The Greatest Trick the Devil Ever Pulled

Since everyone else is linking it… Michael Lind has a piece in The Nation that rather amusingly deconstructs the revisionist meme that there's no such thing as a neoconservative. (This sometimes appears as the claim that "neocon" is just a coded way of saying "Jewish." Because only hardline anti-Semites disagree with Dick Cheney. Or something.) Of particular interest is the suggestion that, while conversion from Marxism was initially the defining characteristic of neoconservatism, Marxist ideas continue to cast their shadow on neoconservative thought.

Comments

[thoreau]

I didn't have time to read the entire article, but a few criticisms are easy to debunk:

1) Who cares if it's in the Nation? Michael Lind is an interesting guy (not the same as saying I agree with him on everything) who publishes in plenty of places besides the Nation. Why not occasionally read something from the Nation? Sometimes it's interesting, and although this may be an alien concept to certain posters here, it is sometimes possible to learn something by reading a piece that you disagree with, provided that you have an open mind and the ability to reason.

2) Michael Lind rattled off a family tree and list of social engagements to debunk the idea that the people labeled neocons have nothing to do with each other. Whether their associations mean anything is another issue, but it debunks the claim made by members of that circle who insist that they don't hvae much to do with each other.

[New Conservative, or Not]

Ha ha,

No, we're serious, and we're NOT crackpots. Except Raymond.
He's certifiably crackpotish.

[dhex]

i'm desperately trying to follow here...

so is it automatically antisemetic to say "the neocons have too much influence in foreign policy" or does it require mention of other shadowy forces?

i'd figured it's pretty much assumed that shadowy forces are fucking with each other - and the rest of us unaligned folk - 24/7, jewish or not.

[Bob I]

Are we not men?

[Bob II]

We are Neo!

[The Truth]

>> Michael Lind rattled off a family tree and list of social engagements to debunk the idea that the people labeled neocons have nothing to do with each other.

He debunked nothing. Nobody denies that there a few people that call themselves neocons (e.g. Kristol) who happen to know a lot of people in Washington --- like EVERY OTHER WASHINGTON INSIDER.

No, he is trying to give CPR to this meme that is being used commonly by anti-semites. Why fight to the death to save this meme? What value is it to rant about "neocons"? Why didn't anyone rant about the DLC having "too much power" under Clinton? Why can't we assume that the policies of the Bush Administration are the intentions of solely President George W. Bush and not some secret cabal?

My guess is that those out of favor...or those with unpopular ideas...require a group to demonize to reassure themselves they are correct. To me that is telling of the unstablitiy of their own beliefs.

[joe]

Psst, the term "New Democrat" is cover for prejudice against Protestants.

Pass it on.

[You, too]

I find it easiest to hate those things I don't understand.

Metrosexual?
Meme?
Snarky?

Hate 'em all.

[Jesse Walker]

Why didn't anyone rant about the DLC having "too much power" under Clinton?

Uh ... lots of people did.

Why can't we assume that the policies of the Bush Administration are the intentions of solely President George W. Bush and not some secret cabal?

The vast majority -- something like 98% -- of people who criticize neoconservatives neither believe nor claim that they are a "secret cabal." We might not think that administration policy is shaped "solely" by President Bush, but then again, neither does anyone else.

[Truth]

>>Uh ... lots of people did.

In the same manner? Puh-leeze!

>>The vast majority -- something like 98% -- of people who criticize neoconservatives neither believe nor claim that they are a "secret cabal."

But they can't define who is a "neoconservative" in the first place.

And they tend to get completely defensive whenever anyone points out that there really are racist anti-semetic fucks out there that use the meme.

Why?

>>We might not think that administration policy is shaped "solely" by President Bush, but then again, neither does anyone else.

True, he listens to a lot of people when shaping his policy. But I tend to trust that the words coming out of his mouth are his own and his honest opinion.

[Rick Barton]

The Truth wrote:

"No, he is trying to give CPR to this meme that is being used commonly by anti-semites. Why fight to the death to save this meme?"

Here, The Truth is trying to slip one falsehood and one confusion by us. As if the Neo-cons are only a concept, and a concept that is in need of CPR,to boot! The Truth decides to assume what he cannot successfully argue for.

Also, anti-Jewish bigots may well also refer to the Neo-cons but that is an infinitesimal portion of the total conversation about them and the corpus of Neo-con thought. Just Google it.

[Jesse Walker]

In the same manner? Puh-leeze!

I'm not sure how you'd quantify it, but the anti-DNC stuff might even be harsher. Read some Green Party material, or stuff from the left wing of the Democratic Party.

But they can't define who is a "neoconservative" in the first place. And they tend to get completely defensive whenever anyone points out that there really are racist anti-semetic fucks out there that use the meme. Why?

Y'know, when I was in college, you couldn't criticize affirmative action in front of certain people without them saying "That sounds like David Duke."

If you understand why that response is offensive, then you should understand why the other response is offensive. (Especially since the percentage of affirmative action critics who really are racist is surely much higher than the percentage of neocon critics who really are anti-Semitic.)

[John Q]

I'm tiring of the faux outrage. "The Truth" should rename him- or herself "The Snooze." zzzz

[Rick Barton]

"But I tend to trust that the words coming out of (Bush's) mouth are his own and his honest opinion."

But that in no way refutes the idea of Neo-con influence in Bush's opinions and decisions about the Iraq war, and the Israeli government, etc.

[alma hadayn]

" But I tend to trust that the words coming out of his mouth are his own and his honest opinion."

It's hard to know because every time he speaks without a script we get gibberish.

For example his interesting views on spending:

"If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent, and ours have steadily declined."

Or his twice stated opinion that Saddam Hussein did not let weapons inspectors into Iraq. (Last May and again this January).

Or his assertion that David Kay has "found the capacity to make weapons." (It's unclear what this could possibly mean, unless you equate breathing with the capacity to make weapons.)

[joe]

"But they can't define who is a "neoconservative" in the first place."

Sure we can. Perle, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Norquist...

I think what you were trying to say is that there isn't a neat standard by which to judge who is and who is not a neo-con, just a vague sense based on the general flow of political debate. But that's true of any political subset.

There is a group of conservatives who have come to prominence within the milieu of the Right, who are in many ways different from the old solons of the Right. They tend to have different backgrounds and priorities, and thus they end up on different sides of some policy debates. To distinguish the new style conservatives from the old, the term neo-conservative was created.

What the hell is the problem?

[Jason Ligon]

I just can't get riled up about the Kristol neoconservative. There are bits that I don't agree with, but there are bits with every politician I don't agree with.

The criticisms of neoconservatives that I read don't match with what Jesse and company are laying out here. Most of what I read is tinged with a Raimondonian shrillness that makes me tune out after a chuckle, but I may be reading the wrong things. A few questions for the anti neocon folks out there:

1) Is neoconservatism at its base an approach to foreign policy, or is there some connection to the Patriot Act? If there is, how does it fit together?

2) Are the goals of neoconservatism to attain global empire for corporate interests, or is the unseating of murderous thugs just too costly? Is the intent an evil, or are you making a utilitarian argument about costs and benefits?

3) Is the problem of neocon influence on the administration a problem because of the policy prescriptions of neoconservatism, or is it a problem because, as I hear over and again, the administration has sold its soul to the neocons. What I'm getting at here is that criticisms of neocon influence on society sound an awful lot like criticisms of the influence of David Koresh on young girls.

I think much of this kind of criticism is based in an unreality where a president listens equally to people he agrees with and people he doesn't. Nothing in the world is stupider to me than the charge that a president is an 'ideologue'. Egad! You mean GW Bush isn't acting like Ted Kennedy? How surprising, and evil. I would assert that you don't really want that kind of person in charge, because you might as well elect John Zogby. If you don't agree with such and such a position, fine, but let's not act as though the real problem is the undue influence of similar minded people.

[alma hadayn]

"Nothing in the world is stupider to me than the charge that a president is an 'ideologue'."

The charge is not just that he has ideological proclivities- it's that he has an unusually strong tendency to ignore facts which cast doubt on his ideologically-based assumptions.

[Dan]

This sometimes appears as the claim that "neocon" is just a coded way of saying "Jewish." Because only hardline anti-Semites disagree with Dick Cheney. Or something

The "or something" is that the word "neocon" has a way of cropping up in sentences like "Bush's agenda is controlled by a conspiracy of neocons, such as [list of Jewish neo-conservatives, and a few other Jews that aren't neo-conservatives]."

Obviously it's possible to use the term appropriately. It's just that many of the people who use the word "neocon" as a *slur* are using it as a synonym for "Jews".

[Jason Ligon]

"The charge is not just that he has ideological proclivities- it's that he has an unusually strong tendency to ignore facts which cast doubt on his ideologically-based assumptions."

Only under a very generous reading of the word 'facts'.

[M. Simon]

You see the thing is that Wolfie was in the Pentagon during Clinton 1 & 2. And Clinton was listening to him. Because Clinton asked Congress for the same type of action against Saddam that Bush has implimented.

Why didn't any of this happen during Clinton's admin.

I put it all down to Clintonite. A metal from the planet Clinton that diables neocons.

Just remember what is needed to disable the neocons is Clintonite and nice plump Jewish girls with kneepads.

What could be simpler?

[M. Simon]

Of course we could get smart about all this and act intelligent.

The difference between Clinton calling for action and getting none - except Monica - and Bush calling for some action and getting it (Monica is retired) is 9/11.

It may not be the neocons after all. It may be that events have changed perceptions and the tolerance for threats.

You know the world in the 30s made a big mistake in not taking a certain German's threats seriously. 9/11 just lowered the threat level significantly.

Now just look at that nice peaceful country Iran. It has promised to lob a nuke or three at Israel if they get one. I think letting them carry out their plan is undesireable to the point of war because love Israel or hate it such behavior will lead to a policy in America of nuke first and ask questions later.

So rather than let things escalate to the point of general nuclear war, which most people (except hardcore libertarian pacifists - peace dude) consider undesireable a policy of pre-emption against those making threats or working to get nukes has been put in place.

Fascism is again loose in the world. Bush is intent on replacing fascist governments with popular governments. Clinton if you will read the record of what he proposed had a similar policy. What Clinton lacked was the backing of Congress and the American peoople.

9/11 changed everything. The neocons are peripheral. Even if they are a bunch of ex-leftie Jews.

[St. Germaine]

The real truth is that neo-conservatives (read:Pro-nazi Jews) cloned 1,000 copies of Hitler way back in '44 and planted the infants qwith all sorts of middling level powerful people across the planet.

#666 has W for a middle initial!

[thoreau]

St. Germaine-

Nonsense! They didn't clone Hitler. They cloned themselves. Hitler was the 13th clone, W is #666. And since Hitler and Bush look different, the only logical conclusion is that Bush and Hitler were cloned from different members of this cabal. Hitler was cloned from a banker, Bush from a rabbi, and Kofi Annan from the black sheep of the Rothschild family. How do you think he got the job of UN Secretary General?

Geez, get your conspiracy theories straight, man!

[M. Simon]

BTW in way of disclosue, I'm an ex-leftie Jew. (it must be catching).

And because of the party stance on war and peace (we should leave the world alone until there is a smoking crater in New York -- no wait - we should leave the world alone no matter how many attacks we get, after all mass murder is a police problem) I'm an ex-Libertarian.

All this neo-con crap is unserious and at it's root is a part of the anti-semitism resurgent in the Arab/European parts of the world. The Euros are just smarter about it this time. They complain about "the neocons" and let the Arabs take the onus for murder.

Cute. Very cute.

[thoreau]

P.S. Saddam was clone number 351. They're all in it together! 🙂

[Gordon Shumway]

"This sometimes appears as the claim that "neocon" is just a coded way of saying "Jewish." Because only hardline anti-Semites disagree with Dick Cheney. Or something."
- Sanchez

"It is true, and unfortunate, that some journalists tend to use "neoconservative" to refer only to Jewish neoconservatives, a practice that forces them to invent categories like "nationalist conservative" or "Western conservative" for Rumsfeld and Cheney." -Lind

Julian, before cracking wise, it is wise to actually read the article. I know it is a bit long, but you may have been able to make a different funny comment. Or something.

[M. Simon]

BTW if you doubt my points about the Arab/Euro axis you can read the articles by the Green Euro MP Ilke Schroder I posted links to above.

Wake up Libertarians. What is going on in the ME and the with the policy makers of the EU is a repeat and an extension of what happened to the world from about 1930 to 1945.

If you follow today's anti-Jew philosophy you will find it is a DIRECT decendant of the policies of a certain German corporal.

Just take the Palestinians (please - it ssem they are unpopular whever they go). The mufti of Jerusalem visited the German corporal in 1942 or 1943 to announce his sympathy with the corporal's plans for the Jews.

That same mufti was instrumental in the career of a certain Yasser Arafat. Who if you can believe his words in Arabic wants to finish what the German corporal started.

So follow the money. Who is paying this Arafat to impliment his policies? Arabs and the EU.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is not the neocons you have to worry about. If anything they are the canaries in the mine. Their policy is - pre-emptive war now to avoid a general nuclear war later. Admittedly the threshold is set quite low. A policy which seems reasonable to quite a few Americans post 9/11.

The neocons were here before 9/11. Why didn't they get any traction? Churchill was in Parliament before May of 1940. Why was he ignored and reviled as a warmonger in April and Prime Minister in May? Did something change? What event changed perceptions.

The problem the Libs have is that they are dead. They are unable to alter their responses to changed circumstances. Their policy is that if the world was perfect or at least pretty good they have a very good plan.

Gentlemen the world has gone very bad and you have no credible plan. Ranting about neocons is just more evidence of no credible policy.

RIP

[John Q]

All this neo-con crap is unserious and at it's [sic] root is a part of the anti-semitism resurgent in the Arab/European parts of the world.

Well, I'm "serious"-ly not an anti-Semite and I don't like the neo-cons. How do you like them apples? See, crying out victimization doesn't mean it's true.

Further, I can tell from your self description ("ex-Leftie" and now "ex-Libertarian" and present "neo-conservative") that you are pretty fond of labels, so don't disparage their use.

[Andrew]

This is so much a Preaching-to-the-Choir thing for the Nation crowd I wonder why it would be linked to this forum. Does Reason invite its reader's to share the world view of the Nation? Are Michael Lind's bona fides ("I Was A Neo-Con!") required to do an analysis of that policy view, otherwise beyond the competance of the Reason staff?

Wouldn't it be simpler to read their book?

[Andrew]

I got to thinking about the "ex-Lefty" thing...in part because it could apply to me.

Who isn't an ex-Lefty? Raise your hand! (Joe, you don't count...you're STILL a Lefty.)

For any kid bright enough to take an interest in policy matters, a kind of "soft" Marxism is so pervasive (and irresistably appealing-- so daring! so ostentatious!) that to escape its influence would have required the intervention of Providence-- the only ones who weren't Soft Marxists were Hard Marxists.

Later, when we all landed somewhere on the political spectrum, those of us who aren't ex-Leftys are STILL Leftys.

Funny to see Reason practising this selective McCarthyism. The neo-cons are bad, because they aren't Cradle Catholics?

The prominence of Jews has a similar explanation. Yeah, like ANY intellectual movement...and especially on the Left a generation ago-- it's a characteristic of the pool of potential ex-leftists.

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

Oh no!!! Linking to the "Nation!"

Gordon,

You are selectively and dishonestly qouting the article.

[Rick Barton]

Another Hall mark of the Neos, besides their slavish devotion to what they think is good for Israel, is that they are still to a large degree, wedded to the tool of coercion. This is why many are only marginally exleftists.

[Rose]

"Neocon" has become a useless term. It's only used as a pejorative, and generally by those who wish to argue against the war but don't know how. Rather than engage in actual debate, they'd rather ascribe awesome and secret powers to a convenient "them" (sound familiar?).

Still, there are a number of intelligent articles on the matter, but Reason predictably links to something illogical and tiresome.

[Rick Barton]

This is like bitchin off-topic for sure, but in the last "Neo" thread the subject of libertarian bands/music came up, and in that regard; Oingo Boingo, here are a couple of quite libertarian tunes by them that I really like:

"Capitalism":
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Capitalism-lyrics-Oingo-Boingo/166E1E9646045B2C48256A2B002F906A

"Wake Up (It's 1984)":
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Wake-Up-It's-1984-lyrics-Oingo-Boingo/CFA8C822420E4D1148256A2B00306204

[Walt]

Why would anyone be surprised Reason is linking to The Nation? For the past year, Reason's war coverage has featured the cheap shots and brain-dead analysis that's practically the Nation's hallmark on foreign affairs.

[KJ]

Well, if this long-winding and boring piece of silly name-dropping and who's-having-lunch-with-who's stepmother-in-law-and-thus-must-be-part-of-a-conspiracy passes off as "rather amusing deconstruction" then I'd really be loath to read any deconstruction Mr. Sanchez thinks a not so amusing.

[Dustin]

I have a feeling that all these people here bashing the article are secret neocons.

[Truth]

Nahh, nobody uses "neocon" for "Jew."

Oh wait, some paleos do....

http://www.no-treason.com/comments.php?id=580_0_1_0_C

Meanwhile, find out why the whole "Protocals of Neconservatism" is just a myth, a myth that sadly the anti-wartards won't drop:

http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i34/34b01401.htm

[xray]

Dustin: There you go accusing everyone of being a secret jew. Don't let yourself get sucked in to the traitorous reason/nation mindset.

[Rick Barton]

http://members.aol.com/thegneech/elflib.htm
Here are some other Oingo Boingo songs that, "The Gneech" thinks are pretty libertarian, including the very good,
"Capitalism"; Which might make economics the:

Weird dismal Science

Also, more liberty songs: http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0108/libertysongs.html

[David]

Was Japan really a democracy before WWII? Probably the Jews have rewritten history to make it seem like it wasn't.

[dhex]

for someone who doesn't really have a dog in this fight, can someone explain to me the whole "neocon = jew" thing?

i don't see it. maybe i'm not looking hard enough.

[The Truth]

dhex -- The myth goes like this: There is a small group of Jewish "ex-communists" that are secretly pulling the strings of the country, and doing so not in the US interests but in the interestes of Isreal. The sinister cabal is hiding under the guise of "conservatives" (i.e. the hands running international capitalism) while also working fiedishly for their Dark Lord Leon Trotsky (pulling the levers of international communism)...

Sould familer so far?

Oh yeah, the group also includes ex-liberals (Scoop Jackson Democrats) and ex-leftists (David Horowitz) and everyone else who supported the war (Colin Powel, National Review, Instapundit, etc).

But the hawks (including a overwhelming majority of average Americans) are just dupes, pawns in the international conspiracy. And anyone who denies that the Conspiracy exists is just part of it...

You can read more about it at anti-war.com, TheNation, LewRockwell.com, the American Conservative, IndyMedia and (now apparently) Reason.

Or you can use your brain and understand that their are a few conservatives that happen to have popular ideas among the President and the GOP leadership, just as there were "New Democrat" DLC types that had influence over President Clinton.

Why the DLC doesn't get a creepy myth to explain why it has influence is beyond me.

[MK]

I can sum up this article by quoting a little known conservative philosopher, Eric Cartman, who said, ?What?s the big fuckin deal, bitch??

This is really nothing more than a ?neo-con family history? story. What?s next, Mike Moore is going to make a fuckin documentary about it? So shocking to hear that a buncha people from certain parts of the world not only think alike about a buncha issues, but have all met each other for circle jerks and what not.

Give me Janet Jackson for greater shock value any day.

[John Q.]

I think the Lind article is very interesting and compelling reading. Some of the commenters on this thread would seemingly prefer not to know anything about a school of thought that is increasingly influential and responsible for the Iraq debacle. I'd prefer to learn about them and their thoughts.

As I had long assumed, the neo-cons are a bit nuts, stuck in fantasyland. Who else but (ex)Marxists would write a book titled, "An End to Evil"?

[John Hood]

Paging Mr. Raimondo. Paging Mr. Raimondo. A somewhat more coherent crank is stealing your thunder . . .

[alma hadayn]

"The mufti of Jerusalem visited the German corporal in 1942 or 1943 to announce his sympathy with the corporal's plans for the Jews."

Abraham Stern, leader of the right wing Zionist militant/terrorist group Lehi, or the Stern Gang, sent a letter in 1941 to Reich officials in Beirut suggesting collaboration against the British because of their common ideals and mutual desire to get the Jews out of Europe. Also a member of Lehi was former Israeli PM Yitzhak Shamir.

[Rick Barton]

The Truth wrote:

"The myth goes like this: There is a small group of Jewish "ex-communists" that are secretly pulling the strings of the country...

This is just repeating the pathetic defense that the neos used to try to use to deflect criticism of their advocacies, until too many Jewish critics and too many non-Jewish neos made the absurdity of this racial victimization whining manifest.

The Lind piece deserves careful attention as he used to be part of the Neo camp, and the Neos were the most vocal proponents of the lies which motivated the war:

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

[joe]

Wow, when you bend over backwards to make a theory sound like Naziism, it sounds like Naziism. Like this

"The sinister cabal is hiding under the guise of "conservatives" (i.e. the hands running international capitalism) while also working fiedishly for their Dark Lord Leon Trotsky (pulling the levers of international communism)..."

Some rightist critics disparage neoconservatism for being too communist - using Lennisist tactics, including ex-Trots among its followers, etc. Some leftist critics disparage it for being too capitalist. But if pretend not to know the difference, and use a dishonest turn of phrase, you can make it sound as if there are people expressing the old Nazi idea that capitalism and communism are tools being pushed by the same sinister group.

BTW, Irving Kriston wrote a book called "Neoconservatism: the Birth of an Idea." Damn antisemite.

[Rick Barton]

Andrew:

"Does Reason invite its reader's to share the world view of the Nation?"

I am quite sure that they do not since in many aspects the two are opposites but; "truth is where you find it", is a quite reasonable sentiment.

[Jesse Walker]

Jason makes a good point about the overuse of the word "neoconservative"; in some mouths, though not Lind's, its meaning is being diluted. Otherwise, the criticisms above are nothing but ad hominem attacks (It's in The Nation!) and libelous caricatures of other people's positions (It's a cabal of Jews!). I'm not a Michael Lind fan, and I don't agree with everything in his article. (It's not inspiring, for example, to watch him recycle his old nonsense about Pat Robertson.) But I continue to be amazed that a point as simple and obvious as "Neocons exist" would inspire such spasms of bile.

P.S. for David: Japan had a parliament and competing political parties prior to World War II, and they actually held substantial power before the rise of the militarists in the 1930s. Democracy obviously lacked strong roots, and the postwar occupation of the country is the closest anyone has to a good example of the American military successfully imposing a liberal order. (Much more typical was the occupation of, say, Haiti.) But Lind's comment is historically accurate.

[David T]

David: "Was Japan really a democracy before the war?" Well, it had reasonably free elections and a reasonably free press (the *Manichi* was publicly arguing for armaments reduction and a softer line toward China well into the 1930s) in the 1920s despite the notorious "Peace Preservation Law."

Indeed, as late as 1936 there was a moderately free election for the Diet, in which the openly radical right did quite poorly (400,000 votes and six seats), while a labor party (Shakai Taishuto or "social masses party") doubled its
previous vote and won 18 seats. The party getting the most votes was the Minseito or Democratic party (4,456,200 votes and 205 seats)--whose governments of 1929-31 had probably been the high-water mark of Japanese liberalism. (During the 1936 campaign, the Minseito used as one of its slogans, "Which shall it be, parliamentary government or Fascism?") The so-called February Incident which put Japan a long way closer to total rule by the military was largely a reaction to this election.

In short, while one can quibble about whether pre-war Japan was ever a democracy, in terms of the existence of a civil society there is absolutely no comparison between it and Ba'athist Iraq--which it seems to me is Lind's real point. When the US looked for leaders in postwar Japan it had to look no further than some people who had played prominent roles in Japanese politics as late as the early 1930s--e.g., Shidehara. There is simply no equivalent in Iraq.

[Raymond Justino]

Christ, what's wrong with you Sheeple? Are you afraid of the truth or just unable to handle it? Peel back the onion and see what's really inside. Don't be afraid. Speak its name. Still afraid? I'll do it for you. Hold onto your hats and tighten your ringpieces. Here it comes...

Neocons = Bavarian Illuminati

There, not so bad. Now that I've only got about 24hrs to live (maybe 36, I'm small and fast and don't sleep much), I'll make the rest brief. These NeoIlluminos are currently running things from several of Saddam's palaces. Those bangs going off around Baghdad, bloody distractions. Man in the Blue Turban indeed. They plan to set up shop in the ME, while simultaneously taking over other hot oil spots like Venezuela (remember a little thing or two going on there last year), Texas (been there for years), Alaska (how many minutes into Bush's second term will it take for ANWR drilling to start), and Russia (anybody seen Ivan Rybkin?). But this is all well underway and past the point of no return and shouldn't come as much of a surprise to anyone who doesn't have their head in the sand or up their ass. The big thing, the kicker, the one that will be funding the nanotech bugs that will be simulating my heart attack in just a matter of hours, is Global Warming. See, not only is it happening, not only is it driven by human activity (listen to those scientists quarrel, oh we may never know the truth, tee hee), but IT IS A PLANNED EVENT. See, as current oil reserves begin to run down, there's a couple of untapped reserves that dwarf every bit of crude we've gotten our grubby little hands on so far. Thing is, it's buried under just a little too much ice. If only something would melt some of it away. Don't worry about rising waters, New Cities have already been designed and the construction will employ millions and millions for many years to come.

And if that melting ice happens to wake a certain something. No big worry, the've got plans for him too. But watch out, he might be hungry.

[Kevin Carson]

So now neocon=poopiehead? Let's see... "The cabal of poopieheads surrounding Rumsfeld and Feith...." Yeah, it works.

Great title, BTW, Julian.

[KJ]

The purpose of "applied neo-conservativism" is, I've been told, to maintain, at all costs, the unwavering support, military and political, of the US for Israel. Without this support, the saying goes, Israel will perish; so what is being waged here is a (propaganda) war of national survival.

There is no doubting the continuation of that support for the moment, whoever is US President this time next year; but the goal of the neo-cons is to nip in the bud the slightest wavering of mainstream American opinion on the matter.

Europe, where weak support for, or neutrality towards, Israel amongst governments is reflected in, and bolstered by, the growing anti-semitism of their peoples, is cited as a warning example for what must not happen.

Thus the extreme opprobrium in which are held those American opinion-formers ?convicted? of anti-semitism, in however mild or tangential a form (Think of poor Greg Easterbrook).

Is there any truth in this? After all, mere allegations of anti-semitism may indeed have severe repercussions on the accused person?s career. An American journalist looking at an accusation of anti-semitism against the BBC, say, or the Guardian, naturally imagines himself as the object of such an accusation; thinks of the consequences of such an eventuality; shudders; and vows never to go within a country mile of providing fuel for such an accusation. Apparently, it?s meant as a an educational experience. And it seems to work, doesn't it?

[M. Simon]

If you can believe the latest war news fronm the New York Times (known liars about almost everything, the war is going really badly for the current administration of Al Quida. I blame the neocons. Specifically the Jewish ex-leftist neocons.

If we got rid of their advice the war would be going much better.

And another thing. There is a Green member of the EU Parliament who thinks that the EU cozying up to the Arabs and Palestinians is a part of the EU proxy war against Jews and Americans.

http://www.thesprout.net/is.htm

and a previous article on this EU MP in a notorious Jewish publication.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=54963

I blame all this on the neocons. I mean Israel. Well the Zionists. I mean they control the money and with it the world. Don't they?

[joe]

I haven't seen identity politics reach this level of absurdity since welfare reform.

"Some of what the opposition says sounds vaguely similar to something racists might say."

"Well, we don't really have any arguments left, so go with that."

[Ha, ha, I get it]

Everyone here is just making all this stuff up, right?
Right?

[80sfan]

Also, watch out for the Free-Masons

[Rick Barton]

Joe:

"Paleos often accues neocons of being half-hearted in their persecution of gays, hippies, uppity women, and working people."

I think this is not accurate and also it is unfair. The prime criticism that paleos (including libertarians and traditional conservatives) level against the Neo's is, of course, concerning the Neo's successful advocacy of an expansive, interventionist, foreign policy leading to American troops and tax dollars finding themselves in all kinds of exotic places world wide, which engenders "blowback", of which 9/11 is the most notable. The criticism also includes Neo support of corporate welfare via the IMF and World Bank and now, the Tragedy of the Iraq War.

Paleo critique of the Neo domestic agenda is one of attacking the Neo's "Big Government Conservatism" which is the idea of using government to advance "conservative" goals. "Faith Bases Initiatives" is an example. Now, some of these goals may indeed be worthy and not adverse to conservative principle but the means are totally inappropriate and ineffective as well.

To your list:

gays: One on the most prominent and effective Paleo critics of the Neo's is Gay:

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=1962

And, he is certainly embraced by other Paleo's:

http://antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=1952

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/August2003/Chron0803.html

hippies: Will you accept the advocacy of drug legalization that you find on the right as a possible refutation on this one? What about the advocacy of animal rights?:

http://www.amconmag.com/12_16/12_16.html

joe, I think that a lot of the libertarian/conservative movement is informed by the free spirit 60's and 70's. I know that there were many of us, now of all political stripes, who were hippies of sorts in the 70's.

uppity women: Are these women uppity enough for you?

http://www.ifeminists.net/index.php

http://www.amconmag.com/1_19_04/article1.html

http://www.zetetics.com/mac/

working people: If lower taxes and more freedom didn't have an appeal to working people, the conservative movement would not have had the electoral successes that it has. It's the government screwing folks that motivates much of the conservative movement.

"Don't worry, Andrew, if I ever stop being a lefty, I'll let you know."

"As someone who's hasn't got a dog in this rightist intramural fight - I think you all suck

Joe, from your posts, I always thought of you as more of a liberal than a lefty but, however you categorize yourself, surely you must be on the conservative/libertarian side against the Neo's hyper-interventionist foreign policy-Iraq War and also against the Patriot Act. Right? At least you seem to be in many of your posts.

[joe]

Please define "conservative/libertarian" for me, because I've not seen such a thing. Most of the conservatives I've read strongly support the Iraq war and Patriot Act, most of the libertarians strongly oppose both. Unless you're using the archaic definition of conservative (opposed to large deficits); if so, thou art being charmingly quaint.

Justin Raimondo a Paleo-conservative? Not hardly. The tiny minority of conservatives who opposed this war got a lot of man-bites-dog press, but the odd couple pairing of fossilized Taft Republicans and libertarians-who-are-still-mad-at-their-sociology-professors-and-call-themselves-conservatives-as-a-result doesn't amount to a much more than background noise on the contemporary political scene. The vast number of people who marched against the war probably agree with Raimondo's libertarianism about as much as they agree with ANSWER's Lenninism. And as far as support for gay people goes, while Pitchfork Pat may agree with Justin on an issue or two, I'm pretty sure you'd get a punch in the teeth if you suggested that he'd "embrace" a gay man.

There are certain conservatives who are anti-drug war, pro-gay rights (David Brooks on gay marriage: "I love marriage. I think everyone should be married." Brilliant!), and/or pro-animal rights. There are also liberals who think women should stay home and bake cookies. They are called "outliers."

[dhex]

"mad at their sociology professors"

???

i don't get the joke. please fill me in.

[Andrew]

Joe

You are, I assume, too young to have been there.

The original neo-cons emerged in the period 1965-1975, and were all from the wing of the Democratic Party that would have been considered the party Left from '55 to '65 (favoring new middle-class entitlements, against segregation, anti-federalist),

and many were "red diaper babies"...they had parents (literally) who were communists or sympathisers-- these guys defined themselves by a revulsion toward that Fringe Left in American cultural life and were ardent anti-Communists and Cold Warriors.

In foreign policy the only thing that distinguished them from the Cold War mainstream was a distaste for what would later be known as Nixonian cynicism, and an emphasis on top-down democratic transformation in the Third World to confound the appeal of revolutionary Marxism...an idea that never seemed to work out, and which helped get us involved in Viet Nam.

Then came the 60's. Neo-cons varied on the War, but they were all put off by the anti-war movement...and even more by the reflexive pacifism, cultural change and social-engineering agenda which became the center of balance in the Democratic Party after LBJ. Rather reluctantly, most drifted into the Republican Party headed by the Great Trickster. Left behind...for a while Jeanne Kirkpatrick-- forever, Michael Harrington.

At this time, they were picking up a lot of the social-issue conservatism from the National Review crowd they rubbed elbows with (tough on crime, down on drugs, pro-life), and never tired of telling anyone who listened how the Democratic Party had moved away from them.

Carter almost won them back-- he ran as a moderate, and contrived a human-rights/humanitarian-intervention foreign policy that had a certain appeal to the Democratic Transformation thinkers. But Carter turned out to be the smiley-face front for the social-engineering crowd, and the Cold War heated up in 1978...and then came Reagan.

Reagan completed the conversion of neo-cons to free markets (and re-converted the National Review), he modulated Nixonian cynicism into a more confrontive stance toward the Communist world, and sponsered anti-communist popular movements in and around the communist world. It wouldn't be too off the mark to describe neo-cons of the time as simply Reagan Republicans-- they were pretty close to the theoretical center-of-balance.

To backtrack, I went from teen-age Trotskyism to a (in context) more mature generic Libertarianism during the 70's. As I recall the scene (tiny, but somehow THERE...like Trotskyism), I was probably pretty typical of a "generic"-- there was a type of goofy Rothbard-style Left-Libertarian radicalism (which appears to be in ascendance nowadays), and there were still a lot of Objectivist dinosaurs (OH God!...the only thing I liked about Rothbard was watching him thump on THOSE ass-holes!).

We all found the social conservatism of both NR and the neo-cons INTENSELY distasteful, and it didn't help that the neo-cons were always ranting about FDR. (Personally, I've mellowed a LOT on most of these things.)

In practice, most of us defaulted to a sort of Nixonian Realism in foreign affairs

-- Rothbard sometimes liked to "critique" the Cold War in Chomskyite terms, but (then, as now) it was a patent, shallow and unconvincing pitch to the campus Left...and he didn't really have an alternative (sorta Isolationist I s'pose...but who really believed in that crap?). We ALL thought the Libertarian Party had a big future...I blame it on all the drugs.

Then came Reagan. We all got on the same bus with neo-cons and the National Review, for most of a decade. Ten years is a long time...especially when you are getting older. It was fun to win the Cold War. It was fun to confound the social engineers. It was fun to practice free-market reform...in America!

Then WENT Reagan.

When I look at the libertarian "movement" today I see little to admire. Rothbard's Left-Libertarianism is in the ascendant...and it's as futile and stupid now (and, in practice, as intellectually dishonest) as it was THEN. Nixonian Realism has become Clintonian Realism-- Isolationism has become Pacifism. And it's going nowhere-- just marginalizing libs as the Marijuana Legalization Party at a time when 95% of adult Americans DON'T want to legalize drugs.

The neo-cons were ALWAYS partly right-- the enemies of freedom abroad SHOULD be confronted, and confronted with a forward-looking strategy. The Realists were always partly right-- Nixonian or Clintonian, they have basically the right goals: globalization, modernization, free-market reform. (The democratic part needs more emphasis.)

Meanwhile...Reagan proved a major political party CAN be the agent of change...and that party is the Republican Party. In this last respect, nothing has changed-- the only time Democrats do anything right is when they act like Republicans...and the way to get them to act like Republicans is to vote Republican.

(The only time Republicans do anything right is when THEY act like Republicans...and the way to get THEM to act like Republicans is to vote Republican.)

Whew! That is about as much as I have ever really thought about all this.

[Jon H]

M. Simon writes: "You see the thing is that Wolfie was in the Pentagon during Clinton 1 & 2"

BZZT. Thanks for playing. He was at Johns Hopkins during the Clinton administrations.

http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/wolfowitz.html

"On February 5, 2001, President Bush announced his intention to nominate Dr. Paul Wolfowitz to be Deputy Secretary of Defense. He was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on Feb. 28th and sworn in March 2, 2001 as the 28th Deputy Secretary of Defense. This is Dr. Wolfowitz's third tour of duty in the Pentagon.

For the last seven years, Dr. Wolfowitz has served as Dean and Professor of International Relations at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of The Johns Hopkins University.

From 1989 to 1993, Dr. Wolfowitz served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in charge of the 700-person defense policy team that was responsible to Secretary Dick Cheney for matters concerning strategy, plans, and policy. During this period Secretary Wolfowitz and his staff had major responsibilities for the reshaping of strategy and force posture at the end of the Cold War."

[joe]

Don't worry, Andrew, if I ever stop being a lefty, I'll let you know.

Jason, "Is neoconservatism at its base an approach to foreign policy?" Foreign policy is much more central to neoconservative philosophy than older conservatism, but that in and of itself has significant for domestic affairs. Paleos often accues neocons of being half-hearted in their persecution of gays, hippies, uppity women, and working people.

"Are the goals of neoconservatism to attain global empire for corporate interests, or is the unseating of murderous thugs just too costly? Is the intent an evil, or are you making a utilitarian argument about costs and benefits?" Pure neocon theory is about creating an empire so that freedom, democracy, superior Western ways of life, and market-driven prosperity can flourish. All very idealistic stuff, not at all like the cynic hit jobs of people like Kissinger and old Bush. But like any movement, some people actually got the religion, other people mouth the words to jusify power grabs.

As for question 3, different people criticize neocon influence for different reasons.

As someone who's hasn't got a dog in this rightist intramural fight - I think you all suck
😉 - that's what it looks like from the bleachers.

[joe]

...and on the isse of neocons being converts from some other philosophy, I think that's more a function of the short existence of the movement (beginning either well into Reagan's presidency or after the Gulf War) than anything inherent in the philosophy itself. Of course the movement's leading lights right now are converts - neoconservatism didn't exist when they were first forming they're political opinions. But I'm sure that there are students right now whose first political orientation, perhaps the one they retain their entire lives, is neoconservatism.

[Rick Barton]

Joe,

Reagan said that the kernel of conservatism was libertarianism, in a Reason interview, actually. I see a great affinity between libertarianism and paleo-conservatism. Now Raimondo is certainly a libertarian but he is also a chronicler, biographer, scholar, and proponent of the ideas of the "Old (paleo) Right",( a school of thought, btw, that had a mature and developed non-interventionist philosophy to go along with its free market economics) which is my point; part of the intellectual/philosophical linage of today's libertarianism runs back to those folks.

Raimondo and Buchanan are friends, and the purpose of the links I cited for that topic was to show that Raimondo writes for Paleo journals and Paleos write for Antiwar.com; which is both the most frequented libertarian and anti-war site.

The people in congress who led the fight to have sunset provisions attached to the Patriot act were conservative Republicans ( Armey, Barr, Paul;
Paul was a Libertarian candidate for president) Bush is trying to reinstate those provisions.

[Ed Koch]

Andrew,

I don't know how old you are, but I'm in my mid 30s and anyone who was a child in a city during the 70s KNOWS that welfare people are stupid, dangerous, and most probably evil. They ruined NYC and allowed the facists to come to power just to keep order.

No soft marxism for me and my friends, that's a symptom of the suburbs and too much grateful dead.

[St. Germaine]

Then #23 must have been RAW himself!

Of course, now it all makes sense!

[kevrob]

Andrew's depiction of the taxonomy of right/left/whatever sounds OK to me. A good example of a neo-connish Carterite would have been his NSA, Zbigniew Brezhinski.

As for "conservatives/libertarians," the Old Right so beloved of the Rockwell clique included the likes of Frank Chodorov and Frank Meyer. Meyer's attempt at "fusionism" was explicitly aimed at getting the anti-statist remnant in American politics to stand alongside the anti-communists and withstand the assault of the Comintern.

Since he was trying to make "internationalists" out of former "isolationists" while trying to convince the ultramontanists among the NR crowd to recognize that compelled virtue isn't, this join did not last long. When the Republican Party, supposedly the electoral engine of the conservative movement from 1964 on, handed the keys to uberpragmatist Nixon, the house of cards collapsed. Not even the most ardent fusionist would stomach wage-and-price controls from "our" side.

This "cradle Catholic" found one or more issues that conflicted with the faith of his fathers to be a stumbling block to joining the Libertarians. Buckley, the avatar of fusionism -note how he sporadically refers to himself as a libertarian* - was a star to the likes of budding conwonks in the 60's. We watched him on Firing Line and The Advocates, read his column every other day in the paper, and, if we didn't have our own NR sub, bugged our librarians for the new issue each fortnight. We were warned not to use NR articles as sources in high school debate, but boy, what a vocabulary-builder!

Happily, a Jesuit education inculcated in me the necessary questioning attitude to ditch both Jebusism and the Republicans. I changed my mind about those "stumbling block" issues, so libertarianism was a better fit.

John Podhoretz, Bill Kristol and other offspring of thr original neos were once dubbed "minicons." They are the narrowbacks of this branch of conservatism, and "National Greatness" aside, feel that they are conservatives, pure and simple. They were born to it. Neos did not care for the way the Great Society programs had been hijacked by the New Left, Community Action Programs, frex, but did not want to repeal the welfare state, only tame it. Remember, its only 2 Cheers for Capitalism, after all.

Kevin

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2751.html

http://www.libertyhaven.com/thinkers/frankchodorov/frank.html

*Happy Days Were Here Again : Reflections of a Libertarian Journalist 1993 Random House
http://half.ebay.com/cat/buy/prod.cgi?cpidEQ918853AMPdomain_idEQ1856AMPmeta_idEQ1

[joe]

Andrew, I think you make a mistake to place the birth of neo-conservatism at the same moment as the questioning of the Old Right, the drawing away from the pacifist Democratic Party by liberal Cold Warriors, and the other "beginning of the end" events you describe. I think it would be more accurate to say there was a gestation period, and that fully-formed neo-conservatism didn't come into being until the messianic Regan moment that makes you so misty.

One of the central themes of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" is that realignments no longer happen as quickly, and there is a period of instability between the collapse of the old coalitions and the rise of the new. I think it's fair to say something similar happened in the creation of neo-conservatism.