PDA

View Full Version : Salon.com: Neoconservative based hit piece on Libertarianism




Epic
09-22-2009, 05:06 PM
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/09/22/neoconservatism/


Historians of intellectual conservatism often claim that it consisted of three intellectual movements: the movement conservatism centered on Buckley's National Review, libertarianism and neoconservatism. I am not so sure that the first two qualify as intellectual movements. In the 1950s and 1960s National Review featured some brilliant mavericks like James Burnham, Willmoore Kendall and Russell Kirk, but for most of its subsequent history it was simply a partisan opinion journal. As for the libertarian intellectual movement, isn't that a contradiction in terms? How intellectual can a movement be, if it reflexively answers "the market!" to every question of domestic and foreign policy, before the question is even asked?

That leaves neoconservatism. But in its origins neoconservatism was a movement of the center-left, not of the right. Here is Nathan Glazer, co-editor with Irving Kristol of the Public Interest, in that magazine's final issue in spring 2005, recalling the origins of the journal in the 1960s: "All of us had voted for Lyndon Johnson in 1964, for Hubert Humphrey in 1968, and I would wager (?) that most of the original stalwarts of The Public Interest, editors and regular contributors, continued to vote for Democratic presidential candidates all the way to the present. Recall that the original definition of the neoconservatives was that they fully embraced the reforms of the New Deal and indeed the major programs of Johnson's Great Society ... Had we not defended the major social programs, from Social Security to Medicare, there would have been no need for the 'neo' before 'conservative.'"

How intellectual can a movement be if it advocates non-coercion?

dannno
09-22-2009, 05:14 PM
Ok... How intellectual can a movement be, if it reflexively answers "the government can help!" to every question of domestic and foreign policy, before the question is even asked?

bucfish
09-22-2009, 05:15 PM
Wow the Comments there are very brainwashed.

Cowlesy
09-22-2009, 05:19 PM
Oh yes, neoconservative has done so much for us all. The author makes a delineation between the neoconservatism of the 60's/70's, and the much more abrasive neoconservatism of today. Weren't the neocons of the 70's ready to press the button to attack the Soviet Union?

Ultimately, my problem lies with the contention that prior to the New Deal, America must have been a horrible place because we didn't have political/social engineers driving society. The authors immediate dismissal of "libertarianism", in my view, is a dismissal of what made America great.

What a piece of drivel.

Cowlesy
09-22-2009, 05:21 PM
Also, it's nice to note that the author acknowledges that Encounter (Irving Kristol's first little front) was funded by the CIA, and that the neoconservatives like the communists use front-organizations (the author mentions PNAC) to push their ideas.

Now we have Foreign Policy Initiative, Hudson Institute and Commentary Magazine...not to mention the numerous blogs.

Flash
09-22-2009, 05:23 PM
As for the libertarian intellectual movement, isn't that a contradiction in terms? How intellectual can a movement be, if it reflexively answers "the market!" to every question of domestic and foreign policy, before the question is even asked?

So their problem is the simplicity in the solution, while again & again it's proven to be true, rather than a complaint against the free market arguement itself. Even though poor and deprived third-world states like Somalia have prospered under Capitalist (http://mises.org/story/2066) conditions. And why is it that, all of the major innovations seem to come directly from the free market? Did the government create Televisions, radios, or planes? Why does the government do so poorly running something as simple as the Post Office or Amtrak? Hmm...

It seems as if the Liberal-Wing of the Republican party, the Neo-Conservatives, are quick to dismiss free market & Capitalism yet they don't seem to offer anyother solutions in an intelligent manner. If the government can run things so much better than the free market, then why don't you take restrictions off from companies like UPS & FedEx so they could compete with the USPS? Why not allow competition of currency if you believe in the Federal Reserve or dollar so much? Ah, but then you go on to say healthcare would be such a huge disaster, yet you obliviously ignore the other disasters the federal government has produced. Hypocritical, much?

SimpleName
09-22-2009, 05:37 PM
Ok... How intellectual can a movement be, if it reflexively answers "the government can help!" to every question of domestic and foreign policy, before the question is even asked?

I think we should call it a day for this thread. Perfect reply

Cowlesy
09-22-2009, 05:40 PM
It comes to control. In a free market, they aren't using their hand of government to shape the policy --- it is left up to natural forces which they cannot control. They must insert themselves into the process to shape it to their liking.

Live_Free_Or_Die
09-22-2009, 06:22 PM
nt