Endgame: Conservatives after the Cold War, and the Death of Neoconservatism

[danarhea]

Over the years, since the Cold War ended, some prominent Conservatives shifted to the left in their ideology, finding a home in the Clinton administration, while others shifted to the left in a more subtle way, becoming Neocons, a movement that, incidentally was started by former classical leftists, and containing more than a few leftist ideals. That they still call themselves Conservatives is beside the point - their words now ring hollow. There is still a Conservative movement, but it has been badly fractured. The notion of free enterprise is no longer the mantra of the Republican party, but has been subjugated to the ideals of big government, and the notion of an elitist power structure, something that was once the sole property of the Democratic party.

So how did the Conservative movement get to this point? Some say that 911 had a lot to do with the changes in the perception of right wingers, but it goes much deeper than that. Neocons were around for many years before 911.

The article provides an amazing insight into Conservatism. Conservatism, that is TRUE Conservatism, while grounded in morality, ideals, and a very strict constructionist paradism, is boring. Once a Conservative states his or her views on an issue, there is not much more to say. Conservatism, you could say, is as American as...... meat and potatoes. But boring is not bad if it is right, and for years, Conservative values have been the yardstick by which honesty, familty values, and individualism in others have been guaged by.

Now we have entered the era of the Neocons, in which the prized ideals of smaller, limited government have been thrown into the trashcan like yesterday's garbage by leaders who never really had respect for the core values of Conservatism. Why did this happen?

It goes back to the "Conservatism is boring" tag. Our leaders, looking to put on a new face for the voters, have abandoned the ideals in which our nation was founded upon, and have embraced ideas which were once the domain of Communist idealogues such as Leon Trotsky. Rather than the moral compass of our nation being guided by the very ideals that made us great, it is now guided by the politics of Machiavelli, and not much else.

Conservatism is not dead by any stretch of the imagination, but the endgame is in progress. Judging from the recent results of Neoconservatism, true Conservatism does have a chance to make a comeback, as Republican party faithfuls are now beginning to bolt the GOP because of their longing to go back to the roots of Conservatism, not to mention their desire for a little fresh air. This endgame pits true Conservatives against Neoconservatives, and this battle will set the direction of the American ship of state for generations.

This link below, written in 2005, provides an extremely interesting analysis, is highly prophetic in regard to what we are now seeing in the Republican Party, and I highly suggest it to everyone, both Conservative and Liberal alike, as it spells out the ongoing battle, and the eventual defeat of the Bushnevik fake Conservatives, in amazing detail.

Article is here.

 

[Feela]

Over the years, since the Cold War ended, some prominent Conservatives shifted to the left in their ideology, finding a home in the Clinton administration, while others shifted to the left in a more subtle way, becoming Neocons, a movement that, incidentally was started by former classical leftists, and containing more than a few leftist ideals.

:spin:
This is rubbish, the neocons are more not less right.
And kind of leftist ideals to they believe in? Are these just ones you decided the left believes in, like big gov't? (what the hell are anarchists, the most leftwing of all, then?)

That they still call themselves Conservatives is beside the point - their words now ring hollow. There is still a Conservative movement, but it has been badly fractured. The notion of free enterprise is no longer the mantra of the Republican party, but has been subjugated to the ideals of big government, and the notion of an elitist power structure, something that was once the sole property of the Democratic party.

While the democrat party is certainly big gov't, it is a lie that the republicans ever were. Big gov't conservatism is an oxymoron, both conservatism and the state have the same raison d'etre ie the preservation of the established ruling elites.

 

[danarhea]

:spin:
This is rubbish, the neocons are more not less right.
And kind of leftist ideals to they believe in? Are these just ones you decided the left believes in, like big gov't? (what the hell are anarchists, the most leftwing of all, then?)


While the democrat party is certainly big gov't, it is a lie that the republicans ever were. Big gov't conservatism is an oxymoron, both conservatism and the state have the same raison d'etre ie the preservation of the established ruling elites.

This is rubbish, the neocons are more not less right.

Not the least bit true. Neocons are essentially Liberal hawks, as described by Neocon icon and PNAC founder William Kristol. Also, his father, Irving Kristol, who established Neocon ideology, was a card carrying member of the Communist Party in New York, and Leo Strauss, who is responsible for the Platonist concept of "noble lies" in Neoconservatism(an ideology also espoused by both Machiavelli and Karl Marx) was a leftist professor at the University of Chicago. Neocons originally called themselves Neoliberals, but when the Conservative wave hit America, they changed their name to Neoconservatives. The Neoliberal tag is still in use to describe some governments in Central and South America, a leftover from the days when the Neocons proudly called themselves Neoliberals and pushed for change in Central and South America.

In short, the Neocons are opportunists who hijacked the Republican party and have been using it as their parasitic host.

While the democrat party is certainly big gov't, it is a lie that the republicans ever were.

I guess you haven't taken a look around in a while. The government under the Republican party is the largest bureaucracy in the history of man - big enough to give FDR and JFK wet dreams. And the budget and spending? Also the largest in history, even when you factor out Afghanistan and Iraq. Face it. They are NOT Conservative. You have been hoodwinked.

 

[Iriemon]

Over the years, since the Cold War ended, some prominent Conservatives shifted to the left in their ideology, finding a home in the Clinton administration, while others shifted to the left in a more subtle way, becoming Neocons, a movement that, incidentally was started by former classical leftists, and containing more than a few leftist ideals. That they still call themselves Conservatives is beside the point - their words now ring hollow. There is still a Conservative movement, but it has been badly fractured. The notion of free enterprise is no longer the mantra of the Republican party, but has been subjugated to the ideals of big government, and the notion of an elitist power structure, something that was once the sole property of the Democratic party.

So how did the Conservative movement get to this point? Some say that 911 had a lot to do with the changes in the perception of right wingers, but it goes much deeper than that. Neocons were around for many years before 911.

The article provides an amazing insight into Conservatism. Conservatism, that is TRUE Conservatism, while grounded in morality, ideals, and a very strict constructionist paradism, is boring. Once a Conservative states his or her views on an issue, there is not much more to say. Conservatism, you could say, is as American as...... meat and potatoes. But boring is not bad if it is right, and for years, Conservative values have been the yardstick by which honesty, familty values, and individualism in others have been guaged by.

Now we have entered the era of the Neocons, in which the prized ideals of smaller, limited government have been thrown into the trashcan like yesterday's garbage by leaders who never really had respect for the core values of Conservatism. Why did this happen?

It goes back to the "Conservatism is boring" tag. Our leaders, looking to put on a new face for the voters, have abandoned the ideals in which our nation was founded upon, and have embraced ideas which were once the domain of Communist idealogues such as Leon Trotsky. Rather than the moral compass of our nation being guided by the very ideals that made us great, it is now guided by the politics of Machiavelli, and not much else.

Conservatism is not dead by any stretch of the imagination, but the endgame is in progress. Judging from the recent results of Neoconservatism, true Conservatism does have a chance to make a comeback, as Republican party faithfuls are now beginning to bolt the GOP because of their longing to go back to the roots of Conservatism, not to mention their desire for a little fresh air. This endgame pits true Conservatives against Neoconservatives, and this battle will set the direction of the American ship of state for generations.

This link below, written in 2005, provides an extremely interesting analysis, is highly prophetic in regard to what we are now seeing in the Republican Party, and I highly suggest it to everyone, both Conservative and Liberal alike, as it spells out the ongoing battle, and the eventual defeat of the Bushnevik fake Conservatives, in amazing detail.

Article is here.

I disagree with the assertion that the neocon movement was a "shift to the left."

 

[Iriemon]

Over the years, since the Cold War ended, some prominent Conservatives shifted to the left in their ideology, finding a home in the Clinton administration, while others shifted to the left in a more subtle way, becoming Neocons, a movement that, incidentally was started by former classical leftists, and containing more than a few leftist ideals. That they still call themselves Conservatives is beside the point - their words now ring hollow. There is still a Conservative movement, but it has been badly fractured. The notion of free enterprise is no longer the mantra of the Republican party, but has been subjugated to the ideals of big government, and the notion of an elitist power structure, something that was once the sole property of the Democratic party.

So how did the Conservative movement get to this point? Some say that 911 had a lot to do with the changes in the perception of right wingers, but it goes much deeper than that. Neocons were around for many years before 911.

The article provides an amazing insight into Conservatism. Conservatism, that is TRUE Conservatism, while grounded in morality, ideals, and a very strict constructionist paradism, is boring. Once a Conservative states his or her views on an issue, there is not much more to say. Conservatism, you could say, is as American as...... meat and potatoes. But boring is not bad if it is right, and for years, Conservative values have been the yardstick by which honesty, familty values, and individualism in others have been guaged by.

Now we have entered the era of the Neocons, in which the prized ideals of smaller, limited government have been thrown into the trashcan like yesterday's garbage by leaders who never really had respect for the core values of Conservatism. Why did this happen?

It goes back to the "Conservatism is boring" tag. Our leaders, looking to put on a new face for the voters, have abandoned the ideals in which our nation was founded upon, and have embraced ideas which were once the domain of Communist idealogues such as Leon Trotsky. Rather than the moral compass of our nation being guided by the very ideals that made us great, it is now guided by the politics of Machiavelli, and not much else.

Conservatism is not dead by any stretch of the imagination, but the endgame is in progress. Judging from the recent results of Neoconservatism, true Conservatism does have a chance to make a comeback, as Republican party faithfuls are now beginning to bolt the GOP because of their longing to go back to the roots of Conservatism, not to mention their desire for a little fresh air. This endgame pits true Conservatives against Neoconservatives, and this battle will set the direction of the American ship of state for generations.

This link below, written in 2005, provides an extremely interesting analysis, is highly prophetic in regard to what we are now seeing in the Republican Party, and I highly suggest it to everyone, both Conservative and Liberal alike, as it spells out the ongoing battle, and the eventual defeat of the Bushnevik fake Conservatives, in amazing detail.

Article is here.

I disagree with the assertion that the neocon movement was a "shift to the left." That is about as accurate as calling Bush a liberal, as I've seen some conservatives do.

The cons were all on board with Bush while he was riding he with his tax cuts and warmongering actions. Not that those conservative policies have proved to be disasterous, cons are trying to say those were really "liberal" or leftist ideas. Bullshit.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

:spin:
This is rubbish, the neocons are more not less right.
And kind of leftist ideals to they believe in? Are these just ones you decided the left believes in, like big gov't? (what the hell are anarchists, the most leftwing of all, then?)


While the democrat party is certainly big gov't, it is a lie that the republicans ever were. Big gov't conservatism is an oxymoron, both conservatism and the state have the same raison d'etre ie the preservation of the established ruling elites.

"Big Government Conservative" - Google Search
If you'll notice the very first link is from the Weekly Standard expounding on the virtues of GWB's "big government conservatism" - Big-Government Conservatism

The founders of neo-conservatism were communists and socialists. At least one Trostkyite among them, iirc.

I'll provide some words from the horses' ... mouths (what else?):



From the Godfather of NeoConservatism:

The Neoconservative Persuasion

From the August 25, 2003 issue: What it was, and what it is.
by Irving Kristol

...the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.

...an attitude toward public finance that is far less risk averse than is the case among more traditional conservatives.

Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state... seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his "The Man Versus the State," was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not.

The upshot is a quite unexpected alliance between neocons, who include a fair proportion of secular intellectuals, and religious traditionalists.
Because religious conservatism is so feeble in Europe, the neoconservative potential there is correspondingly weak.

And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns. 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.
No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.

Irving Kristol is author of "Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea."
​

And from William Kristol

"If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me... If you read the last few issues of the Weekly Standard, it has much more in common with liberal hawks than traditional conservatives."
​

From Benador Associates:What the Heck Is a Neocon?
by Max Boot
Wall Street Journal

The original neocons were a band of liberal intellectuals who rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s. At first the neocons clustered around Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat, but then they aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront Soviet expansionism.

So is "neoconservatism" worthless as a political label? Not entirely. In social policy, it stands for a broad sympathy with a traditionalist agenda and a rejection of extreme libertarianism.

On economic matters, neocons...embrace a laissez-faire line, though they are not as troubled by the size of the welfare state as libertarians are.

But it is not really domestic policy that defines neoconservatism. This was a movement founded on foreign policy, and it is still here that neoconservatism carries the greatest meaning...

One group of conservatives believes that we should use armed force only to defend our vital national interests, narrowly defined. They believe that we should remove, or at least disarm, Saddam Hussein, but not occupy Iraq for any substantial period afterward. The idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East they denounce as a mad, hubristic dream likely to backfire with tragic consequences. This view, which goes under the somewhat self-congratulatory moniker of "realism," is championed by foreign-policy mandarins like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker III.

[Neocons] ...think, however, that "realism" presents far too crabbed a view of American power and responsibility.
​

 

[danarhea]

"Big Government Conservative" - Google Search
If you'll notice the very first link is from the Weekly Standard expounding on the virtues of GWB's "big government conservatism" - Big-Government Conservatism

The founders of neo-conservatism were communists and socialists. At least one Trostkyite among them, iirc.

I'll provide some words from the horses' ... mouths (what else?):



From the Godfather of NeoConservatism:

The Neoconservative Persuasion

From the August 25, 2003 issue: What it was, and what it is.
by Irving Kristol

...the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.

...an attitude toward public finance that is far less risk averse than is the case among more traditional conservatives.

Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state... seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his "The Man Versus the State," was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not.

The upshot is a quite unexpected alliance between neocons, who include a fair proportion of secular intellectuals, and religious traditionalists.
Because religious conservatism is so feeble in Europe, the neoconservative potential there is correspondingly weak.

And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns. 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.
No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.

Irving Kristol is author of "Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea."
​

And from William Kristol

"If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me... If you read the last few issues of the Weekly Standard, it has much more in common with liberal hawks than traditional conservatives."
​

From Benador Associates:What the Heck Is a Neocon?
by Max Boot
Wall Street Journal

The original neocons were a band of liberal intellectuals who rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s. At first the neocons clustered around Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat, but then they aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront Soviet expansionism.

So is "neoconservatism" worthless as a political label? Not entirely. In social policy, it stands for a broad sympathy with a traditionalist agenda and a rejection of extreme libertarianism.

On economic matters, neocons...embrace a laissez-faire line, though they are not as troubled by the size of the welfare state as libertarians are.

But it is not really domestic policy that defines neoconservatism. This was a movement founded on foreign policy, and it is still here that neoconservatism carries the greatest meaning...

One group of conservatives believes that we should use armed force only to defend our vital national interests, narrowly defined. They believe that we should remove, or at least disarm, Saddam Hussein, but not occupy Iraq for any substantial period afterward. The idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East they denounce as a mad, hubristic dream likely to backfire with tragic consequences. This view, which goes under the somewhat self-congratulatory moniker of "realism," is championed by foreign-policy mandarins like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker III.

[Neocons] ...think, however, that "realism" presents far too crabbed a view of American power and responsibility.
​

Bingo. A post from a REAL Conservative. The first quote posted by you, of course, was from the one time Communist, and the second one from his son? Regarding William Kristol, he is the one who said he would support a Liberal Hawk over a Conservative. He is also the co-founder of PNAC, along with William Kagen, another Liberal. And for all those who believe that the word Neocon is a slam against Republicans, here is some news: Out of the 23 people who signed the first PNAC political statement, 12 were Democrats. But people shouldn't take my word for it. Here are a few articles which clearly demonstrate the relationship:

Neocons and Liberals Together Again.

Liberal Hawks Ally With Neo-Con PNAC. You think a Liberal would turn down a chance to get on the bigger government bandwagon?

Why Liberals are the Real Neocons. Traces Neoconservatism and Neoliberalism (the same thing) back to the days of Irving Kristol's magazine, The Public Interest. Here you can plainly see where Kristol espouses big government, and says that Conservatism has gone wrong in not wanting it.

The Godfather of Neoconservatism - An article from Free Republic that chronicles the life of Irving Kristol, from his Communist days as a member of the Trotskyite Young People's Socialist League in New York (Yes, he was a card carrying member of the Communist Party) all the way up to his founding of the Neoliberal / Neoconservative movement, which split some of the Republican party away from the Reaganites.

Neocons as Parasites - this article deals with how the Neocons infested the Republican Party and used it as their parasitic host. It also talks about how Reagan kept them at arm's length while in office, and how Bush Sr. called them "the crazies in the basement". These guys were regarded as pariahs by the Republican party until Bush Jr. let them in.

An Introduction to Neoconservatism - By noted Paleoconservative writer, Lew Rockwell. As you can plainly see, there is absolutely nothing Conservative about the Neocons.

And this article - Trotsky, Strauss, and the Neocons - Exposing Neocon philosophy from Leo Strauss as promoting the benevolent dictatorship of a self-appointed elite, and using the concept of "Noble Lies" to bend the people to its will. "Noble Lies" was first orated about by Plato, and 3 of the most ardent supporters of "Noble Lies" were Machiavelli, Marx, and Neitche.

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Neocons, as ex-Trotskyites, are bad enough, but those who follow the pro-pagan Leo Strauss are deadly. He advocated the Big Lie. Forgive me for all the gory details, but these people – with their other leaders like Bill Buckley and Irving Kristol and the help of the CIA – perverted the American right into loving the welfare-warfare state."
[/FONT]

Finally, here are some quotes by Irving Kristol, the Neocon godfather:

"A welfare state, properly conceived, can be an integral part of a conservative society."

"[A neoconservative is] a liberal who has been mugged by reality."

Conservative, my a$$. These people are still the crazies, but they have broken out of the basement. They need to put back down there, locked up, and the key thrown away.

I noticed you still have those elephants in your avatar Simon, but guess what? There is an up and coming candidate that will appeal to true Conservative Republicans and Libertarians alike. He is Ron Paul, and he is running for president as a Republican. I hope that, after seeing where he stands on issues, you find him acceptable as the only Conservative candidate running. It is time to delouse the party, and exterminate the vermin. As for your decision to stay Republican during the Bush administration and jump ship, I respect that. A good many other Conservatives did that too, working for change on the inside. I and others chose to bolt the party and work at it from the outside. Maybe pressure from both the "inside" and "outside" will work like a vice, squeezing the parasites out of the party. If that is what happens, then maybe you and I were both right, despite having taken different roads.

 

[Feela]

Not the least bit true. Neocons are essentially Liberal hawks, as described by Neocon icon and PNAC founder William Kristol. Also, his father, Irving Kristol, who established Neocon ideology, was a card carrying member of the Communist Party in New York, and Leo Strauss, who is responsible for the Platonist concept of "noble lies" in Neoconservatism(an ideology also espoused by both Machiavelli and Karl Marx) was a leftist professor at the University of Chicago. Neocons originally called themselves Neoliberals, but when the Conservative wave hit America, they changed their name to Neoconservatives. The Neoliberal tag is still in use to describe some governments in Central and South America, a leftover from the days when the Neocons proudly called themselves Neoliberals and pushed for change in Central and South America.

In short, the Neocons are opportunists who hijacked the Republican party and have been using it as their parasitic host.

Seems to me like you are grasping at straws, just becuase a few of them were once supposedly liberal doesn't mean the movement is, Mussolini was once a pacifist and anarcho-syndaclist but fascism is extremely right-wing and militant.

I guess you haven't taken a look around in a while. The government under the Republican party is the largest bureaucracy in the history of man - big enough to give FDR and JFK wet dreams. And the budget and spending? Also the largest in history, even when you factor out Afghanistan and Iraq. Face it. They are NOT Conservative. You have been hoodwinked.

Sorry I meant the to say small gov't conservatism is a lie, both conservatives and the state exist for the exact same reasons, to protect privileges of the elites.
You are the one who is hoodwinked is you think conservatives are against the state, there are few bigger statists than conservatives they exist for the same reasons.

 

[Feela]

The Godfather of Neoconservatism - An article from Free Republic that chronicles the life of Irving Kristol, from his Communist days as a member of the Trotskyite Young People's Socialist League in New York (Yes, he was a card carrying member of the Communist Party) all the way up to his founding of the Neoliberal / Neoconservative movement, which split some of the Republican party away from the Reaganites.

How is he a member of the communist party if he is a trotskyite? I presume being a "card carrying member" refers to the actual communist party not just any socialist party.

Neocons as Parasites - this article deals with how the Neocons infested the Republican Party and used it as their parasitic host. It also talks about how Reagan kept them at arm's length while in office, and how Bush Sr. called them "the crazies in the basement". These guys were regarded as pariahs by the Republican party until Bush Jr. let them in.

Parasites and the republicans make perfect bed fellows.

And this article - Trotsky, Strauss, and the Neocons - Exposing Neocon philosophy from Leo Strauss as promoting the benevolent dictatorship of a self-appointed elite, and using the concept of "Noble Lies" to bend the people to its will. "Noble Lies" was first orated about by Plato, and 3 of the most ardent supporters of "Noble Lies" were Machiavelli, Marx, and Neitche.

As Bertrand Russell, all western philosophy is but a footnote to Plato's work, that there philosphers share some things in common is hardly a revelation.
And are you saying Machiavelli was not conservative? He defended and aided kings and princes.

Finally, here are some quotes by Irving Kristol, the Neocon godfather:

"A welfare state, properly conceived, can be an integral part of a conservative society."

Of course it can, the welfare state was fuelled by corporate interests and the New left and the libertarians around Murray Rothbard have shown.