and End at the Border
Even if Americans can finally convince Congress to secure the borders and begin enforcing existing immigration laws, it can all be evaded. Multinational corporations can subvert our immigration laws to insure a steady and endless flow of cheap, wage-lowering immigrant labor—while small businesses have to play by the rules.
Under Tom Price’s CAFTA, a foreign country that doesn’t like our immigration laws (or trade laws) can sue America in an “international tribunal”. These three-member tribunals are rigged—the foreign country names two of the “judges” while we name only one.
Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo goes on to explain: “If an international tribunal rules against us, Congress would then be forced to change our immigration laws or face international trade sanctions. These tribunals have the authority to rule that U.S. immigration limits, visa requirements, or even licensing requirements and zoning rules are ‘unnecessary burdens to trade’ that act as ‘restrictions on the supply of a service.’”
State Laws Are Also Vulnerable
Trade policies under NAFTA, CAFTA, and WTO don’t just threaten federal trade and immigration laws. States can lose the ability to set their own purchasing preferences if they are found to “discriminate” against foreign companies. For example, the following kinds of laws and policies can be overturned by foreign tribunal courts:
Buy Local or Buy American policies
Laws that prohibit the off-shoring of state jobs
Preferences for recycled content, renewable energy, and fuel-efficient vehicles
Disqualification of contractors based on labor, human rights, or environmental practices
It gets worse: The state of Utah is currently being sued by the government of Antigua and Barbuda because Utah’s gambling regulations conflict with America’s trade agreement obligation not to discriminate against foreigners providing “recreational services.”
Amnesty for Trade Cheats
In the run-up to the CAFTA vote, Congressman Charlie Norwood (R-GA) called CAFTA’s foreign tribunals, “Amnesty for trade cheats, just like the same crowd’s proposals on amnesty for illegal aliens.” Tom Price ignored that and many other warnings. He dangled his CAFTA vote until the very end, and then finally sold out.
Under these trade deals, Americans are forced to compete against workers from countries with vastly inferior labor, wage, and environmental standards. That is not “fair” trade—not if you’re an American.
They also create a double-standard in law enforcement. A multinational corporation accused of violating U.S. immigration law can hide behind a stacked foreign tribunal. An American small business accused of the same offence must obey the law or face the penalties.
If you think one person can’t make a difference, remember: CAFTA passed by one vote.
Join challenger John Konop in demanding that these disastrous trade deals be renegotiated to:
Make American law the final authority in America
Include stronger enforcement provisions that support the interests of working families and small businesses
Please help us get the message out by sharing this release with your friends and by making a donation. Thank you.
Rob,
Listening to Neal Boortz will make you stupid. He supports the neocon agenda and will like just like the neocons. He’s told his listeners that WMD’s were actually found in Iraq until Bush admitted they weren’t. He’s written that Bill Clinton is responsible for the mess in Iraq! LOL! He’s nothing but a Bush apologist who will whine and grouse about the spending the GOP does but in the end will make aplogies for such behavior!
caroline
FYI
Congressman Tom Price vs. Challenger John Konop on energy.
By John Konop
What did Tom Price and our Congress recently do in response to sky-high gas prices? (Hint: Their first instinct is to spend money, and their second instinct is to reward people that donate to their re-election campaigns.)
You guessed it; they gave billions to large, multinational oil companies. This is corporate welfare for companies currently making record profits in the wake of Katrina. Giving Big Oil money to solve the energy problem is like giving cigarette companies money to solve the smoking problem.
Unfortunately, Congress isn’t content to make policy mistakes one at a time. They continue to promote trade deals like NAFTA/CAFTA that unfairly enrich countries like China at the expense of working Americans. Now the New China—built with American industries, American jobs, American consumer dollars, and stolen American intellectual property—is competing with us for oil, further driving up gas prices.
America needs a bold, new direction. We need to develop new energy sources and become more energy efficient. Increasing our dependence on countries like Saudi Arabia is not only bad energy policy, it threatens our national security.
Conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly recently proposed raising fuel efficiency standards to 30 or 35 miles per gallon; that would be a great start. America just needs to take off the gloves and commit itself to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Tax breaks and subsidies should go to energy entrepreneurs—not to Big Oil. With some vision and leadership from Congress, we could make a substantial progress in as little as five years.
But none of this is likely to happen until our elected representatives get off the payroll of Big Oil. If your congressman voted for the recent Energy Bill, then he’s part of the problem, not the solution.
John,
I’m using your own standards of judgement when saying that you can’t credibly criticize the trade deals since the GOP is a heavy supporter of things like NAFTA. Don’t you think that, according to you, you would have more credibility if you left the GOP?
I am not sure the Democrats welcome the message! I do not think Hillary would want me on the team!
I’m not talking about teaming up with Hillary so much as I am just leaving the GOP. Have you thought about becoming an independent? It probably won’t help you in an election because I don’t think that our district really has a problem with neoconservatives like Tom Price.
Yes I have
Mr McEwen,
When the Republican party returns to replace the neocon Republican’ts, it will indeed be a proud day for America, including for the Democratic Party.
Until and unless that happens, GOPers get the blame.
.
By the way, I agree with you on the trade issues in your No. 23 above. I’d probably go further, and point to the myriad of ways in which the US cheats at trade, but what you said rings true.
.
Bill,
The problem with conservatives in the White House is that they have this tendency to massively violate the constitution, move on to the cover-up stage and then shove a flunky out as the scapegoat when the heat gets to be too much to take. Nothing new there, just SOP.
Colonel North? Colonel l North? Call for Colonel Oliver North!
.
Mr Konop,
What in the world are you on about? Conservatives have done far more to damage our nation than liberals. They drive us into fiscal debt at a far faster rate (and have since the 1950s; do I need to trot out the spreadsheets yet again?), abuse the Bill of Rights worse than anyone (Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Dubious can’t be called liberals), waste our national treasure and soldiers’ lives and generally give our country a black eye in world affairs.
If you think mere policy differences on trade and immigration are in any way comparable to the horrific abuses Dubious & Co have perpetrated over the past 6 years, you are seriously Out To Lunch.
.
The reason people call you protectionist is because of your anti-consumer trade policies. What have you got against middle- and low-income shoppers, anyway?
* * *
caroline nailed it, as usual: “Republicans are waaay more responsible for this mess than anyone else.”
.
but, she needs to learn to spell Republican’t.