Everybody throws the word "neoconservativism" around. "Neocon" has even become a veritable pejorative in some circles. But it's fascinating to realize just how little most people know about the ideology. This article was informative to me, and it will be to most I imagine, regardless of which way your political compass points. Continued here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp
Two cents or so Good article. A bit rosy, but I think he genuinely believes in his phrasing of the situation. And while he may see a neoconservative resurrection while the obituaries are still being written, I wonder how many of the neocons really believe that idealistic outlook. The part about taxation, for instance: Tax cuts don't always work, and other ambitions of government make economic growth much more sensitive. Kristol is right: "steady focus on economic growth". This may be a Catch-22 of sorts; the economy flew when Clinton and the GOP dragged the government to a standstill, as I recall. The shutdown was a little odd, but the Zipper Hearings were ... amazing. Because we ask, "Whose economic growth?" It's not so much that governments themselves need economic growth, but that they manage it for their people and their private institutions. In the meantime, state governments have all hit the red because, while we expect more and more of government--with certain obvious exceptions among the militiamen and other paranoid types--people don't wish to pay for it or put out much effort for it. Of course, this seems in line with another neocon idea: "Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative ways of delivering these services." The problem is that this is part of the reason schools are putting students health and futures at risk for revenues. I'll even explain that one. See "Coke Day prank fizzles for Pepsi-loving student". It's a funny story, but it leads to a question: "Coke Day"? It means various things, but in some schools its a celebration of consumption. Such as is noted in Alex Molnar's, "Looking for Funds in All the Wrong Places": And just to round out the issue of student health: "Soda Pop: Is it killing our kids?" Okay, okay ... yes, I chose the article, but I don't write the headlines. Lastly, an obscure point, of sorts: Among the fundamentals of economic reckoning are questions and ideas concerning extraneous expense. Within that idea we see the seeds of a certain fear that seems to oppose neoconservativism: Reduction of diversity. And you know, it's symptomatic of any large-scale principle of human organization, but in this case, I look back to a question I frequently ask in economic discussions: - Is economy a tool to serve the human endeavor, or do human beings exist for the benefit of economy? While the neocon emphasis on economic growth may have led to an attitude toward public finance that is less risk-averse than among traditional conservatism, the fundamentals of economics still speak to a greater risk-aversion than neocons are wont to apply. There are limits to what strange ends you can seek in order to grow an economy. We note that it is only in the late 20th century and early 21st that we are now seeing a breed of wealthy thinker who can break certain traps. Traditional and fundamental economic theory is naturally devised by the wealthy; they have not only the luxury of developing and arguing such theories, but also the experience to compare against. Visionary leftists are often not tremendously wealthy or experienced in resource management (a necessary habit of commercial success). Their economic theories, while often bearing much legitimacy, lack certain dimensions of understanding to present a complete picture. It is only now, as the "steady decline of democratic culture" leads to "new levels of vulgarity" we now find greater intellectual deviation among the wealthy. I came across a strange rant, a counterattack against neoconservative anti-Communism, which actually manages a few coherent paragaphs, including this: (Note the "quotation marks" around the word "capitalist". Apropos, as Soros is one who busts the myth that the US is a capitalist institution.) And you know, this breed of wealth won't necessarily get it right the first time out, either. But stronger currents now run through the wealthy which speak to a new brand of wealth, a new kind of enrichment, a new version of society; traditional "fundamental economic theory" now lives with numbered days: The Second Coming
"Everybody throws the word "neoconservativism" around. "Neocon" has even become a veritable pejorative in some circles. But it's fascinating to realize just how little most people know about the ideology. This article was informative to me, and it will be to most I imagine, regardless of which way your political compass points." YOu know, my last forum, I was told by someone who thought he was generally a neocon, that Kristol wasnt that important. Then LIberal has been a perjorative in many circles for ages, so what does a label matter? Ill make a better critiscism later, when i have time.
Neocons are dangerous people. Their comfort with deception, their belief in raw power, their easy acceptance of death and suffering to achieve their goals, their overconfidence and hubris and their desire for empire, all these inherent characteristics make Neocons deadly dangerous people. But fortunately, their sheer incompetence assures me, they will fail themselves disasterously out of power. They were wrong about WMD. They were wrong about the Iraqi threat. They were wrong about the Iraqi people greeting us liberators. They were wrong about how easy it would be to establish stability and democracy in Iraq. They were wrong about how long we would be in Iraq. They were wrong about how many troops would be required after conquering Iraq. They have set an astounding track record of being dead wrong. So the neocons are either totally incompetent or were lying to us. With neocons, it is possible to do both at the same time. It is another inherent characteristic of the Neocon. And with much celebrating heard round the world, Neocons will enter the dustbin of history as another disasterous example of how incompetent, unethical people will abuse power when given the opportunity. The question is how much suffering, misery and death, the neocons will inflict on the US and the world before they are in the unemployment line or marched in front of a war crimes court.
It was my intention to stress that labels don't matter, actually. I thought the article might keep people from being so quick to sling the neocon label. And yes, the same thing goes for people using "liberal" as a pejorative. Stupidity is an equal opportunity employer, after all!
True enough the Jacksonian imperialists are personified today by every member of NPAC. For those that still don't know what NPAC they should do a google search if only to understand what the next 15 years of constant escalating war is about.
A few things I find interesting. In one sense, neoconservatism looks like an unholy fusion of all that might be considered bad about American politics, ie a comfort with big gvt and a cheerleading attitude to business. "Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. " then later: "People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government." But then where does size get into it? Or is there a correlation between size and intrusiveness? Or ratehr is there a necessary correlation between size and strength, and how much are the USA people prepared to put up with? "The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives--though not with those libertarian conservatives who are conservative in economics but unmindful of the culture. " oookk. But surely the current state of your culture is chosen by the masses, who are exercising their right to freedom and choice, all helped along by the operatives of big business in a free market? "Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. " Thats rather like saying having a central gvt of a country is a bad idea because it can lead to a dictatorship. "Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. " I dont think that needs any comment, its too obvious. "That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary. " cough cough. "This superiority was planned by no one, and even today there are many Americans who are in denial. To a large extent, it all happened as a result of our bad luck. " I would have put that down as a great bit of spin. I thought that the USA kept up its expenditure becasue it felt itself under attack, and it realised that it needed to keep things going if it was to keep going as it likes, hence it planned to keep the superiority, ie there wasnt such a large degradation of forces after the end of the cold war as there could have been.
Little bit country, little bit rock & roll, and just a smidge random perhaps Hardly. As the Republican Revolution of 1994 showed, big government is okay if it's simply handing out "block grants" of cash to every pseudo-moralistic conservative community group with an opinion they can find. Big government is great if it's a big stick with pretty lights to make over cities far away. Intrusive government is only good if it persecutes homosexuals, artists, and leftists. Depends on the marketing. So says me: Americans will buy anything if you can make it seem hip. When I was a child, my father taught that it was good business to figure out what was needed by society and to provide it. "Finding a niche", so to speak. In the 1990s it came about that the new theory is "carving a niche". Fewer and fewer products speak to their qualities and their ability to satisfy a need. Rather, the current mode is a fecund paranoia, and while scare-advertising has always been a part of the mass media age--fear is perhaps the most universal commonality of the audience--there has come to be an arrogant reliance on the idea that "You need what I'm selling." Antibacterial soap--don't you love your children? Why would you leave them so helplessly exposed to disease? Are you shy? Oh my god, are you shy? Holy cow, you're shy! Have a pill! Oh, and watch out for that random diarrhea side effect, that might make you need a stronger pill. Psst ... ladies ... ever have to modify your wardrobe around your period? Why live in fear of stains when you can use the Tampax Pearl and wear an uncomfortably tight white outfit to a party on a heavy-flow day. (And you know, every woman I know reminds me that tampons are unhealthy for most. Well ... not every woman. Jeez, I don't think menstruation ever came up with the ladies in accounting, you know. But you get the picture.) And perhaps the greatest sting of it is that fear has met its match: smokers. All those ridiculous commercials do is make me want a cigarette. Tobacco money is in "Truth org" advertisements. And no wonder. First they cast the kids who don't smoke as either stupid or angry, and then they get the free airtime of making all of us smokers want another. Frankly, the fear factor has become so overused that people just aren't trying. Which brings us back to politics. Really--the Bush administration, as far as its lies go, just isn't trying. And the people, so used to this fear-and-loathing routine, are stepping up to fill in the gaps in what the all the kings horses and all of his men (and women) are peddling. At some point, though, it's going to require people to do something. We can't maintain the expense forever. The more tax finagling this or any administration has to do in order to keep their imperial ambitions afloat, the more uncomfortable the people become. Raise taxes? Well, as the Reagan administration shows, it's all in how you do it. As the First Bush administration shows, never make promises. At any rate, Guthrie, since I'm not actually out to argue against your points, I'll stop here because there's only so much hallelujah I can give at once ... But I will say that I'm very much in admiration of Irving Kristol's lexicon. He knows exactly how to phrase it to leave the choice to react to our consciences. He needles, and how fine of needles he needles with. It's rather quite beautiful in a way. And Stokes has a point about labels; as I noted, I wonder about how much of Kristol's phrasing would settle well with the current batch labeled as neocons outside of a marketing context.
