What neo-conservative is - and what it isn't

[Neocon Recovery]

Just a few side notes here:
1. Where does the opinion come from that neo-conservatives are not socially conservative? Most of the trailblazing neoconservative writing of the 1970s and 1980s was about the pernicious social policy effects of liberalism and attempting to make social conservatism intellectually respectable. Even a passing acquaintance with Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, etc. makes this point abundantly clear.

2. ON PAT BUCHANAN, AGAIN. Pat Buchanan is as far from 'traditional conservatism' as the KKK. Again, while I myself am pro-life, in favour of a more transparent and more tightly enforced border procedure and clear policy around immigration (the American publication National Review has been excellent on this point), the covert fascist tendencies of Buchanan are sickening.

To cite only a few examples: rallying 'poor white' social prejudices against immigrants getting employment and the export of America's industrial economy overseas (isn't that called free trade at its most effective and allowing people the liberty to persue their own economic interests?); paranoid accusations of the persuit of Jewish interests in Washington?; renewed isolationism (rather than the more traditionally conservative forging of constructive alliances to stave off future challenges, as in the continuing partnership of Britain and America in leading the free world's struggle against international terrorism); and this is only the tip of the iceberg. (It gets juicier if one reads carefully his historical views.)

Conservative opinion needs to be more refined than to simply leap to support anyone playing at being socially conservative- Buchanan is not even close to being worthy of the class of true conservatives like Edmund Burke, Joseph de Maistre, Alexis de Tocqueville- or even Barry Goldwater.

[Jason Kauppinen]

Edmund Burke

Eddie became "Ottawashed" (or whatever equivilent term you'd like to use) right after being sent to Parliament.

He went from advocating a system of natural rights (in "Vindication of Natural Society" (1756)) to denying them outright in his "Reflections on the French Revolution" (a book that I've actually read, unlike many of Burke's cheerleaders), and then claimed that his "Vindication" was actually satire and if you believe that I've got a bridge in London I'd like to sell you.

[416Centerist]

paranoid accusations of the persuit of Jewish interests in Washington?;

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

[bulldog905]

I just love the interloper neo-cons like Frum, Podhoretz, Krauthammer, et al, sticking their noses in conservatism and making grand prouncements about reading patriots like Mr. Buchanan out of the movement, and libeling them as 'fascists'.

Mr. Buchanan has been around. He has a track record. He was a Goldwater fan in 1964 when Podhoretz and all the neos were shilling for Johnson and the great society.

We only saw the migration of those neo-cons into conservatism after the 6 day war in 1967 when the left turned against Israel. They are so transparent in their manipulation of conservatism as a vehicle for their agenda(s)they don't fool any on the old right.

Mr. Buchanan offends those who don't like his America First policies.

Just who are they for, first?

[Jason Kauppinen]

I just love the interloper neo-cons like Frum, Podhoretz, Krauthammer, et al, sticking their noses in conservatism and making grand prouncements about reading patriots like Mr. Buchanan out of the movement, and libeling them as 'fascists'.

Mr. Buchanan has been around. He has a track record. He was a Goldwater fan in 1964 when Podhoretz and all the neos were shilling for Johnson and the great society.

We only saw the migration of those neo-cons into conservatism after the 6 day war in 1967 when the left turned against Israel. They are so transparent in their manipulation of conservatism as a vehicle for their agenda(s)they don't fool any on the old right.

Mr. Buchanan offends those who don't like his America First policies.

Just who are they for, first?

Overgeneralizing a group's ethnicity because you disagree with what you think they stand for?

How about you start with Daniel Patrick Moynihan's 1965 Labour Department report? Or is an Irish Catholic too "Jewish" to be taken seriously?

[Jason Kauppinen]

You might also try reading:

Norman Podhoretz' "My Problem-and Ours" from the February 1963 issue of Commentary.

Or just some basic western logic, specifically the ad hominem fallacy.

You have a problem with Neo-Conservatism?

Start attacking the ideas directly, and keep your anti-Semitic garbage off of this board.

[bulldog905]

You might also try reading:

Norman Podhoretz' "My Problem-and Ours" from the February 1963 issue of Commentary.

Or just some basic western logic, specifically the ad hominem fallacy.

You have a problem with Neo-Conservatism?

Start attacking the ideas directly, and keep your anti-Semitic garbage off of this board.

Gee, Jason, opposing the neo-cons, is anti-Semitic, is it?

You always resort to this stuff in your debates. It's a pattern and not pretty.

Keep your leftist race baiting off this board, Jason.

[416Centerist]

You have a problem with Neo-Conservatism?

Absoultely and unreservedly.

Start attacking the ideas directly

Ok.
1) Free flow of people:
Only the most ardent temporal provincial can see no downside of this. If you need this explained, pick up a history book or read this link. Even the subsidised left is waking up.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/canad ... ffman.html

2) Subversion of the US constitution.

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/p ... 7779.shtml

and keep your anti-Semitic garbage off of this board.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/04/18/lobby/

The term anti semite phases me no more then heretic, deviant, witch, or infidel.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:27X ... =clnk&cd=3
Unless you can refute it better, I invoke Godwins law.

[Neocon Recovery]

Suprisingly 'Bulldog', I agree. Criticizing neoconservatism is NOT anti-Semitic. Implying neoconservatives only came to the Right when Israel was under assault is trickier, however. A few thoughts:

1. It is factually untrue. Most neoconservatives first writings and characteristic political positions had to deal with criticism of the welfare state not accomplishing the results claimed for them- for example, Thomas Sowell's criticism of affirmative action. Much was also in response to the radicalization of the Universities in the 1960s. In brief, the key to the birth of neoconservatism among former leftists was their having been 'mugged by reality', otherwise known as realizing that the conservatives were right. However, it is only with the neoconservatives that the response to the left becomes translated into the language of social science.

2. And even if it were true, would that make it any less legitimate? Your answer may give you pause.

3. And, AGAIN, why has Buchanan been 'read out of the movement.' It is not just former leftists, but lifelong conservatives like William F. Buckley, Jr., much of the Christian Right and, oh yes, the bulk of Republican voters who did the bulk of this. And Why? Because of what Buchanan brings besides simple conservatism- the jingoistic, paranoic, 'nationalism', sympathetic treatment of the extreme racist right, and a legion of other liabilities. Just ask yourself this: who criticizes Buchanan's conservatism on the Right as compared to the other aspects of his character I had just mentioned.

[bulldog905]

Yes, neo-cons are for 'the free flow of people' to countries, except one.

It begins with 'I' and ends with 'l'.

Jason and the mud throwers, nothwithstanding, I support Israel's right to exist, believe that the holocaust happened, yada, yada, yada.

However, that won't stop me from responding to those wholabel Pat Buchanan a 'fascist'.

Neo-conservatism is a left-wing triangulation strategy conceived by it's intellectual god-fathers, Leo Strauss and Irving Kristol.

[Jason Kauppinen]

You might also try reading:

Norman Podhoretz' "My Problem-and Ours" from the February 1963 issue of Commentary.

Or just some basic western logic, specifically the ad hominem fallacy.

You have a problem with Neo-Conservatism?

Start attacking the ideas directly, and keep your anti-Semitic garbage off of this board.

Gee, Jason, opposing the neo-cons, is anti-Semitic, is it?

You always resort to this stuff in your debates. It's a pattern and not pretty.

Keep your leftist race baiting off this board, Jason.

Oh get real:

We only saw the migration of those neo-cons into conservatism after the 6 day war in 1967 when the left turned against Israel. They are so transparent in their manipulation of conservatism as a vehicle for their agenda(s)they don't fool any on the old right.

If you're not willing to take responsibility for your own words then what are you willing to take responsibility for?

[Neocon Recovery]

One last reply, as frankly this is becoming tiresome, and I was atl least interested enough to bother to reply.

Neo-conservatism as a 'left-wing triangulation strategy'? Where is the evidence of this. At least in stating frankly that Buchanan is a fascist there is the pretense of evidence, to which you did not respond. (Again, why? There is a logic even to the lack of a reply.)

What is left-wing about neoconservative projects? NOTHING. It is simply being a logical conservative...

A few specific comments.
1. On supporting the free mobility of persons- Is it not a basic article of free trade that persons must be able to move freely? Furthermore, is it not the neoconservatives in Washington who are waging the war on Terror and demanding further security checks and more reasonable immigration policies. Perhaps a blanket racist ban on those who happen not to be white would be to your taste? Certainly not to anyone who respects the dignity of the individual and of our country, a clear conservative priority.

2. Again, who are tackling the hard logic of convincing those deceived by the left on matters ranging from the threat that was posed by the Soviet Union to affirmative action to the need for welfare reform,etc. Oh yes, the neoconservatives.

3. On 'subverting the Constitution'? Where? The allegation is not sufficient to prove the case- especially for attacking a point of view for the actions of a particular administration.

[Jason Kauppinen]

Producing proof for one's assertions is merely a Western approach to discussing issues. People here should be more tolerant of other people's methods of relating to reality, such as solipsism or existentialism.

Really you should be ashamed of yourself Neocon Recovery for attempting to demand that facts actually be brought to bear in this discussion.

[Neocon Recovery]

In response to Jason-
I don't honestly know if your most recent post was honestly meant or sarcastic, so i'll comment in either case.

If honestly meant:
I concur that there are other ways of discussing issues than the fact-based approach of the West, but, honestly, when discussing rapidly contentious issues on a Western-oriented posting site, it is to be assumed that Western standards are the most widely practiced. I admire any opinion stated with vigour and passion, regardless of its intellectual merit.

If sarcastic:
WELL DONE!!!

[bulldog905]

So, Pat Buchanan's a 'fascist' according to the neo-cons.

They(the neo-cons) sound exactly like the leftists they pretend not to be by tossing around words like that to attack a political opponent. If it looks like a leftist, sounds like a leftist and writes and uses smears like a leftist, it sure as heck ain't a conservative.

They give the game away. They can't help it. It's an ingrained reflex.

Oh, and if Pat is a fascist, Ronald Reagan must have been one too, because Pat was appointed by and worked for him.