- 28 Mar 2004 00:13
#137101
Is there truely antipithy towards the neo cons form the religious right and lets say the libertarian/minimal statists?
http://www.againstbombing.com/howtookover.htm
http://www.againstbombing.com/howtookover.htm
Many Americans voted for Bush in hopes of avoiding Gore's continuing Klintonian/Reno regime tactics, even while not really understanding their policies. For these Americans, their vote was more of a protest against Clinton and Gore than an affirmation of Bush policies. In fact, many who voted for Bush may not have necessarily been aware of what his policies really were. Others knew, but voted for him anyway as the lesser of 2 evils since they did[/quote]
not think that a 3rd party candidate could pull off an election year victory against Gore.
Social conservative hope for the best from Mr. Bush. But I suggest that we proceed with caution.Bush has surrounded himself with neo-conservative(neo-cons) advisors, and therefore has never met a big goverment that he didn't like. Neo-cons, you say? Yes, neo-cons. The guys that spit venom at Buchanan, the guys that have been struck with "body-bag" syndrome when it comes to foreign policy, the guys who reject populist concerns as "mere
hotbuttons", concerns like abortion(murder) and a degradated society. For a period of time, when it looked like Bush might lose to Gore, the neo-cons almost one and all lined up behind McCain, and then later were afflicted with political whiplash as they ran back to the Bush camp.
The "neo-cons" have been referred to as "political cross-dressers". Neo-Conservatism was formed by a mostly Jewish group of establishment anti-communist liberal intellectuals. Many of them were former Marxists, but were repelled by the violence and anti-establishment attitudes of the radical Left. They were also alarmed by the New Left’s rabid anti-Israel pro-Arab rhetoric. In effect, they form the "War Party" ideology of post-cold war American
politics. The USSR may be dead, but the neo-conservatives diverted some of those huge sums of military dollars towards their main concern, Israel, by sounding the alarm that "rouge nations" such as Iraq were the main threat to world peace and setting up Pax-America.
The following excerpt was taken from "THE PROBLEM WITH CONSERVATIVES" by Colonel V. Doner.
The DISAPPEARING CONSERVATIVES
"It now seems increasingly likely that the New Right is on its death bed."
THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT, by Paul Gottfried, page 116
The question that now arises is, whatever happened to the conservative movement? How could it so easily be supplanted by a "Neo"-Conservatism? Indeed, what was once a vital conservative movement has been so thoroughly consumed by its Neo-Con predator that only a few brittle bones remain. Or, to employ a different metaphor, it’s not that the conservative emperor is bereft of clothing; it’s that he’s clothed in a Neo-Con skirt, the political equivalent of a cross dresser.
In exploring the roots of modern conservatism, we encounter our first clue as to its surprising vulnerability to a hostile takeover. Simply stated, American conservatism never had its own worldview or coherent, "internal belief system," as Weyrich correctly surmised. Ironically enough, the history of the conservative moment has been one of progressive syncretization. It began with a coalition of isolationists and free-market theorists reacting to FDR’s "war-mongering" and quasi-socialist government interventionism. In 1944 a handful of them founded the weekly newspaper Human Events, still the flagship publication of "The Old Right." This small but vocal group evolved into an ad hoc alliance with "Traditionalists" like Russell Kirk (who authored his definitive work The Conservative
Mind in the early 1950s). Kirk’s philosophy was largely drawn from a confluence of European conservatives: the British philosopher Edmund Burke; Roman Catholic "natural law" theories, and from a school of thought known as "New Humanism." With Senator Joseph McCarthy’s (and Senator Richard Nixon’s) communist-hunting forays, the movement took a distinctly anti-communist turn and grew significantly. In the early 60s the movement further
expanded its already eclectic range with the addition of various stripes of libertarians and Randians (devotees of "objectivist" novelist Ayn Rand), alongside fundamentalist communist fighters like Rev. Carl McIntire and Rev. Billy James Hargis (the predecessor to Jerry Falwell). The movement’s quantum leap in popularity came with the
formation of the "Draft Goldwater Committee" in 1963. For the boomer generation of activists this was the beginning of our (including my) self-conscious identity as "conservatives."
The movement, ill-defined as it was (which enhanced its ability to attract sub-cultures as diverse as Randians and fundamentalists) was bonded together by five central concerns: 1) anti-communism, 2) "anti-big government," 3) free enterprise, 4) anti-abortion and 5) "traditional values," whatever the last may have meant (and surely its
meaning was in the eye of the beholder). Of the five, a fierce anti-communism was clearly the driving force and the primary bonding agent which held the movement’s otherwise disparate elements together. Badly out-flanked by the media, academia, and the political establishment, conservatives were in some ways what the Left characterized them as: "reactionaries." We were, in fact, so overwhelmed "reacting" to the seemingly unstoppable march of
communism across the globe and frightening cultural disintegration at home that we had little inclination or time to develop a coherent worldview. Just protecting children at public school from a myriad of wild-eyed social programmers seemed a full-time task. In such a setting, concentrating on immediate threats seemed entirely justifiable. When the barbarians are at the gates, it’s not the time to wax philosophical. It’s time to man the walls and start dumping cauldrons of boiling oil.
In sum, with a highly visible enemy, we didn’t need a coherent philosophy (or so we thought). Besides, we knew what we stood for: free enterprise, traditional values (meaning we were for conserving anything the Left proposed changing), and "freedom" (meaning "Better Dead Than Red"). Ironically, it was this over-arching priority of destroying the Red Menace that opened the gates to the Neo-Conservative Trojan Horse.
The Neo-Conservative Trojan Horse
"The old conservatives of the 80s were being swallowed up by the alliance they initiated and sustained."
The Conservative Movement, Paul Gottfried, page 90
"The offensives of radicalism have driven vast herds of liberals across the borders into our territories. These refugees now speak in our names, but the language they speak is the same one they always spoke. [The conservative Intercollegiate Review (Spring 1996) as quoted in The Conservative Movement, Paul Gottfried, page
91].
The conservative movement of the 70s, dispirited from successive annihilation of its two most prominent
anti-communist heroes, Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon (exactly one decade apart), was desperate for new
allies, especially ones with impeccable academic credentials and media connections. Enter the "Neo-Cons," the
"New Conservatives."
In brief, "Neo-Conservatism" came about as establishment 1950s Harry Truman-Scoop Jackson
anti-communist liberal intellectuals (many of them former Marxists) were repelled by the violence
and anti-establishmentarianism of the radical Left.
A mostly Jewish group, they were also alarmed by the New Left’s rabid anti-Israel pro-Arab
rhetoric and the radical sea change that was swamping the Democratic Party as illustrated by the
growing popularity and influence of Senators Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern.
Disillusioned by liberalism’s receptivity to the Marxist critique of Western culture, and concerned
for Israel’s security (the Soviets were effectively surrounding Israel with their client states) this
Gideon’s band of "liberal anti-communists" searched for a new home.
Deeming themselves the "New Conservatives," they began writing for conservative magazines and supplying the intellectual capital for a handful of conservative foundations. Nevertheless, they remained classic establishment liberals, or "Democratic centrists," with their twin goals of establishing a new world order of democratic pluralism and a well-managed, budget balanced, neatly ordered welfare state here at home. These "New Conservatives" were, in fact, anything but, then or now. They were conservative only in relation to the far-out radicalism of their former comrades.
By insinuating themselves into the heart of the conservative movement this small band of less than a hundred was gradually able to dominate intellectually or financially (or both), the key publications (National Review, the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard) and think tanks (The Heritage Foundation, The Hoover and American Enterprise Institutes) of the Right. As Gottfried notes, Neo-Cons’ progressive influence over foundation purse strings (with grants of $30 million a year!) gave them "control over the form and content of movement conservatism" (The Conservative Movement, Paul Gottfried, page 129). Not a few of the Old Guard objected to these brazen house guests evicting their hosts, but with the Neo-Cons’ media cachet and their new found pot of gold, opponents were easily marginalized or black-listed as anti-Semitic, a tactic that was most recently employed with some success against Pat Buchanan.
In short, most of the old post-WW II conservative movement that didn’t die off was run off by the neo-con blitzkrieg, or absorbed by the New Right (circa 1970-1980). In turn, during the 80s the Neo-Cons co-opted the few real assets the New Right possessed (which wasn’t much beyond their heavily incestuous and burned-out mailing lists). In 1997, the breathtaking success of the Neo-Con sweep was dramatically underscored by "The First
International Conservative Congress" ("Reinvigorating Conservatism Worldwide") held in September 1997 where the vast majority of several dozen featured speakers were Neo-Cons. In fact, the only name from the Old Right was Neo-Con convert William F. Buckley. The lone Christian Right token was, of course, Ralph Reed.
THE NEO-CON AGENDA
"Almost all Neo-Conservatives . . . remain qualified defenders of the welfare state."
THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT Paul Gottfried, page 85
To inquire about the specifics of the Neo-Con agenda, all we need do is observe the Republican agenda in Congress. Ironically, while "Newt’s Freshmen" complain that "the revolution" has stalled, that things have gotten boring for lack of action, the Neo-Con agenda (which has subsumed the Speaker and his minions) is rolling along quite smoothly. In foreign affairs we continue to use tax dollars and American troops to transplant American-style
"democratic capitalism," while encouraging "open immigration" from the Third World and accelerated emigration of blue-collar jobs to Red China and sundry Third World concentration camps. This seemingly disastrous policy is the Neo-Con’s raison d’ etat in foreign affairs--the pursuit of international cultural and political homogeneity based
on secular democratic values.
At home the Neo-Cons betray their true colors as neo-liberals with their vehement defense of big government (albeit a well-managed one!) and the welfare state (again, an efficiently run one!). As a whole, Neo-Conservatives are interested in containing or moderating the civil government’s role as sovereign caretaker for the people, not replacing it. Irving Kristol (Bill’s father) and the progenitor of the Neo-Conservative movement, freely confesses
"we are not at all hostile to the idea of a welfare state," inferring it was merely the gross mismanagement of the welfare state Neo-Cons found irksome.
THE FUTURE
"Real conservatives are a populist anti-establishment force that is not represented by ‘establishment’ conservative parties."
THE WEEKLY STANDARD Paul Weyrich, September 1, 1997
The unexpected victory of the conservative coalition over its two great enemies of the last half century,
communism and liberal Democratic control of Congress, has revealed the movement’s bankruptcy in terms of a
coherent vision for the future. In fact, it seems the movement even lacks agreement on the first principles (i.e.,
worldview) necessary to construct such a vision. Now that the "tie that binds" (resistance to the Evil Empire) has
dissolved, what’s to hold the increasingly diverse elements of the movement (Libertarians, America Firsters,
Isolationists, interventionist Neo-Cons, corporatists, country clubbers and Christians) together? Remember the
five-legged stool of the prototype conservative agenda: 1) anti-communism, 2) anti-"big government," 3) free
enterprise, 4) anti-abortion and 5) "traditional values," ? Number one is moot. Number two is now axiomatic for
everyone not living in Cuba, China, North Korea, or humanities departments of elite American universities, and is
consequently no longer of interest to most activists. On points 3 and 4 Christians will most likely find themselves at
loggerheads with the rest of the movement, especially the Neo-Cons. The last issue, "traditional values," surely
will turn out to be the most divisive, as the recent "Neo-Con/Theo-Con" war vividly demonstrates. What we have
yet to perceive is that 80% of the GOP--from Libertarians to country clubbers, from Neo-Cons to secular
conservatives, are purposefully uninterested in Christian Right issues. Read one hundred conservative pundits,
peruse the policy papers generated by conservative think tanks and you will find ninety percent deal with balancing
the budget or fine-tuning the bureaucracy.
WAR OF THE WORLD VIEWS
". . . if the evangelicals should lose their foothold within the Republican party or if the abortion battle should swing
against them with an aura of irreversible finality, a larger number of conservative Christians will begin to think
more seriously about overt forms of social protest and resistance. If that should occur, the Reconstructionists will
be waiting for them with open arms." Heaven on Earth, Bruce Barron, page 148
While the Neo-Cons are high on "traditional values," they’re really talking about "generic" civic virtues that
provide the gravitational grounding to keep our culture from flying apart. Antithetical to their concept is anything
as divisive as Christianity’s exclusive truth claims. The Neo-Cons fancy themselves managing a polite, pluralistic,
secular, democratic capitalistic society where everyone gets along nicely, a "kinder, gentler" society. Thus we
have the stage set for a replay of the Neo-Con vs. Theo-Con war. Having successfully vanquished their opposition
from the conservatives’ Old Guard (see Andrew Sandlin’s extended editorial), their next most likely target is the
Christian Right, at least those who cannot be co-opted or who stubbornly insist on the primacy of a Christian
worldview which mandates "discipling the nations to follow all God’s Law" ( Mt. 28 ).
If the Neo-Con bile spat at Pat Buchanan, or the charges of sedition launched against Christian Neo-Cons (now
called Theo-Cons) are any indication of the tenor of the coming attack, the Christian Right is in for quite a
mudslinging contest. Unfortunately, it is a contest wherein the Neo-Cons enjoy almost every strategic advantage:
deep financial pockets; excellent access to, and approbation by, the secular media; and control of the conservative
media, and increasingly, of the movement itself. The one critical ingredient that both Neo-Con and the Remocrat
establishment lack is popular support. That large slice of culturally and religiously conservative Southerners,
Northern Catholics and Western independents loosely identified as "populists" are determined to defy the political
establishment, be it Center-Left or Center-Right.
The Christian Right must decide whether it is content to stay in the Neo-Con dog house, learning to love our ugly
stepchild role, or whether we will seek to independently build a bridge to these culturally conservative but
independent voters. If the Christian Right gets the courage to leave the Remocrat plantation and hook up with
these political rebels, we may have a fighting chance. Nevertheless, it will be a long and difficult road. As Professor
Gottfried observes in The Conservative Movement: "Not only Neo-Conservatives but the Republican party
flourishes with the expansion of the welfare state. No one is likely to ‘break the clock of the great society’ without
first having to take on the ‘respectable’ conservative movement and the Republican Party" (page 164). A
formidable challenge, to say the least.
But then there’s that second advantage which the secularists lack. It’s called God’s Sovereignty, and the timetable is exclusively his.
what?
- By wat0n
- By Negotiator
- By litwin