Neoconned No More
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
After Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity are the most popular rightwing talk hosts in America, defining for millions the definition of the term “conservative.” Lately, Beck has focused on attacking “progressivism,” often stressing that the progressive foreign policy of President Woodrow Wilson, who wanted to “make the world safe for democracy,” was identical to that of George W. Bush. Hannity takes a very different view, stating, “You can’t deny that George Bush was conservative on national security issues.” Yet, Beck does deny this, quite regularly. Who’s right? Better yet, who’s “conservative”?
That depends on your definition. The notion of “making the world safe for democracy” is unquestionably a liberal or “progressive” sentiment, but it is also true that it has been standard foreign policy for the mainstream Right for some time. Self-described conservatives have associated endless military intervention with American “toughness” and viewed those who questioned the government’s wisdom in waging war as “weak” or “anti-American.” This has certainly been the view of Limbaugh and Hannity, and for most of Bush’s eight years it was also the view of Beck.
Yet the notion of America as the world’s policeman is not remotely conservative in the traditional sense, but “neoconservative,” a term most mainstream right-wingers are either ignorant of, embarrassed of, or don’t use because the wholesale takeover of the conservative movement by the neocons has made the “neo” prefix unnecessary.
Neoconservatives care about one thing—war (and where they can wage it). Says contributing editor to the Weekly Standard, neocon Max Boot: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad,” a progressive, Wilsonian vision, if there ever was one. As for traditional conservative concerns like limited government, fiscal responsibility, and constitutional fidelity, these are ideas neoconservatives will occasionally pay lip service to, so long as none of these principles interferes with their more important task of global military domination. It is no coincidence that George W. Bush—the first full-blown neoconservative presidential administration—did not limit government, was not fiscally responsible, and shredded the Constitution, while still implementing the most radical foreign policy in American history. Writes conservative columnist George Will, “The most magnificently misnamed neoconservatives are the most radical people in this town.”
Conservatives now seem more willing to question their recent radical past, and a populist right-wing movement consisting of tea parties, town hall protests and states rights’ rhetoric is not conducive to neoconservativism. With traditional conservatism being represented in its modern form most prominently by so-called “paleoconservatives” like commentator Pat Buchanan or libertarians like Texas Congressman Ron Paul, Boot recently described such non-“neo”-conservatives to Newsweek: “A lot of them tend to be libertarian cranks: neo-Confederates, really insane, racist, xenophobic types.” “Libertarian cranks” could describe the current crop of constitutionally minded, anti-government protesters, and so-called “neo-Confederates” primary concern has always been states’ right, an increasingly hot topic. As for his portrayal of traditional conservatives as “really insane, racist, xenophobic” types, Boot’s criticism is not unlike the Left’s attempts to portray anti-Obama tea partiers as “racist,” and serves as a reminder of neoconservatives’ progressive inclinations.
Defending his comrades, Boot told Newsweek, “Neocons are vilified as being barely human beasts who have to be kept chained in a cage somewhere, lest they start eating babies alive or something, but when you look at the spectrum of conservative thought, they are actually fairly centrist. The people who kind of speak to the rank and file of the Republican Party—the Newt Gingriches, the Rush Limbaughs, the Sean Hannitys … they’re actually fairly supportive of an aggressive foreign policy.”
Until recently, Boot was correct. Being part of the “rank-and-file of the Republican Party” meant being a neoconservative, whether mainstream conservatives were conscious of it or not. But as the grassroots Right continues to revisit conservatism’s limited-government roots, this ideological shift creates much less fertile ground for neoconservatives, most of whom remain busy either applauding Obama’s troop escalation in Afghanistan or criticizing the president for not attacking Iran, Yemen, or North Korea yet.
Neoconservatives never have been conservative, neither was Bush on “national security,” and these points must be hammered home before the Right can achieve a sturdier ideological footing. Laughably, Boot complains that neocons have been “vilified as being barely human beasts who have to be kept chained in a cage somewhere,” and yet without hesitation slanders real conservatives as “libertarian cranks,” “neo-Confederate,” and “racists.” It’s time for the Right take “neo” out of conservative, chain neoconservatism to progressivism, and put these liberal beasts back in their cages.
Nice video. But are the Tea Partiers really anti-neocon? Very few of the Tea-Party types are speaking out against our wars in Iraq, Af-Pak, Yemen. I wish that rank and file Republicans were turning against these wars, but it doesn’t seem to be happening, does it? (Not in Massachusetts, where Brown flayed Coakley when she said it was time to get out of Afghanistan.) And Glenn Beck, tho’ he currently enjoys bashing Woodrow Wilson, has also been attacking Obama for not being tougher on Russia and North Korea–for not being Wilsonian enough. Aren’t we being awfully wishful about the Tea Partiers and Glenn Beck being anti-interventionist, about being anti-neocon? See Leon Hadar’s piece from TAC, http://www.amconmag.com/headline/1280/index.html
I couldnt agree more. Bush was a Noam Chomsky (Israeli) neoconservative. Lets just call the neoconservatives in the republican party the Israeli right and the neocommunists in the democratic party the Israeli left. Its just that simple.
The voting poor and middle class american people are not globalists, they want their jobs and their industries to remain in the United States and their communities, they are not globalists or global citizens supporting of open borders and free immigration. They are not the global investor class living off the dividends of multi-national corporations that outsourced their jobs and import their products back to the US, they are not benefiting from massive currency manipulations (China is 50% below its nominal value), they are not and do not want to be government employees or government welfare recipients. Further the average american doesnt want their 8 year old on a terrorist watch list or grandmas girdle inspected or grandpa to get a cavity search while the real culprits are Islamic radicals, nor does the average american care for Israel, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan or Afghanistan.
In other words, the average american is solidly and unabashedly against anything approximating neoconservatism or neocommunism as the american jews, the american Israelis and the elites are finding out.
I, as an American of hispanic heritage, am thankful that the US, not Mexico won the Mexican-American War. The third order effect was that I was born on the “right” side of a line. Due to this historical event, my son will now have opportunities open to him that would have otherwise been impossible . This is an example of the “neocon” vision. Albeit in this case retroactive. As a military professional, I am willing to die to protect that vision. Radical? Yes, but honest. To those hispanic immigrants that want to come here. Come, but, “No traigan a Mejico aqui”.
Jack, I think this may be one of your best, most important pieces yet!
Keep it up you’re doing great.
-Byl
FTA: ‘Boot recently described such non-“neo”-conservatives to Newsweek: “A lot of them tend to be libertarian cranks: neo-Confederates, really insane, racist, xenophobic types.” ‘
Although Boot really wanted to say “anti-semitic,” but didn’t for fear of tipping his hand, it’s too late: only the most blind couldn’t read what he really meant. Guess he’s never heard of the story of the boy who whined “wolf.”
Mr. Hunter stated:
I don’t believe the evidence is sufficient to make this case. I would argue that President Bush was a mainstream conservative based not so much on a learned ideology but instead that it merely squared with his mindset and was common to his circle of influence.
At a minimum one can obviously concede that the neocons provided the arguments and talking points for the Iraq War. One can also make the case that Mr. Bush’s administration had influential neocons who desired invading Iraq who helped make the President’s desire a reality. However it’s my opinion that Mr. Bush never really got beyond instinctual desires and attractive talking points; therefore on the defining neocon action in the Bush administration, I’d argue they were a handy resource which might have even been indispensable, but not necessarily the captain of the ship.
I think we need to be careful of the temptation to argue Mr. Bush away as a ‘no true Scotsman’ rather than examine how his failures reflect on conservatism in general. For example, why did George Schultz and his associates decide to back Mr. Bush to run as President given his total lack of executive skills and his antipathy for rigorous processes leveraging the very best minds to develop and execute optimal policies and execution of those policies? Why do modern day conservatives have such an antipathy for open and honest debate within the well-framed context of historical precedents and considerate of the best arguments by relevant functional experts? Dismissing Mr. Bush as part of ostracized segment of the conservative movement, especially when the evidence isn’t compelling, better insures the movement doesn’t use the Bush legacy as an opportunity to improve itself.
Given the context of this article, I would appreciate Mr. Hunter’s perspective on how Sarah Palin plays within this framework. As we all now know Ms. Palin was considered an empty vessel which could be easily controlled by the neocons, a form “Amiable Dunce II” after Mr. Bush (my attribution). Given the fact she’s attracted the Tea Baggers most likely makes her even more attractive to the neocons since they don’t possess the type of voting base social conservatives enjoy within the Republican party.
Like Mr. Bush, Ms. Palin’s conservatism also appears to be one of mere mindset or personality rather than a lifetime of study and reflection. I would hate to see her perpetuate and reinforce the very attributes Mr. Bush revealed about conservatism, only where Ms. Palin is not even remotely as qualified as Mr. Bush, an easily validated observation which should chill us all.
“for most of Bush’s eight years, it was also the view of Beck.”
and there’s the answer to the question, Are the Teabaggers neoconservatives? where were these people during the tenure of a person who tried to turn the US into a Stasi-state? who for some years ruled a one-party government? who expanded central power more than any president since FDR? the dime of difference between obama and bush (and mccain) is that obama wants to expand the leviathan to provide health insurance while not neglecting war, while the others did it to provide war while not neglecting health insurance. oh, and one of those three men is, y’know, not like the others, wink-wink.
(sorry if this posts twice, wonky computer today)
Mr. Hunter, what would you call people like Dennis Kucinich and Alexander Cockburn? I remember Scott McConnell and Justin Raimondo calling the warmongers: “Social Democrats.”
Here’s a quick distilling. Conservatism overarchs a political philosophy. It’s the conduct that best manages life.
Everyone’s instilled with a quality since conception, of knowing the best decision, of knowing right and wrong in every situation in two seconds, which leads to a fact: Life is simple, it’s people who complicate…somewhat like the convoluted article by Jack Hunter.
I wish the Tea Party movement believed as I do that war (except when clearly defensive) is entirely destructive to the health of a people – but that is not entirely true. Many do, but many are all about a “strong military”, partly due to a misplaced sense of what patriotism is, partly due to economic reasons: the so-called “strong military” is really all about corporate welfare to the tune of over $700 billion per year.
(Revised)
One of the main points of this article is the confusion over who belongs in the tent of conservatism and who belongs outside it while masquerading as conservative. To clarify this point, I did not understand why it was necessary to throw the imposters into the liberal camp using the fallacy of false choice. Certainly, it is not true that all liberals or progressives are interventionists or pro-war like Woodrow Wilson was. I will admit that one could be excused for this confusion. The modern antiwar movement on the left appears disorganized and aimless like wanderers in a desert looking for their Moses. But, most liberals I know or have read are decidedly anti-war, anti-interventionalist and pro-Jimmy Carter when it comes to the fair treatment of the Palestinians and when it comes to real concern for Israel’s insane policy towards Gaza. To that extent, we liberals tend to identify with the likes of Paul Craig Roberts, Andrew Bacevich, Jason Raimondo, Lawrence Korb and John Dean, all paleoconservatives, at least when it comes to their antiwar positions.
As I understand it, one hallmark of the neocons is their adherence to Leo Strauss’s concept of the “noble lie.” Take, for example, anything Frank Gaffney says. That neocon is, infact, crazy and he should be locked up in a cage somewhere. Like a lot of other neocons, Mr. Gaffney seems to be able to “just say anything.” If he or his fellow noble liars are caught in a contradiction or falsehood, they seem to feel perfectly free to deny they ever said it. The most recent example of this is Glenn Beck denying that he ever used the word “slaughtered” to describe the fate of all Americans that will surely befall us at the hands of Obama the Terrible. The fact that there is a video recording of him saying it is no deterrent to him denying it.
Paleoconservatives are not driven by such madness. In fact, I believe that they share more in common with the liberals and progressives when it comes to foreign policy than the author appears to understand. While Ditto-heads, Hannity-ites and Becksters are lying constantly through their fat jangly jowels on radio and TV and lying us into the next war against Iran or Yemen or upper New York State, paleos and liberals cluck their tongues in unison and shake our heads in bewilderment. Buchanan rails against the war mongering on Morning Joe and Olbermann treats us to another special comment criticizing Obama’s “surge” in Afghanistan where fewer than 100 Al Qaida are left.
Real conservatives and real liberals need to cozy up and call out the liars and war mongerers who rightly belong at the back of the camp to use the metaphor of Charles P. Pierce’s “Idiot America.” Otherwise, we both allow the sheer bellicosity and chutzpagh of these cranks to drown out the kind of honest, civil debate that we should be having over serious issues of foreign or domestic policy.
If paleoconservatives don’t want the neoconservatives in their tent, please don’t send them over to mine.
In response to “Caudillo”: Why do you and other military people think you are protecting us by invading another country?….It just stirs up trouble and if you studied the Founding Fathers, they did NOT believe in interventionism.
Whether you call them left wing liberal democratic Wilsonian-cons, (active interventionist using and molding the world via the military according to best guess theology ), or Conservative Republican Neo-cons, (activly esposing interventionism to mold the world according to temporary military shock wars,) both philosophys espouse radical extremist ideals of continual war and intervention.
I believe the Hannities and the Limbaughs are simple Republican shills, esposing the small special interest neo-con point of view for money.
Democratic Liberal Wilsonian-cons are simply confused and think the government is the answer to everything. There is a blind confusion to this way of thinking that can only be driven by utter fear of everything.
The con in both words has a uniformity that dovetails with both ideas.
What is amazing is…… How such a radical extremist point of view, continual war, has become mainstream and uniform throughout our country.(ie the war on terror is a war in perpetuity)
Who says propaganda from the likes of the Mainstream media, Limbaugh, and Hannity does not work!
Say something enough and it becomes reality.
To gain power the Republicans seem to need the votes of enough neocons,palecons and libertarians.
For the system to function well it seems so me that all citizens must feel that they have at least a reasonable oppt’y for themselves and for their children to succeed. I’m not sure, but I think that for most people it’s still true here in the USA.
It’s the task of whatever gov’t is in power to ensure that continues.
Neoconservatives will use dirty tactics and false below the belt jabs to bring down libertarians or constitutionally minded politicians.
I would say that right now war mongering politicians are trying to steal the reins of the Tea Party movement and steer it back into a war mongering neocon movement. Do you really think a politician the likes of Michelle Bachman would vote “no” on a reauthorization of the Patriot Act or a “no” vote to expand the war on terror? Would Sarah Palin do such a thing?
The answer is no and they will do everything they can to avoid questions such as those in regards to the true meat and potatos of the Tea Party movement. Only One politican is their consistently working to bring about liberty for all in this country and that is Ron Paul.
Mr. Hunter offers some hope and direction for regular joe conservatives and I agree with that. (I’ll side with any conservative on foreign policy…if they take the Ron Paul road) But as a through and through progressive, I take issue with the idea that ‘big gov military interventionism’ is also under our ideological tent. This may have been a possibililty in the day when the feuding parties involved Wilsonian liberals and Ron Paul’s Old Right…but that was then. Granted, there are Democrats who claim liberalism but are warmongers. They are pseudo-progressives and we real progressives know it and will tell you so. I agree with Chick Dante…that we anti-war types on both sides should get together, but I’m afraid that both sides are often too suspicious of each other (and alike in partisanship) to work together. I for one am willing to change that.
For Christ’s sake Jack, do some proof-reading.
I find myself in agreement with poster “Lou” for the most part. It’s my opinion that the Tea Party participants – as far as it concerned the “original”, non-aligned individuals – were simply Americans fed up with professional politicians ignoring the voice of the people. WHATEVER their party affiliation. At the one party close enough to me to attend, I met people self-described as Republican, Independent, Democrats, Libertarians, and “no affiliation.” The only common thread was total dissatisfaction with Congress and the President ignoring their wishes – the wishes of the very same folks who put them in DC.
I have always described myself as “some of this, some of that, none of the other.” My one overwhelming theme is to be left the hell alone to make my own decisions without some statist or nanny wanting to run my life. Is that a conservative position or libertarian? Certainly it’s not of the democrat party persuasion. Then again there are sufficient enough disagreements with many in the conservative or libertarian movements for me to distance myself from either. I think that is the case for most Americans, and certainly the majority of Tea Party participants. We want to be LEFT ALONE, to spend our hard earned money in any fashion we want without being taxed to death (and after). We want the fruits of our labor for ourselves, and if others are too lazy to work for their own – that’s their problem. Sure – provide some short term help to those who simply cannot earn a living – but to those who prefer to sit on their asses and let the rest of society provide for them … no.
Chick Dante – you wrote:
“The most recent example of this is Glenn Beck denying that he ever used the word “slaughtered” to describe the fate of all Americans that will surely befall us at the hands of Obama the Terrible. The fact that there is a video recording of him saying it is no deterrent to him denying it.”
Beck used the word “slaughtered” when speaking of Obama’s economic policies, and not everyone would be led there. Just us middle class schlubs who can’t afford to move vast fortunes around the world to duck our impending economic ruin. Context matters. If you want to be informed of Beck’s opinion, perhaps you should watch his show, instead of regurgitating crap from the Huff n Puff post.
Beck is far from a hawk. Watch his show for a week.
@Josh Messer
Done.
To all of you banker party voters (donkeys and elephants), you are all members of two different wings of the same party.
The tea party movement came about from the 9-11 truth movement. You people are so deluded by your tele-politicos, you cant even conduct a discussion like this without it beginning with references to the top three spokespeople for banker brand elephant.
It’s the constitution stupid. None of those three have any use for that document other than maybe to wipe their backsides. Our current wars are plain unconstitutional. The destruction of the twin towers to start them was a blatant act of treason (understanding there are still those idiots that believe the government cover story).
Those who support the constitution know that the price for liberty is eternal vigilance. Those of you who readily and compliantly ingest the government vomit spewed before you by the media, need to grow some brains, wake up and realize the extremely small percentage of liberty we have left is directly related the extremely high percentage of unconstitutional actions by the federal government.
Then again, I’m just yanking my own chain, because ultimately Americans are stupid, brew slurping, TV watching, politically and economically ignorant dolts that are actually happy with that state of being. Long live the banker parties and the fools that vote for them.
Yuengling, Hunter, et alii,
Glenn Beck is an ARCH-HAWK. He is not one of you. He changes position as it suits him for the moment. His show taps into patriot, independent right-wing sentiment (unlike Hannity, O’Reilly, etc., which is mainstream neocon), but *always* points viewers back to the neocon solution.
While he was still on CNN, Beck was raising alarms of a Weimar-style depression, but then told people we just have to support TARP and that $700Bln was “not nearly enough”. He says he is a libertarian at heart but supports the PATRIOT Act and all new limitations on civil liberties. He gently compared Ron Paul supporters to terrorists and said he has “no credence” in foreign policy. On Fox, he half-way acts like a milita member, which is why he gets so much extra flak from liberals, but then suggests Obama might employ martial law if Iran launches a nuclear attack. (?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!!?) This is complemented by the constant BS about Ahmadinejad being the new Hitler planning another holocaust, blah blah blah blah.
And you watch this man’s show? You believe him? He talks out of both sides of his mouth, and this is certainly intentional. He exists to play to your fears, most of which are justified, to cover themes popular on the Independent Right, but then to herd you back to vote for the neocon agenda, blaming the problems *they* created on neocon villains, so you vote for the “mainstream” (i.e., treasonous globalist and murderous imperialist) Republican candidate at election time.
Got it?
Why in the name of God, at this juncture in history, would any serious political discussion contain the words Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh. For that matter, Sarah Palin. You people are killing me. Is it not yet obvious, to paraphrase Diderot, that America will never be free until the last Republican is strangled with the entrails of the last Democrat?
Why in the name of God, at this juncture in history, would any serious political discussion contain the names Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh. For that matter, Sarah Palin. You people are killing me. Is it not yet obvious, to paraphrase Diderot, that America will never be free until the last Republican is strangled with the entrails of the last Democrat? Metaphorically, of course!
While Mr Heath correctly defines Bush as a ‘conservative’ merely by mindset and instinct, not by study and reflection, qualities scorned by Bush, it was disappointing- and revealing- that he began that description by defining Bush as a mainstream conservative. A mainstream conservative who DOUBLED the size of the federal Department of Education in his first term !!
This is an accomplishment that no one named Gore or Clinton could have hoped to achieve, for fear of being eaten alive by ———conservatives; who just before George II ran for president in y2k had decided to completely shut down the ed dept.
So what you are seeing is a nation of stumbling, raging misfits who are not capable of a moment of reasonably tranquil reflection of cause and effect, but rather yammer on in successions of hackneyed cliches, bromides and slogans ; ‘take him out”, “dead or alive”, “Bring ‘em on” (“Brang ‘em on”), “cut ‘n run”, “stay the course”, “Blame America first”, “step up”, that will always appeal to just enough slack-jawed, glassy-eyed, drooling boobs whose emptiness, confusion and hatreds can easily be directed towards the latest sources of made-up fear. If it weren’t Moslems then it’d be directed at French (it is) – But why not the Brits? And if it weren’t them forenjers, it’d be — them Yankees , or them Southerners, or them Californians.
He describes Sara well (Sarah?) . A footnote in history. Look how she rants aimlessly, invoking random street slang. Please do not let her leave the stage just yet. How wonderful it is to see the intelligentsia of the Republican Wing of BIG rush to her defense, this aimless individual, raised up by Republicans in ‘08 as a desperate ploy; an on-side kick in the stupid bowl of politics – without the result. Note how so many of accomplshment ’step up’ to defend each of her latest examples of descent into confusion. May they keep at it , I pray, for just a couple years more as she descends a throne of delirium.
Look, considering the taxes gouged from us , we may as well get our grins along the way.
Hah! Bring it on.
Make that Brang it on.
How I hope the Republican Wing of Big Intrusive Government runs her again in ‘12
What happened was the old liberals got split at the New Deal and the Dims got the no foreign wars part and the Repuglicans got the no welfare at home part and each was then grafted to its conservative(?) counterpart. Endless internecine recriminations and sandbox slug fests have resulted.
Those who consequently say no to the big govt. warfare/welfare syndrome are then castigated as being either heartless or pro terrorists, if not both, by the two respective branches of the Big Govt. Party. Go figure.
That’s how twisted up the American body politic has become.
The TParty movement has a chance to break the impasse, but not if Eva Palin becomes its figurehead. Rather the first teaparty was held by the RPaul campaign. It needs to get back to those kind of roots.
[...] the ones feverishly hawked by the likes of Sarah Palin, Bill O’Reilly, Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh that call for the American military to begin attacking Iran? The aforementioned talking heads of [...]
[...] the ones feverishly hawked by the likes of Sarah Palin, Bill O’Reilly, Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh that call for the American military to begin attacking Iran? The aforementioned talking heads of [...]
[...] the ones feverishly hawked by the likes of Sarah Palin, Bill O’Reilly, Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh that call for the American military to begin attacking Iran? The aforementioned talking heads of [...]
[...] the ones feverishly hawked by the likes of Sarah Palin, Bill O’Reilly, Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh that call for the American military to begin attacking Iran? The aforementioned talking heads of [...]
[...] the ones feverishly hawked by the likes of Sarah Palin, Bill O’Reilly, Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh that call for the American military to begin attacking Iran? The aforementioned talking heads of [...]
[...] [...]