May
5th 2008
Posted under Conservatism & NeoCons & Political Philosophy
Wow. Here is a great article from Intellectual Conservative by Dr. Jack Kerwick. He clearly gets it.
In conclusion, neo-conservatism really isn’t an expression of conservatism at all. It is a form of Enlightenment liberal rationalism, the sort of liberal rationalism in reaction against which conservatism originally emerged and developed as a distinctive tradition of thought.
Why is this simple truth so hard for some people to understand?
roho on 05 May 2008 at 2:39 am #
He does get it.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 05 May 2008 at 10:21 am #
The only actual misunderstanding is among the general public. However, Neocons encourage confusion so they can sneak through their Trotskyite agenda using the language of classical conservatism.
csason on 05 May 2008 at 11:38 am #
I’m not sure how you want to classify the ‘people’ who DON’T understand..unless maybe the term ‘political eunuch’ fits.
This is probably the only realm a conservative can offer up a bit of respect for a full on liberal…or is it plausible to say ‘honest leftist’ ?
Most neocons are fully aware of what they stand for, but I see them as three distinct classes : The social neocon, the economic neocon, and the
fearful neocon…and they all fall prey to the worst neocon of all, the Limbaughcon.
roho on 05 May 2008 at 2:58 pm #
Non subject comment:
I will not be drinking Mexican beer and celebrating “Cinco De Mayo”(Battle of Puebla) today. With a French influence in Mexico, it would have been good for both the ballance of power in Europe, as well as the “Confederacy”. France could have become the broker of cotton in Europe, helped contain the British Empire, forced Lincoln to an armistace, and most likely avoided the intervention stupidity of the “Spainish American War”?………..Slavery would have been abolished volluntarily within 5-10 years with Gettysburg ovoided.
Maximillian loved Mexico(Choosing death over returning to Europe)and would have done a better job of bringing Mexico into the 20th Century.
It’s not even a Mexican holliday, but a “Chicano” holliday proped up by “La Raza”.
csason on 05 May 2008 at 6:25 pm #
More non-subject commenting..sort of :
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/political-fix/political-fix/2008/05/mo-gop-targeting-300-pro-ron-paul-at-monday-credentials-meeting/
“current Republican Committee members, members of the Missouri Republican Assembly, current Republican candidates, and attendees of previous conventions, with the only common factor being that they voted for Republican Congressman Ron Paul during the primary.â€
C Bowen on 05 May 2008 at 8:04 pm #
There should be concern that reducing neoconservatism to a question of ideology or alternatively, policy differences, is fundamentally dishonest, a sort of chickening out by the author considering our late date.
These sorts of late-comers should be viewed with suspicion.
Here you have a group of folks in the neoconservatives, often public, looking to make money off the system as they advance pet interests so they are ‘hired’ to provide ideological cover and the educated neoconservatives have much to work with in terms of shaping such an ideological umbrellaand creating a second half to the social democracy.
Empires, the expansionist expression of mercantilist interests, require some form of this ideological cover, nationalism, spreading civilization (Christianizing savages) and for the most part were able to attract talented men for the project.
As the neoconservative ideology is wholly alien, our real complaint I hope is not the actual term not the actual designation that the Iraq adventure is not conservative, but the inherent deceptive approach of our enemies, which Irving Kristol did well to explain in his “The Neoconservative Persuassion.”
Tad B. Johnson on 05 May 2008 at 8:11 pm #
Heck, from my perspective, they’re Democrats who wanted more bombs as a tool of foreign policy and who shifted right on social issues because they felt the left abandoning Israel.
A friend of mine who works in polling has been doing some research on what he calls stickky issues. Some issues are strong enough that when you join a group who argree with you on them, you will change your position on other issues to bring them into harmoney with your new friends. This is why you see pro-life Catholics who are willing to abandon the idea of governments and communitiees working together, being Republicans, because the anti0abortion thing is so important to them.
neocons moved Repulibcan because they felt the left moving from their sticky issue of Israel first and foremost. Anything lese is secondary explanation
TBJ
HarrisonBergeron2 on 05 May 2008 at 11:11 pm #
C Bowen,
Good points, though I’d say even the name “neo-conservatism” is part of their deception.
They should all be arrested for identity theft.
Frank Griglonis on 06 May 2008 at 2:31 am #
neoCONs, straussians, and trotskyites…when the going gets tough, the tough go fishing…and drink u.S.A. beer (don’t litter and respect the rights of property owners)
Andrew T. on 06 May 2008 at 2:44 am #
Frank Griglonis,
Speaking of beer, how much of it have you been chugging? What are you even talking about in your last post?
I am irritated by the anti-intellectualism in this blog, generally. Half the comments sound like a senile angry uncle who believes that an international banking conspiracy is out to get him.
Weaver on 06 May 2008 at 8:46 am #
Andrew,
Mr. Griglonis meant that symbolically.
He’s using Middle American jargon and referencing back to Roho’s post.
You can’t judge a man by an artificial stereotype*, such as that created of Middle America largely by mass media and other social engineers. So far as Middle America is anti-intellectual, it’s because it senses that universities tend to transform students into liberals and Marxists (I mean that as an either or.) Being anti-intellectual does not make one stupid, only poorly educated. Though some rural folks are well educated, and those who aren’t are often wise from their own experience.
It’s been my experience that very few who speak intellectual jargon are blessed with the intelligence to understand what they’ve been exposed to. Middle America has a saying for them when found in academia: “those who can’t work, teach.” Such doesn’t apply to all, but it certainly applies to a good many in the soft sciences and liberal arts in my past experience as a student.
Jim Kalb “You will be assimilated.”
Weyrich and Lind. The Next Conservatism.
Or to put it another way: Middle America has instinctively embraced its own jargon, fashion, and alternative culture, even and especially to the point where it defines itself against academia and cosmopolitan degenerates.
Make no mistake that with identifying with Middle American culture, Middle America is also embracing a set of ethics.
Both quotes taken from CHT culture war quote page
(glad to find a use for ‘em.)
—
*stereotypes formed by a people through experience can be valuable when there’s nothing else to go on.
roho on 06 May 2008 at 2:37 pm #
Good point Weaver………..I once knew a man very well that proved the point of, “Never make the mistake of confusing articulation with ignorance.”
He never used $100 words, related to all with $20 words, and yet his very favorite reading material was the double vollume set of “World Book” dictionaries………….He simply prepared himself to understand the man that enjoyed $100 words.
Weaver on 06 May 2008 at 3:36 pm #
“Never make the mistake of confusing articulation with ignorance.â€
That’s an excellent way of putting it.
—
On addition: well rounded folks have a better understanding of human nature, which is essential to politics, than do most academics.
They spend their lives asking “what is the meaning of life?” While the rest of us are enjoying it, and/or fighting to defend what we care for.
Where I’ve looked at politics, and lately I’ve been too busy though after I finish moving maybe I’ll get into some serious blogging
, it’s only been to figure how to save the West. I’m not so sure my part of the West will survive, but if I’m cast off as a rootless transient I’ll never forget the good that was. (I’m thinking of demographics as I say that.)
Andrew T. on 06 May 2008 at 4:06 pm #
Weaver,
I thought you were a Southerner.
Weaver on 06 May 2008 at 4:43 pm #
Yea I am. I mean the West as in Western civilisation and Western peoples. I still think of America as Western, however outdated such a sentiment might be. (It will soon be more Mexican than Western…)
And I’m not moving out of the South, at least not anytime soon.
I didn’t mean to condemn all education, just that provided by universities today in subjects like poli sci.
Perhaps what I said could be reworded: the right goals and values are more important in a political leader than his training.
A political leader (or professor for that matter) dedicated to destroying all that one cares for isn’t going to be wanted… Nor one who doesn’t understand why anything should be of value.
roho on 06 May 2008 at 10:39 pm #
Corruption has been the learning experience for our “Rhoades,Yale, and Harvard boys!(Clinton, Bush Sr, GWB).
I wish not, to return to the era of Jimmy Carter, but I’m straining my brain to remember any corruption issues?(LBJ was dripping with corruption, and Nixon had issues.) Reagan had the “Contra Scandal”, that after closer review was pretty nasty.
Is America ready for Chuck Baldwin and Principles?