Topic: Political Parties
Neoconservatism and You Neocon is not just a derogatory term for those faux republicans in office, it's a real ideology.by John Brooks
(Libertarian)
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Neoconservative is a word we've all heard for many years now but suprisingly for me up I had no idea of it's meaning until recently. I'm no guru but I keep up with the politics so I'd imagine I wasn't the only one without a clue. Here's everything you need to know.
First of all definitions(from answers.com): Neo- prefix
New; recent: Neolithic.
New and different: neoimpressionism. a. New and abnormal: neoplasm.
New World: Neotropical.[Greek, from neos, new.]
Conservative n.
One favoring traditional views and values.
A supporter of political conservatism.
Conservative A member or supporter of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
Archaic. A preservative agent or principle.
Alright so we can gather from the definition that a neoconservatism is a new way of favoring traditional views and values. Sounds innocent enough, lets dig deeper.
Irving Kristol, the "god-father" and one of the founders of neoconservatism, stated five basic policies of neoconservatism that distinguish it from other "movements" or "persuasions". These policies, he claimed, "result in popular Republican presidencies":
Taxes and Federal Budget: "Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth." In Kristol's view, neocons are and should be less concerned about balancing fiscal budgets than traditional conservatives: "One sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth."
Size of Government: Kristol distinguishes between Neoconservatives and the call of traditional conservatives for smaller government. "Neocons do not feel ... alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable."
Traditional Moral Values: "The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives". Here Kristol distinguishes between traditional conservatives and libertarian conservatives. He cites the shared interest of Neocons and Religious Conservates in using the government to enforce morality: "Since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power."
Expansionist Foreign Policy: "Statesmen should ... distinguish friends from enemies." And according to Kristol, "with power come responsibilities ... if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you."
National Interest: "the United States of today, inevitably ... [will] feel obliged to defend ... a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces ...that is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II ... that is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today."
Sound like anyone you know? A little too big on war and government for my tastes. You may be starting to wonder if my motivations for delving into this subject are for something other than purely educational purposes. That's absurd. I would never push my agenda under the guise of education. Check this out.
Ever see Bill Kristol on Fox News? Not the actor from City Slickers of course, but the 'contributor' and journalist and whatever else he may be. His appearances go something like this:
Yes, you guessed it. Enter Dr. Ron Paul. By the way if you remember from neoconservative policy, "Irving Kristol, the "god-father" and one of the founders of neoconservatism," Irving just happens to be Bill's(formally William's) father, and you might have guessed the good doctor is very opposed to neoconservatism. You wouldn't have guessed that these two have a kind of personal vendetta for eachother's beliefs when the fair and balanced Fox News Channel brought Mr. Kristol on to talk about Congressman Paul. It must have been a mistake for such a reputable news network to put a person who has much reason to be biased on to comment without mentioning that opposition. The folks at FNC just wasn't aware of that much, surely they didn't know, right?
I don't know the actual date of the video of Mr. Paul but it's safe to say it precedes the Bill Kristol interview. Any assumption that Fox didn't know about this conflict of interest we'll call it, is misguided. Mr. Kristol has been a Fox News contributor for years and the two(Fox and Mr. Kristol) know eachother well.
This is just one instance of the people at Fox unfairly manipulating the news in order to further the agenda dictated to them by Mr. Murdoch. Dr. Paul clearly describes the disparities between his and neoconservative views in the video, the exact reasons that the news channel would want to dismiss him. I once was a fan of Fox News and I still don't refuse to watch it but I think it's important that people understand how things are run over there. I'm only glad that I now know better and hopefully I've helped someone out there with the same.
Did I get off track? Ah well. Thanks for reading. You can bookmark http://www.nolanchart.com/author181.html if you'd like to keep up with my column. Any questions, comments, or concerns I can be reached at johnsarticle@gmail.com.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8 thumbs so far
2007 John Brooks, all rights reserved.
Published: Sunday, December 30, 2007
Last modified: Sunday, January 27, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of John Brooks only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. John Brooks is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2007-12-30 21:02:00
If this was posted twice I apologize. When I hit submit the system came back and told me I forgot to insert my comments...this is a very glitchy interface in my experience... anyway...for the 1st or 2nd time....
As far as I'm concerned Eisenhower was the first neoconservative. When he accepted the Truman Doctrine and the Domino Theory of the communist take-over of South East Asia he began to act as a fear mongering neoconservative war monger and empire builder even if he did it with the best of intentions and motives and with no grand scheme in mind. He set the precedent in spite of himself.
Irving Kristol merely codified and provided an intellectual basis for rationalizing such behavior as being acceptable behavior for Republicans. Kristol, along with Norman Podhoretz, has accepted and personified the label of "founders" of neo-conservatism because tracing its roots back to Truman undermines the rational lies that defenders of neo-conservatism require in order to convince themselves they are self-consistent Republicans even when they behave like Christian Democrats.
Kristol probably hopes he will be remembered in History as the founder of a great movement in US politics. I think he will be remembered as the one who laid a trap over an open cesspool and I'll do my part to see it goes down that way.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2007 John Brooks, all rights reserved.