Pop Quiz: When is a Neocon Not A Neocon? Answer. When he’s wrong. Which is most of the time. And that irks Charles Krauthammer.
Dr. Krauthammer is an interesting character. For some thirty years he’s been a Washington fixture. Trained as a psychiatrist, he became a speechwriter for Vice President Walter Mondale. He then began to write for the Washington Post, feeling right at home, since, at the Post, all abnormal behaviors are deemed normal.
Mondale. The Post. Those two credits are similar to those of many other “former” liberals who have become neoconservatives over the years. But these days the Doctor Is In, and he’s pouting. Why? Well, just two years ago he was bragging: “Today, everyone and his cousin supports the ‘freedom agenda’. Of course, yesterday it was just George W. Bush, Tony Blair and a band of neocons with unusual hypnotic powers.”
Hypnotic? Well, remember, the Doc is a shrink, and a proud one at that. But he also believes in mandatory amnesia, because today his celebrated “freedom agenda” has once more blown up in his face, so he now gripes that people are calling him names.
Neoconservative? He’s not a “neoconservative” at all, not any more, he tells National Review’s Rich Lowry. Better not argue (and Rich, shame on him, didn’t), because Dr. K. is on a roll: “Neoconservative is an ‘epithet’ [sic]. Today [he continues] it’s usually meant as a silent synonym for ‘Jewish conservative.’ And when it is meant otherwise, I would ask you whenever you hear the word [to] challenge the person to describe and explain to you what a neocon is.”
Yes, the good Doctor is in, but he’s totally out of it. Frankly, I don’t blame him for ducking the neocon label — it’s as closely identified with failure as “Bush” is. Mr. Lowry’s magazine quietly admitted as much in the run-up to the 2012 elections. Moreover, Dr. Krauthammer’s “challenge” comes off as somewhat insincere, considering how, ten years ago, he had no time for rational discussion, brushing off Bush’s conservative critics as “navel gazers” because they insisted on a debate that would apply constitutional principles to Bush’s wars — which, like Bush, were failures (John McCain, another failure, to the contrary).
On brief inspection, the doctor’s tendentious tantrum borders on hilarity. Many neocons wear the label proudly. After Obama’s illegal war on Libya (another disastrous failure, but I digress), Bill Kristol cheered, and proudly baptized Obama as a “born again neocon.” Did Mr. Kristol’s use of that sly “epithet” intend to brand Obama as a “Jewish conservative,” I wonder? Mr. Kristol is often off the wall, and even more often wrong, but even he has his standards.
Mr. Kristol’s father, Irving, proudly referred to himself as the “godfather of all those neocons” just ten years ago, in his son’s magazine. Neoconservatism, wrote Kristol, is “forward-looking” conservatism. Moreover, “neoconservative policies have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters,” he insisted.
“Forward-looking.” Well, as Charles Burton Marshall once observed, “there’s no such thing as the foreseeable future.” But, “backward looking,” as we conservatives are wont to do – you know, history, and all that stuff — in the ten years since Kristol père made that presumptuous assertion, “neoconservative policies” have destroyed the GOP, brought the country to its knees, and delivered the White House to Obama on a silver platter.
Well. Mr. Krauthammer pretends to issue a challenge. Let’s take him at his word.
Beautiful Losers
Who are the “neocons”? To begin with, Krauthammer and a small group of other well-compensated neocons are the “conservatives” appointed by the leftist media — because, as we will see, they both speak the same language, the dialectic. The Left loves them because the neocon wrecking crew has been so wrong on virtually every foreign policy issue for the past ten years. The media thus makes them their convenient poster boys for the argument that all conservatives are as dumb as the neocons are.
But wait, are we ducking the good doctor’s “challenge”? No way. He smugly asserts that his critics are as dumb as his victims – those poor, misled conservatives who were duped by neocons like Cheney, Bush, Lowry, McGurn, (Michael) Novak, and other fine Christians to cheer on the criminals who plundered the country, established a domestic police state, destroyed the economy, and cashed in big-time on two unwinnable, illegal, and immoral wars.
But the Doctor demands definitions – so let’s start with Aristotle’s “limits.”
Like their leftist forbears, neocons defy constitutional limits on presidential power (viz. their embrace of the “unitary executive”), and thus defy metaphysical limits on government. They deny religious limits on government, an Augustinian principle which is unique in history to Christendom – that is, Western Civilization. As history repeatedly demonstrates, these denials open the door to totalitarianism. Neocons employ the Trotskyite dialectic (traditionally known as “lying”) to stay in power, regardless of principle or party. Next, Bill Kristol’s baptism of Obama reflects another neocon intellectual indulgence, the denial of Aristotle’s principle of non-contradiction. They only criticize power when somebody else has it and uses it against them. For them, power has the force of gravity: they can’t resist it.
Neocons accept the dictum of Marx’s Eleventh Thesis on Feuerbach: they evade rational discussion, and demand immediate action instead, in the service of the ideological demand to change the world without understanding it – thus George W. Bush’s fanatical promise to “rid the world of evil.”
So much for the Prince of Peace.
Neocons are not religious fanatics — often, they are not religious at all. But like Rousseau, they find religion useful. Ten years ago, they were able to dupe several million anti-Catholic Dispensational Evangelicals (who haven’t a clue about metaphysics but who want Armageddon now) into supporting the Iraq war because it was “God’s will.” In like manner, neocons embrace the Manichaean hubris of self-deification: their cause is perfect good, while every enemy (and critic) is “another Hitler” – if not sheer evil, at least an anti-Semite. But the neocon dialectic can’t help rotating Hitlers — Saddam, Osama, Ahmadinijad, and now Mokhtar Belmokhtar. As Tom Lehrer used to sing, “Who’s Next?”
And speaking of Hitler, neocons also falsify history: for them, it’s always 1938; disagree with them and you’re Neville Chamberlain. “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.”
Ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have very bad consequences. The neocon’s self-divinization permits torture, lies (falsely attributing that “right” to Socrates and the “noble lie”), premeditated Murder-By-Predator of Americans, worldwide death squads for democracy, imperial swagger, defiance of accountability, hubris as virtue, power lust (libido dominandi: Augustine, City of God, Book I, Preface), lust for fame and glory (superbia vitae: 1 John 2:16), and endless, profound, but always unintended, collateral damage.
Dr. Krauthammer’s taunt is both tawdry and typical. Which raises one last, but essential, point: the neocons are always wrong; and they never, ever apologize.
This column first appeared in From Under the Rubble is copyright (c) 2013 by Christopher Manion. All rights reserved. This column is sponsored by the Bellarmine Forum, and distributed by www.fgfBooks.com. The weekly Manion column is available by subscription for just $35 per year. Order online here or by calling 877-726-0058.
Christopher Manion’s biographical sketch and photo can be found here:
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
The late William F Buckley is about the largest best known Neoconservative there was. He was the darling of neoconservatives. William F Buckley also founded the “National Review”. The National Review is considered the heart and soul of Republican Politics, any republican who is in the game is current with the National Review.
Maybe that should tell you why Dr K got a pass when interviewed by the National Review.
Michael– Deo Vindicabamur
People, please go to the link I provide and sign the petition to Congress to investigate of the Criminal-in-chief’s use of forged IDs. 33,808 Americans already signed it. Clock is ticking. Act now!
Please pass on to all your e-mail contacts. Thanks.
http://www.petition2congress.c…
P.S. The Supreme Court of the United States does not state whether the Orly Taitz case was granted or denied, no answer yet, NO TREASON YET by the justices of the Supreme Court. Go to the Orly’s website and look for the Reports.
Orly Taitz’ Website is: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/
“Fiat justitia ruat caelum” – “Let justice be done though the heavens fall”
Well, Krauthammer is right about one thing. NeoCon is not meant to be a term of endearment for its’ intended target. It should, however, be spelled NonConservative as they are nothing more than progressives who have all but ruined the GOP. RINO is another term used for the same bunch of pseudoconservative hacks, which Bill Kristol fit in very well with.
My thinking on Neo-Cons runs this way: NCs steer the GOP away from social issues, and focus entirely on the monetary problems. I doubt this is territory likely to rouse voters to any great extent, as the Mittster found out, and Juan McCain before him. But, yes, NCs are predominantly Jewish, and Jews fear Christians. Jews, Conservative and Leftist (there can be no Right-wing Jews) alike, struggle constantly to undermine the religious foundation of American society. Think ACLU. NCs are simply swimming upstream among Christian Conservatives on social/cultural issues. This is why there is constant tension between NCs and Right/Conservative Americans. Commies aren’t always wrong. Gramsci was correct in teaching that Marxist materialism was a dead end. You’ve got to destroy the society itself, by weakening the building-blocks of every human society — ethnic solidarity, common language, religion, customs, mythology. Once you understand this, the Left’s position on every issue will become predictable. Open immigration by non-whites, no English-as-official-language, no open display of religion, tolerance/acceptance/celebration of every pervsion and heresy, and the contentious re-writing of American history.
@Jacobite
You got it right.
Neoconservatives are weak on social moral issues as they tend to be more focused on monetary matters and National interests. This is a big reason why the *so called* republican Jews are neoconservatives. (Think about it this way, associate money, Jews and immorality and you have a form neoconservatives. Although their influence carries over into many other groups and cultures of people.)
Michael– Deo Vindicabamur
Well, to go even further back, Leftism of any sort was born in the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment philosophers were intelligent as heck, but, unfortunately, they were just wrong. Man is born with numerous instinctual behavior patterns, most relating to Homo sapiens’ status as a social animal. Social animals have numerous pre-determined behaviors necessary to maintain membership in the society. The reason the french Revo and all Leftist movements since have failed is that they are based on the Enlightenment delusion that humans can live a life according to reason alone. Wrong! What Leftist regimes can do is to destroy enough of the society’s foundation, that the society dis-integrates (like Russia). Jews fit in as the ‘despised other’ in European civilizations. They are, in actual fact, different people. As such, they constantly run afoul of the host society’s manners and mores. Visit NYC if you doubt this. As a perpetual outsider to a society, what might look more appealing than destroying that society? This is why Jews tend to be Leftists in every society in which they live — even Israel.
@Jacobite
You’re still playing my tune!
Since we’re on such a close wavelength, let me ask you; What is your solution to this mess? What do you see for the immediate and mid term future for the usa and the world?
Michael– Deo Vindicabamur
There isn’t any future for the USA. Before the turn of the 20th Century, we were a WASP outpost of England. After the waves of immigration since then, we are the biggest non-functional behavior-sink since Yugoslavia. We are a…. Well, ‘we’ aren’t anything, because there is no ‘we’.any more. There are whites, Hispanics, blacks, Asians, whatever. Each constitutes a distinct society, and the interests of every society conflict with the interests of other societies — the ultimate zero-sum game. This is where the RINOs fail. They don’t seem to understand that pandering to the interests of Hispanics for amnesty puts white interests in maintaining their own neighborhoods, jobs, churches, and schools in jeopardy. Zero-sum game. Sorry, in dominance hierarchies (all societies are such) that’s the truth.
Jacobite, you are right on most of your statements. The Repubs supported Israel these past 50 to 60 years as well as some Democrats. Now, the Democrats support the Muslim countries and not Israel. This is why the dems did everything they could to get Obama in the white house including cheating. This long political divide between our parties on who to support in the Middle East came to a head when Monica Lewinsky and Chandra Levi worked to undermine the Democrats and their dwindling support for Israel under Clinton. Israel was under Netanyahu at the time and Obama knows all the details of what really happened. Bill was attempting to cut aid to Israel when Monica showed up and talked Bill into installing an non secured telephone into his oval office, a phone that he used to make many calls to China and other Communist countries to work out some deals to sell our “dual purpose technology” to them for cash. At the “Whitewater” hearings, Bill was asked about that illegal phone and why wasn’t he concerned about security when using that phone. Bill was actually sweating and answered, “After a while, I thought about it and thought maybe a foreign country could blackmail me!” He was refering to Israel. That phone was bugged by the MOSSAD! Monica was NOT an “air headed girl” enamoured by powerful curly headed men in high places as the MSM reported. She testified during the white water hearings and gave details about what happened in the oval office that only her and bill knew about. Why? To shut up the MSM. She knew they would catch on what happened and would want to protect the president from being accused of being so stupid as to being caught by some “airhead”. Then there was the “blue dress!! Monica and Chandra were Jewish as you all know. During the election returns at the end of Clinton’s second term, David Brinkly called Bill a “G-D bumbling idiot” when he thought the mics were turned off during a break. He said it twice until Peter Jennings told him to keep quiet. AT Clinton’s grand opening of his library, Peter Jennings asked Bill about losing his moral authority over the Monica fiasco. Bill blew up and accused Peter of being part of the “vast right wing conspiracy” out to get him. Peter was dying of lung cancer and had nothing to lose.
This is why Obama is at odds with Netanyahu. A prominant democrat said just days ago that they will cut aid to Israel even further.
The fight between the left and the right will continue until Israel takes a stand against the Muslim countries and defeats them, if they can. Bush #2 went to war against Iraq to create some stability in the mid east because he knew what was coming. This is what we are really up against!
Believe it or not!
Oh, what a bunch of BS, Manion. How does Manion figure Iraq was a ‘failed’ war? Because Obama surrendered our blood-paid influence by removing our military which handed it to Iran?? Was it because we let three Socialist senators deny all American oil contracts so that we might be defer some of the cost of the war?? Hussein was taken out and many Islamist terrorists were killed – That’s a good thing! Congress rightfully voted to allow Bush to take Hussein out, how is that “illegal”?? You’re full of it, Manion and I’m sick of seeing Libertarians run their stupid mouths about illegal wars.
The Neocon monicker was dreamed up by Liberals and as all their insults, it means nothing. A Republican is either a RINO or they uphold the principles and values of a Conservative, period. Bush was a RINO on at least four issues: A Dept. of Homeland Security without proper Constitutional protections; Amnesty for illegal aliens; A prescription drug entitlement and a government bail-out of private corporations. That was more than enough to be glad to see him go.
Well, that’s neough time wasted on you.
We left Iraq because the gov’t we founded refused to continue the SOFA for Status of Forces Agreement – in short – Iraqis were fed up with military violence against their people – their people being abducted and tortured with abject impunity. Read “War is a Racquet” by Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler – adjusted for massive inflation.
The Term “NeoCon” seems to mean different things to different people. The Left has their definition and the right has their definition. But to someone who wants to be objective, both seem to be Propaganda and not meaningful except as a “Ridicule” like the “Birther” chant from Saul Alinsky’s Satanic followers. If someone has the various meanings please post them here and elsewhere for old guys like me.
@willyrho
The simplest definition of neoconservative, and the left applies fairly closely, is a neoconservative is almost the same thing as a *FASCIST* EXCEPT they do not claim to support racial superiority. Although there are some neoconservatives that will claim this tenet of fascism. The left is not wrong when they call a neoconservative a fascist from the overall context, except concerning racial superiority, and this may or may not count depending upon the individual.
Michael– Deo Vindicabamur
All Rightist mmovements are reactionary. Reacting to leftism. Leftism was conceived in the Enlightenment and delivered in the French Revo. It has never changed. Leftism aims at the destruction of existing normal societies. Every Leftist movement begins with an attack on religion and social status — the foundation of all human societies. Rightism developed in reaction and opposition to these attacks on existing society. Fascism, National Socialism, the Falange, etc., all supported existing elements of society (the Nazis had some fantasies about German society, but they acted to defend them against the total anti-human evil of the Weimar culture). Spanish Republicans, guided by the Comintern, began killing priests and nuns immediately, and destroying churches and religious art (don’t jump on the Mohammedans in Mali; the Republicans were every bit as determined to destroy all vestiges of previous religions). So, although an atheist, rational, individualistic society (contradiction in terms) cannot exist, Lefsts can destroy an existing society. The results of this are on display in Russia, China, Cuba, etc
JB Williams said that I was “too stupid to be free” when I used the term “NeoConservative” by telling me that a self confessed Marxist used that term – like that makes ME a Marxist – here is what Ron Paul said in July of 2003 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7zwWqMPqkU
Cease already with this needless obfuscation by using a indefinitive term like “neoconservative” or neo this or neo that. A neoconservative is a 50 cent word that is simply another way of saying a liberal/moderate/progressive republican, a RINO, a full fledged member of the inside Washington Republican Establishment. They and people like Krauthammer and especially Rove have handed us defeat after defeat because they are dumber than a post when it comes to national politics and picking candidates who can win. They’ve lost more elections that I can count yet they continue to repeat the same mistakes each election cycle while expecting a different result which of course is the definition of “Insanity.”
So why do republican party members keep sending the republican establishment, people like Rove, money every election cycle that keeps being flushed down the toilet? Good question. They have very short memories. The Republican Establishment was totally against Reagan and tried every way imaginable to defeat him. Only problem was, they were in the minority as they have always been when it comes to knowing what is right for America. The longer those people, i.e. the republican establishment types, remain inside Washington, the dumber they get. It’s like the longer you stay in college the dumber you get. It’s axiomatic. They just can’t wait to get their claws into new people coming to Washington so they can infect them with their mental illness. Fortunately I sense there is an increasing awareness among those candidates who were largely promoted by the TEA party, i.e. grassroots America, in winning their elections that they won’t yield to the pressures to go along to get along and thus dumb down and dilute their conservatism to become just another RINO or neoconservative. We are bereft of statesmen and have been for a very long time but I also sense that the political pendulum is starting to swing the other way. Whether it will be enough and soon enough to save us, I don’t know. I pray it will be.
@smoki
No *neoconservative* is a REAL ideology that has political representation by people. It is a specific mindset that is enacted upon through government legislation. Although as with any other ideology certain tenets and principals can slightly vary from person to person.
There is only ONE true conservative associated with the united States and that is what is known as the *PALEOCONSERVATIVE*. ALL of your Founding Fathers were Paleoconservatives. However the word itself is of modern coinage, first mentioned by Patrick Lewis in 1984. It would be very wise for every person reading this to read the Wikipedia article concerning *Paleoconservative*.
Michael– Deo Vindicabamur
Manion —another Attack Dog Catholic —a poodle –or a bull terrier
Catholics think they can lump and root for Jews like they support Sports teams—Charles is way more human and compassionate about things then he is being given credit for here—just being linked to Bill Kristol was enough to make me look up my password to log on to express some thanks for the entertainment ..
My definition of neocon. Agents of the military industrial complex. Complicit or responsible for the destruction of the WTC complex on 9/11. Murderous warmongers with no morals. Evil to the bone. Responsible for the deaths of 3000 people on 9/11 and 6000 service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. Created the 9/11 attack as a false flag to justify “The war on terrorism”. The lowest form of humanity.
To begin with the term neocon is a self destroying label. Neo translates to new so the term literally means “new conservative”. The only way to be a ‘New” Conservative is to somehow be different from the old, regular or historical Conservative. As Christopher Manion point out that is what the neocons are doing. They are encroaching on individual freedom, excusing non-compliance with our Constitutional guarantees and abandoning the wisdom and statesmanship of our Founding Fathers.
Neocons repeatedly draw a line in the sand behind themselves, boasting they will not cross that live. Then they back over it allowing the left to move forward incrementally. The neocons then draw another line behind them so they can spout more rhetoric before backing over yet another line. Every time they back over line after line, they shred a bit more of The Constitution and befoul it with their filthy feet.