New Book Reveals Neocon Influence in the GOP

[FrankRep]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41Tf1QH8kBL._SL500_AA300_.jpg



Tom Pauken, a lawyer and conservative political activist hailing from Texas, wrote Bringing Home America for the stated purpose of critiquing how the neo-conservative George W. Bush administration squandered the political capital that Goldwater/Reagan conservatives had built over three decades.


Book Reveals Neo-Con Influence in GOP (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/reviews/books/3930-book-reveals-neo-con-influence-in-gop)


Larry Waters | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
Wednesday, 07 July 2010


Tom Pauken, a lawyer and conservative political activist hailing from Texas, wrote Bringing Home America: How America Lost Her Way and How We Can Find Our Way Back (http://www.amazon.com/dp/098437020X?tag=s00cb-20&camp=213381&creative=390973&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=098437020X&adid=142B9V59FMN1316JWY4X&) for the stated purpose of critiquing how the George W. Bush administration squandered the political capital that Goldwater/Reagan conservatives had built over three decades. Pauken served as chairman of the Republican Party of Texas from 1994 to 1997, which was both before and after George W. Bush became Governor of Texas. Years earlier, he served on the transition team of President-elect Ronald Reagan and was appointed by President Reagan to head ACTION, where he worked to rein in the agency.

Pauken is obviously more than an observer regarding the impact Reagan or the Bushes have had on the conservative movement. However, his book is not a political tell-all, and those who read it with that assumption in mind will be disappointed.

Pauken is an outspoken critic of the neo-conservative movement and a respected traditional Republican. Yet, ironically, in the first chapter of his book, he credits not just traditionally minded conservatives (e.g., Barry Goldwater) but neo-conservatives (e.g., William F. Buckley) for helping to shape his political philosophy.

The book is divided into two sections, “How America Lost Her Way” and “How We Can Find Our Way Back.” Early in the book, Pauken describes how, under the Presidencies of Johnson, Nixon, and Ford, many Americans were becoming fed up with liberals. This led to the election of Ronald Reagan whose influence, according to Pauken, peaked during his first term in office. Pauken writes: “For all practical purposes the post-Reagan era had been a disappointing period for American conservatives who once seemed to be on the verge of restoring and revitalizing a nation that had lost its way in the 1960s and 70s.”

He adds: “In one sense, success led to our downfall. When conservatives made the Republican Party the majority party in America, the opportunists, pragmatists, and phony conservatives moved in and took control of the Republican Party, and of the conservative movement itself — all in the name of ‘conservatism.’” He points out that conservatives should not support candidates for the Presidency just because they happen to be the lesser of two evils. He continues: “Nor should we remain silent when a bunch of phony conservatives calling themselves neoconservatives hijack the conservative movement and use them to provide their ideological agenda.”

Why were the hijackers so successful? Pauken's points would have been strengthened if he had shown how Presidents Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush appointed neo-conservatives from the world-government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) for high-level administration positions. But Pauken does emphasize that Ronald Reagan should not have chosen George H. W. Bush — who was both a director of the CFR and a member of the Trilateral Commission — as his running mate.

The two most engaging chapters in the book are “Hijacking the Conservative Movement” and “The Neoconservative Conquest of American Foreign Policy.” Pauken's description of Karl Rove as having a huge influence in getting George W. Bush elected twice and in using Machiavellian tactics to promote his strategy is of interest. His comments on Rove make evident Rove's devotion to the neo-cons while an advisor to Bush and afterward.

In addition to giving Rove credit for Bush’s success, Pauken likewise opines that Vice President Dick Cheney was the principal power over foreign policy in the Bush administration, and also very much a neo-con. Most readers of The New American will also remember Cheney as a CFR member and director.

Pauken credits Reagan with holding down spending and praises his economic policies as something to duplicate. But his assessment is rosier than the reality. The federal budget grew during the Reagan Presidency, and President Reagan himself acknowledged that he was only slowing down future growth in spending, not cutting spending in the absolute sense. As he stated on February 18, 1981, "It's important to note that we're only reducing the rates of increase in taxing and spending. We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have." In fact, though as a presidential candidate Reagan had called for abolition of the Departments of Education and Energy, as President he proposed one budget after another calling for billions of dollars of spending for these departments. And he also supported increasing the national debt ceiling, which during his first year in office was raised above $1 trillion for the first time. Pauken's view of Reagan may square with the image many good, fiscal conservatives have of him, and it may also square with his rhetoric, but it does not square with reality.

Pauken yearns for the Goldwater/Reagan days with obvious sincerity. He refers to the conservative movement coming of age in the 1950s and 1960s and advocates the principles of limited government, opposition to international communism, and support of traditional values.

He then warns against the advent of big-government conservatism with interesting documentation. He quotes a 2003 column appearing in the Wall Street Journal by Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, the leading neo-conservative magazine. In that article, Barnes noted with approval that the Bush administration believed “in using what would normally be seen as liberal means — activist government — for conservative ends. And they are willing to spend more and increase the size of government in the process.” Moreover, Barnes acknowledged, “big government conservatives are favorably disposed toward what neoconservative Irving Krystol has called a ‘conservative welfare state.’”

Pauken rightfully condemns the Barnes/Krystol variant of "conservatism." He could have appropriately added (but didn't) that Irving Krystol (father of Bill Krystol, founder and editor of The Weekly Standard) is not just another "neo-conservative" but is credited with coining the term neo-conservatism — and, even more startling, was a longtime admirer of communist Leon Trotsky.

Both Barnes and Bill Krystol are frequent guests on the FOX News Cable network whose owner is Rupert Murdock (CFR). Pauken writes that “Krystol persuaded media magnate, Rupert Murdock, to provide huge subsidies for Krystol’s new opinion magazine, The Weekly Standard.

Pauken is quite persuasive in documenting the neo-con conquest of American foreign policy, especially in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. He begins by saying that by the standard of the just-war theory, the United States made the correct decision to deny Osama bin Laden and his Taliban allies sanctuaries in Afghanistan. But Iraq, which did not harbor al-Qaeda and did not attack us on September 11, was a different matter. He writes, “The neoconservatives ... were so obsessed with accomplishing their long standing objective of ousting Saddam Hussein from power that they lost sight of the more important goal. Moreover, they were now well positioned both within and outside the Bush administration to persuade the President and the American public of the necessity of launching a preventive war in Iraq.”

In fact, as far back as 1997, Pauken describes how Bill Krystol established his Project for the New American Century to promote military action to overthrow Hussein. Pauken named some of the prominent neo-conservatives who signed the letter including Bill Krystol, Bill Bennett, Paul Wolfowitz, James Woolsey, John Bolton, Robert Kagan, Elliot Abrams, and Richard Perle.

The author correctly contends that the Bush administration was heavily influenced by neo-conservatives both in and out of government. Two prominent supporters of the neo-con philosophy were Gary Bauer and John Hagee. Pauken notes that it is odd that these Christian pastors, who should understand and support just-war principles, fully embrace the neo-con party line on Iraq and even want to expand the war to Iran. One of many ill effects of our Iraq military action has been the increased danger to their Christian brethren in that tragic part of the world.

Further illustrating our failed policy in Iraq, quotes from a former ex-CIA analyst, Michael Scheuer, from his book Imperial Hubris on why we are losing the War on Terror: “U.S. forces and policies are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world, something Osama bin Laden has been trying to do with substantial but incomplete success since the early 1990s. As a result, I think it is fair to conclude that the United States of America remains Osama bin Laden’s indispensable ally.”

Pauken also points out that our counter-productive intervention in Bosnia led to the transfer of power in Kosovo from the Christian Serbs to the radical Islamic Kosovo Liberation Army. Thus, our neo-con foreign policy helped create a power base for radical Islam in the Baltics.

Pauken offers one definition of neo-conservatism by quoting British philosopher John Gray who wrote, “In its enthusiasm for revolutionary change, neo-conservatism has more in common with Jacobinism and Leninism than with neo-liberalism or traditional conservatism.” In other words as Pauken asserts, “the neoconservative goal of imposing democracy everywhere in the world is the kind of utopian vision generally associated with the left. It is akin to the Marxist objective of creating a ‘perfect world,’ a ‘heaven on earth’ if you will.”

The second half of the book discusses our present economic peril and its causes, the coarsening of our culture, and the need to restore traditional values. He also advocates a new strategy for addressing the radical Islamic threat — with Putin's Russia as our ally, notwithstanding the ruling Russian elites' terrorist, communist connections, which presumably Pauken is unaware of.

But despite the book's flaws, it is still very much worth reading in this reviewer's opinion since it will help the reader better understand the neo-conservatives, the grip they have on the conservative movement, and why the grip must be broken.


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/reviews/books/3930-book-reveals-neo-con-influence-in-gop

[erowe1]

I get how Buckley is not liked in JBS. But why label him a neoconservative? The way that label gets tossed around it doesn't even mean anything any more.

[low preference guy]

I get how Buckley is not liked in JBS. But why label him a neoconservative? The way that label gets tossed around it doesn't even mean anything any more.



we have got to accept Big Government for the duration — for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged … except through the instrumentality of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores."

Having a totalitarian bureaucracy to fight an enemy that will collapse anyway because its economic system is unsustainable? That's pretty much a made up enemy for oppression and war. Neocon in my book.

[erowe1]

Having a totalitarian bureaucracy to fight an enemy that will collapse anyway because its economic system is unsustainable? That's pretty much a made up enemy for oppression and war. Neocon in my book.

Where did you get that definition of neoconservatism?

[low preference guy]

Where did you get that definition of neoconservatism?

Big government at home and abroad to fight an imaginary enemy might not be the exact definition, but it's pretty damn close. But the fact he allowed neoconservatives intellectuals to write in his magazine but marginalized non-interventionists makes him a neocon for all practical purposes.

[specsaregood]

Big government at home and abroad to fight an imaginary enemy might not be the exact definition, but it's pretty damn close. But the fact he allowed neoconservatives intellectuals to write in his magazine but marginalized non-interventionists makes him a neocon for all practical purposes.

Well, my understanding is neoconservatism is explicitly defined as an interventionist foreign policy. They are generally "ok" with the welfare state, but not a requirement.

[low preference guy]

Well, my understanding is neoconservatism is explicitly defined as an interventionist foreign policy. They are generally "ok" with the welfare state, but not a requirement.

I label someone who exposes an interventionist foreign policy as a "national greatness" conservative. If in addition to that one supports safety nets, then I label him a neocon.

[erowe1]

Big government at home and abroad to fight an imaginary enemy might not be the exact definition, but it's pretty damn close. But the fact he allowed neoconservatives intellectuals to write in his magazine but marginalized non-interventionists makes him a neocon for all practical purposes.

Again, where are you getting your definition of neoconservative? Does the word even mean anything at all? Or is it just something that means whatever we want it to mean any time we use it?

[low preference guy]

Does the word even mean anything at all?

Yep. It's someone who supports an interventionist foreign policy abroad and tolerates or encourages the welfare state at home. The National Review did exactly that, thus I call its owner a neocon.

[erowe1]

I label someone who exposes an interventionist foreign policy as a "national greatness" conservative. If in addition to that one supports safety nets, then I label him a neocon.

Do you normally take words that already have a meaning in the English language and then give them whole new meanings like that?

What about the other words you're using? Are you also using those words with your own definitions that you cooked up?

So, for instance, when you say "exposes an interventionist foreign policy," does that mean "has gray hair"? And so on? It would seem that following that approach to language would make communication difficult.

[erowe1]

Well, my understanding is neoconservatism is explicitly defined as an interventionist foreign policy. They are generally "ok" with the welfare state, but not a requirement.

So every president of both parties since Teddy Roosevelt was a neocon?

[specsaregood]

So every president of both parties since Teddy Roosevelt was a neocon?
No. Sorry, they have also proclaim to be conservative domestically or for limited government. Think Demint and others like him.

I think the confusion lies in that most that support a intervention also have grown to support big govt at home. In truth there are very few neocons or conservatives left, really just different flavors of liberals.

[FrankRep]

I get how Buckley is not liked in JBS. But why label him a neoconservative? The way that label gets tossed around it doesn't even mean anything any more.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51MYK7YGZ5L._SL500_AA240_.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/William-F-Buckley-Jr-Establishment/dp/1881919064

William F. Buckley, Jr.: Pied Piper for the Establishment
John F. McManus, JBS President





William F. Buckley Jr.: the Establishment’s “House Conservative” (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/457-william-f-buckley-jr-the-establishments-house-conservative)


Warren Mass | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
14 March 2008


The New York Times noted in observing Buckley's passing: "Mr. Buckley's greatest achievement was making conservatism — not just electoral Republicanism, but conservatism as a system of ideas — respectable in liberal postwar America. He mobilized the young enthusiasts who helped nominate Mr. Goldwater in 1964 and saw his dreams fulfilled when Mr. Reagan and the Bushes captured the Oval Office." (Emphasis added.)

As one of the leading organs of the Eastern Liberal Establishment, the Times unquestionably played a key role in granting Buckley the keys to the kingdom of "respectability" (whatever that means in contemporary society) by which he might possess the power to admit (or deny) an entire political spectrum passage through the pearly gates guarded by alumni of Ivy League universities and members of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations.

In so doing, however, it can be documented that rather than fit the traditional conservative square peg into the round hole of establishment "respectability," Buckley whittled away at traditional, "square" conservatism until it was divested of any resemblance of its former self. Buckley very competently performed the task assigned to him by his mentors (most notably his Trotskyite socialist Yale Professor Willmoore Kendall, a veteran of the OSS, which later became the CIA), of slicing from the conservative timber anyone who persisted in espousing traditional "Old Right" conservative values. These conservatives "excommunicated" (or simply repulsed) by Buckley included: Professor Medford Evans, who appeared on Buckley's National Review magazine's inaugural masthead; Henry Paolucci, a leader of the Conservative Party of New York State; economist Murray Rothbard, who was an early National Review contributor; Ralph de Toledano, an early National Review editor; and Daniel Oliver, a National Review executive editor.

But dwarfing all of these slights was Buckley's unprovoked and uncivil attack on the man who had done more than any other individual in the 1950s to marshal confused and leaderless conservatives around a singular standard — Robert Welch, the founder of The John Birch Society.

That this schism among conservatives was completely instigated by Buckley is indicated by Welch's high praise for Buckley's magazine at the 1958 founding meeting of The John Birch Society, when Welch told his associates: "I think that National Review especially, because it is aimed so professionally at the academic mind, should be in every college library in the United States…." And in the JBS membership Bulletin for May 1960, Welch encouraged members to write to Captain Edward Rickenbacker, then Chairman of Eastern Airlines, urging that both Human Events and National Review be placed on the airline's planes.

Despite Welch's longtime support of Buckley and his magazine, however, in early 1962 Buckley gathered his editorial staff to plan an attack on America's leading conservative, anti-communist leader. Starting with a six-page editorial entitled "The Question of Robert Welch," Buckley was unrelenting in his attack on The John Birch Society for the remainder of his life.

An excerpt from Buckley's forthcoming book, Flying High: Remembering Barry Goldwater, entitled, "Goldwater, the John Birch Society, and Me (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/Goldwater--the-John-Birch-Society--and-Me-11248)" was published in the March 2008 issue of Commentary magazine, which openly calls itself "the flagship of neoconservatism."

The article is a candid description of Buckley's meeting with members of Senator Barry Goldwater's pre-presidential exploratory campaign team in 1962, and of National Review staffer Russell Kirk's attempts to get Goldwater to renounce The John Birch Society. The very liberal New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller had urged Goldwater to do the same, and, for his efforts, was almost drowned out at the podium at the 1964 Republican Convention by a hearty chorus of boos coming from the galleries! To his credit, Senator Goldwater delivered his famous "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" speech, largely as a rebuke to Rockefeller.

Though the Times now credits Buckley for the conditions making Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential nomination possible, it was Robert Welch and The John Birch Society that did the spadework that made that happen, and Senator Goldwater knew it. Buckley talked like a conservative, but his neocon philsophy was much closer to Rockefeller's than to Goldwater's.

Neoconservatism Explained

It is impossible to understand William F. Buckley without understanding what neoconservatism is. Those laboring with that handicap were apt to be taken in, as this writer once was, by Buckley's charm, wit, and ability to crush liberal opponents in debates. A case in point is an article headlined "Buckley's Catholic Legacy," in the National Catholic Register of March 9.

The Register is a newspaper I read faithfully, and, I rarely have reason to disagree with its generally conservative Catholic reporting. However, the author of this article, Father Raymond J. De Souza, stopped only a little short of proclaiming Buckley as the greatest American Catholic since Charles Carroll of Carrollton, the sole Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence. It is entirely possible that Father De Souza, a Canadian, simply does not fully understand U.S. politics, and the difference between historic American conservatism and neoconservatism. (Very likely, 98 percent of Americans do not understand the difference!) Much is explained, however, as De Souza describes in a sidebar ("My Encounter With Mr. Buckley") how the late journalist, in appreciation for the priest-writer's favorable review of Buckley's autobiography, Nearer, My God, once treated him to lunch at Paone's, an Italian restaurant located near National Review’s Manhattan offices.

Having been subjected at such close range to the legendary Buckley charm, it is perhaps understandable that Father De Souza failed — as have so many others — to see through the late journalist's façade and realize that the man was an imposter as a conservative, and a poor representative of his professed faith, as well. Explaining the latter point first, during his career Buckley submitted to interviews with Playboy magazine, and allowed excerpts from his works to be published in both Playboy and Penthouse; he allowed National Review to publish several articles defending "gay rights," and as early as March 1966, several years before Roe v Wade, he wrote that "the Catholic Church should reconsider its position" on laws prohibiting abortion. In a footnote in Nearer, My God that Father De Souza must have overlooked in rendering his favorable review of the book, Buckley wrote, in a tone far too flippant for such a critical subject: "The demand to baptize abortion is very rare, the general position among Catholic dissenters being that those who abort, or collude in bringing about an abortion, are yes sinners, but so is your old man."

De Souza misses this point completely by describing Buckley as "staunchly pro-life," when, in reality, the man was as wishy-washy on the matter of life as is John McCain.

As far as Buckley's well-touted "conservatism" goes, De Souza accepts at face value what all those who have not fully investigated the man accept, and parrots the establishment's designation of Buckley as the "father of the modern conservative movement." His most egregious misstatement, perhaps, is his claim:



In founding his magazine, National Review, in 1955, he fashioned a new conservative movement, "excommunicating" the isolationists and nativists and extremists (he broke with Joe McCarthy) that had previously dominated American conservative thought.


The fact of the matter is that Buckley, far from being the father of anything resembling true conservatism (as best exemplified by Senator Robert Taft, who was denied the Republican nomination in 1952 by Buckley's philosophical brethren), was merely a very capable quarterback for a team of neoconservatives (neocons) who had graduated from the World War II-era OSS into the CIA, bringing their anti-Stalinist, but definitely Trotskyite (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j061303.html), ideas with them. The repackaging of this anti-American philosophy as "neoconservatism" rivaled any campaign Madison Avenue ever concocted for a "new" detergent that would get your clothes whiter and brighter.

The original OSS/CIA neocons, including the aforementioned Willmoore Kendall, spotted young Bill Buckley when he was on the staff of the Yale Daily News, and tagged him as a likely rising star of their movement. (Buckley, of course, was also tapped to join the secretive Skull and Bones society while at Yale, as had both presidents Bush and Senator John Kerry.) At Kendall's urging, Buckley joined the CIA after graduating from Yale. Through Kendall, Buckley became acquainted with James Burnham, another OSS/CIA veteran who would become a prominent figure at National Review. So strong was the CIA connection that the brilliant economist and former contributor to Buckley's magazine, Murray Rothbard, said in 1981: "I'm convinced that the whole National Review is a CIA operation."

There is much more that must be considered to fully comprehend William F. Buckley, the star quarterback of the neoconservative movement. Those who are interested in learning "the rest of the story" are encouraged to read William F. Buckley, Jr., Pied Piper for the Establishment (http://www.amazon.com/William-F-Buckley-Jr-Establishment/dp/1881919064), by John F. McManus.


SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/457-william-f-buckley-jr-the-establishments-house-conservative

[FrankRep]

Pragmatists? Neoconservatives? What's the Difference? (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/744-pragmatists-neoconservatives-whats-the-difference)


Warren Mass | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
14 April 2008


According to the April 10 New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/us/politics/10mccain.html?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin), "one component of the fractious Republican Party foreign policy establishment — the so-called pragmatists, some of whom have come to view the Iraq war or its execution as a mistake — is expressing concern that Mr. McCain might be coming under increased influence from a competing camp, the neoconservatives, whose thinking dominated President Bush's first term and played a pivotal role in building the case for war." A book could be written about this fascinating Times article with its revelation of an alleged major policy schism within the Republican Party between two factions described as "pragmatists" and "neoconservatives" — often called "neocons," for short.

Also interesting is the plethora of members of the elite, internationalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) referenced in the article — as if they are expert witnesses — including Robert Kagan, John R. Bolton, Lawrence Eagleburger, Colin L. Powell, Brent Scowcroft, Henry A, Kissinger, George P. Shultz, Joseph I. Lieberman, Philip D. Zelikow, Condoleezza Rice, and, lest we forget, John McCain, himself.

Despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that the Times and the CFR have shared many helmsmen over the years (e.g., CFR President Emeritus Leslie Gelb was a former Times columnist and a number of Times editors, including the late C. L. Sulzberger of the Sulzberger family which has owned the newspaper for generations, have been CFR members), the writers did not think it significant enough to mention that 11 people cited in the article as key U.S. foreign policy experts all share membership in an organization that has only about 4,300 members.

The CFR matter aside, it is interesting that the two sides in the foreign policy debate among Republicans are labeled "pragmatists" (also called "realists") and "neoconservatives." The former camp includes former secretaries of state Eagleburger,* Powell,* Kissinger,* and Shultz,* former deputy secretary of state Armitage, and national security advisor to the first President Bush, Brent Scowcroft*. Listed among the latter (neocons) are McCain speechwriter Robert Kagan*, security analyst Max Boot, former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton*, and McCain’s chief foreign policy aide, Randy Scheunemann. (CFR members are designated by asterisks.)

The thrust of the article is that those individuals identified as "pragmatists" or "realists" (a common definition of the two terms suggests that these individuals are concerned with observable practical consequences) are concerned that those labeled "neoconservatives" (more about that in a minute) will have undue influence on John McCain's future policies, particularly his willingness to hold the line on the Bush Administration's stance on the war in Iraq. The Times noted: "As an unwavering supporter of the Iraq war, [McCain] is closely associated with the issue that is most clearly identified with the neoconservatives, even though he often criticized Mr. Bush's execution of the war."

The first point to consider is whether there really are two opposing philosophical views among the Republican Party's most influential figures, or — as is more likely — the debate is not about if a President McCain should continue current U.S. policy in Iraq, but how. For example, the Times noted "While Mr. Powell and Mr. Armitage supported Mr. Bush's decision to invade Iraq while they were in office, they have become critics of the management of the war."

Another interesting quote, from identified neoconservative Robert Kagan — who, in addition to sharing McCain's CFR membership is a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace — seemed to dismiss the major GOP schism implied by the Times' writers:



I would say [McCain's] world view is so established that there is not a real battle going on. A struggle over individual policies I could imagine, but the broad view, no. People would agree on what McCain thinks. This is not one of those situations like Bush all over again, with some titanic struggle going on between different factions.


We figured as much.

The second matter to think about is: Since all of the heavy hitters in the Republican Party are on the same team, and their main differences seem to be over when to bunt and when to swing for the fences, what about all these terms being bandied about: terms like pragmatist, realist, and neoconservative?

If we stick to basic dictionary definitions of the first two terms, we learn that a pragmatist is distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences, and that a realist is a person concerned with real things and practical matters rather than those that are imaginary or visionary (which would make the person an idealist). And yet, Kagan (who is counted among the neocons, remember?) helped write McCain's foreign policy speech, in which the Arizona senator described himself as "a realistic idealist." (Is that anything like a "compassionate conservative," one wonders?)

As for neoconservatism, it would take a book to trace the history of that movement, and fortunately, an excellent book tracing not only the neocon movement, but its most prominent spokesman for over five decades, was written by The John Birch Society's current president, John F. McManus. It is titled: William F. Buckley, Jr.: Pied Piper for the Establishment (http://www.amazon.com/William-F-Buckley-Jr-Establishment/dp/1881919064).

However, to summarize what neoconservatism is and what it is not, it is not traditional conservatism wrapped up in a slick new package (stamped "New and Improved") for marketing purposes. Instead, it has more in common with the 1982 Tylenol product-tampering incident, in which seven people in the Chicago died after ingesting Extra Strength Tylenol medicine capsules which had been laced with potassium cyanide poison. To the observer, the packaging looked the same, but the product had been tampered with, delivering a pernicious dose.

To greatly condense the origins of the neocon movement, it began during World War II within the OSS (the wartime predecessor to the CIA), an agency that had admitted many Trotskyite socialists into its ranks. Several OSS/CIA veterans (including Yale professor Willmoore Kendall, who became a founder and senior editor of National Review) came to have great influence over William F. Buckley, who became the movement's mouthpiece for generations. As John McManus told a meeting of the Robert Welch Club on June 30, 2001, in Appleton, Wisconsin:



A major problem in America is that these neocons have taken over the conservative wing of the Republican party. And they have succeeded in doing so to the degree that the word “conservative” is now being applied to individuals and ideas that are, in fact, liberal (in the leftist sense), socialist, and totally undeserving of the conservative label. It pains me when someone describes himself to me as a conservative. It pains me even more when that label is applied to me. I’ve actually adopted a policy of asking that I at least be called a “constitutional conservative.” That separates me from the so-called conservatism of most leading Republicans — which has really become neoconservatism.


The debate between so-called pragmatist-realists and so-called neoconservatives is as phony as a professional wrestling match. While it is true that such individuals view the world "as it is," the world is in such a state only because these individuals and their CFR-connected predecessors in both major parties, who have dominated U.S. policy for least 70 years, have made it so.

In trying to identify any meaningful difference between the pragmatists and the neoconservatives, we cannot find any. The Republican Party leadership long ago abandoned the idealistic principles that guided presidents Abraham Lincoln through Calvin Coolidge. The Times writers also call the pragmatists "realists," but their realism is limited only to the sphere of political expediency. This discussion would be much more meaningful if we recognize that the so-called neoconservatives are really neopragmatists.

The true realist-idealists were our Founding Fathers, men like Jefferson, who were realistic enough to understand the dangers of giving too much power to government and idealistic enough to express ideas like "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as part of a remedy to check the excesses of centralized government.

At one time, true conservatives existed — men like Rep. Charles Lindbergh, Sr., who fought against the establishment of the Federal Reserve System, and his courageous son, Charles Lindbergh, Jr., who tried in vain to stop the United States from entering World War II. Texas Representative Martin Dies, Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy, and Ohio Senator Robert Taft, were among the last of a dying breed that opposed totalitarianism in every form, and who also put America's best interests first.

Their influence died not of natural causes, however, but because the Fabian socialists in the Democratic Party and the neoconservatives (also socialists, though less honest about their objectives than their Democratic counterparts) in the Republican Party used every type of treachery to destroy them and what they stood for.

The philosophy espoused by the "old-time" conservatives still exists, but the name conservative has been sullied by the neocons. The most apt description for those who oppose big government and foreign interventionism today is "constitutionalist," a label only a very few politicians wear proudly.


SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/744-pragmatists-neoconservatives-whats-the-difference

[heavenlyboy34]

those Buckley-ism articles are good, but if you post something about Irving Kristol, it would be more clear for the fellow above who doesn't understand neoconservatism, IMHO.

[Cowlesy]

Some of the main thrusts that drive "neoconservatism" can be found here.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=219142&highlight=on+neoconservatism

[constituent]

"not it!"

[erowe1]

No. Sorry, they have also proclaim to be conservative domestically or for limited government. Think Demint and others like him.

I think the confusion lies in that most that support a intervention also have grown to support big govt at home. In truth there are very few neocons or conservatives left, really just different flavors of liberals.

I still don't think that's a good definition. Demint is defintely not the prototypical neocon.

At the very least, the most essential part of a definition of neoconservatism is it's advocacy of transforming other nations into democracies. That might not be a sufficient definition, but it's definitely a requirement. If you don't have that, you don't have a neoconservative. So Reagan's support for Hussein and other foreign despots, while interventionist, was very markedly anti-neoconservative.

In the Bush years, the hallmark of neoconservatism was the Iraq War, and not just the war itself, but the plan to install a democracy there afterwards. I don't know what earlier leanings toward neoconservatism Buckley had, but he definitely was vocally against the Iraq War and especially the nation building aspect of it.

[erowe1]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51MYK7YGZ5L._SL500_AA240_.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/William-F-Buckley-Jr-Establishment/dp/1881919064

William F. Buckley, Jr.: Pied Piper for the Establishment
John F. McManus, JBS President





William F. Buckley Jr.: the Establishment’s “House Conservative” (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/457-william-f-buckley-jr-the-establishments-house-conservative)

Warren Mass | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
14 March 2008


The New York Times noted in observing Buckley's passing: "Mr. Buckley's greatest achievement was making conservatism — not just electoral Republicanism, but conservatism as a system of ideas — respectable in liberal postwar America. He mobilized the young enthusiasts who helped nominate Mr. Goldwater in 1964 and saw his dreams fulfilled when Mr. Reagan and the Bushes captured the Oval Office." (Emphasis added.)

As one of the leading organs of the Eastern Liberal Establishment, the Times unquestionably played a key role in granting Buckley the keys to the kingdom of "respectability" (whatever that means in contemporary society) by which he might possess the power to admit (or deny) an entire political spectrum passage through the pearly gates guarded by alumni of Ivy League universities and members of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations.

In so doing, however, it can be documented that rather than fit the traditional conservative square peg into the round hole of establishment "respectability," Buckley whittled away at traditional, "square" conservatism until it was divested of any resemblance of its former self. Buckley very competently performed the task assigned to him by his mentors (most notably his Trotskyite socialist Yale Professor Willmoore Kendall, a veteran of the OSS, which later became the CIA), of slicing from the conservative timber anyone who persisted in espousing traditional "Old Right" conservative values. These conservatives "excommunicated" (or simply repulsed) by Buckley included: Professor Medford Evans, who appeared on Buckley's National Review magazine's inaugural masthead; Henry Paolucci, a leader of the Conservative Party of New York State; economist Murray Rothbard, who was an early National Review contributor; Ralph de Toledano, an early National Review editor; and Daniel Oliver, a National Review executive editor.

But dwarfing all of these slights was Buckley's unprovoked and uncivil attack on the man who had done more than any other individual in the 1950s to marshal confused and leaderless conservatives around a singular standard — Robert Welch, the founder of The John Birch Society.

That this schism among conservatives was completely instigated by Buckley is indicated by Welch's high praise for Buckley's magazine at the 1958 founding meeting of The John Birch Society, when Welch told his associates: "I think that National Review especially, because it is aimed so professionally at the academic mind, should be in every college library in the United States…." And in the JBS membership Bulletin for May 1960, Welch encouraged members to write to Captain Edward Rickenbacker, then Chairman of Eastern Airlines, urging that both Human Events and National Review be placed on the airline's planes.

Despite Welch's longtime support of Buckley and his magazine, however, in early 1962 Buckley gathered his editorial staff to plan an attack on America's leading conservative, anti-communist leader. Starting with a six-page editorial entitled "The Question of Robert Welch," Buckley was unrelenting in his attack on The John Birch Society for the remainder of his life.

An excerpt from Buckley's forthcoming book, Flying High: Remembering Barry Goldwater, entitled, "Goldwater, the John Birch Society, and Me (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/Goldwater--the-John-Birch-Society--and-Me-11248)" was published in the March 2008 issue of Commentary magazine, which openly calls itself "the flagship of neoconservatism."

The article is a candid description of Buckley's meeting with members of Senator Barry Goldwater's pre-presidential exploratory campaign team in 1962, and of National Review staffer Russell Kirk's attempts to get Goldwater to renounce The John Birch Society. The very liberal New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller had urged Goldwater to do the same, and, for his efforts, was almost drowned out at the podium at the 1964 Republican Convention by a hearty chorus of boos coming from the galleries! To his credit, Senator Goldwater delivered his famous "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" speech, largely as a rebuke to Rockefeller.

Though the Times now credits Buckley for the conditions making Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential nomination possible, it was Robert Welch and The John Birch Society that did the spadework that made that happen, and Senator Goldwater knew it. Buckley talked like a conservative, but his neocon philsophy was much closer to Rockefeller's than to Goldwater's.

Neoconservatism Explained

It is impossible to understand William F. Buckley without understanding what neoconservatism is. Those laboring with that handicap were apt to be taken in, as this writer once was, by Buckley's charm, wit, and ability to crush liberal opponents in debates. A case in point is an article headlined "Buckley's Catholic Legacy," in the National Catholic Register of March 9.

The Register is a newspaper I read faithfully, and, I rarely have reason to disagree with its generally conservative Catholic reporting. However, the author of this article, Father Raymond J. De Souza, stopped only a little short of proclaiming Buckley as the greatest American Catholic since Charles Carroll of Carrollton, the sole Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence. It is entirely possible that Father De Souza, a Canadian, simply does not fully understand U.S. politics, and the difference between historic American conservatism and neoconservatism. (Very likely, 98 percent of Americans do not understand the difference!) Much is explained, however, as De Souza describes in a sidebar ("My Encounter With Mr. Buckley") how the late journalist, in appreciation for the priest-writer's favorable review of Buckley's autobiography, Nearer, My God, once treated him to lunch at Paone's, an Italian restaurant located near National Review’s Manhattan offices.

Having been subjected at such close range to the legendary Buckley charm, it is perhaps understandable that Father De Souza failed — as have so many others — to see through the late journalist's façade and realize that the man was an imposter as a conservative, and a poor representative of his professed faith, as well. Explaining the latter point first, during his career Buckley submitted to interviews with Playboy magazine, and allowed excerpts from his works to be published in both Playboy and Penthouse; he allowed National Review to publish several articles defending "gay rights," and as early as March 1966, several years before Roe v Wade, he wrote that "the Catholic Church should reconsider its position" on laws prohibiting abortion. In a footnote in Nearer, My God that Father De Souza must have overlooked in rendering his favorable review of the book, Buckley wrote, in a tone far too flippant for such a critical subject: "The demand to baptize abortion is very rare, the general position among Catholic dissenters being that those who abort, or collude in bringing about an abortion, are yes sinners, but so is your old man."

De Souza misses this point completely by describing Buckley as "staunchly pro-life," when, in reality, the man was as wishy-washy on the matter of life as is John McCain.

As far as Buckley's well-touted "conservatism" goes, De Souza accepts at face value what all those who have not fully investigated the man accept, and parrots the establishment's designation of Buckley as the "father of the modern conservative movement." His most egregious misstatement, perhaps, is his claim:



In founding his magazine, National Review, in 1955, he fashioned a new conservative movement, "excommunicating" the isolationists and nativists and extremists (he broke with Joe McCarthy) that had previously dominated American conservative thought.


The fact of the matter is that Buckley, far from being the father of anything resembling true conservatism (as best exemplified by Senator Robert Taft, who was denied the Republican nomination in 1952 by Buckley's philosophical brethren), was merely a very capable quarterback for a team of neoconservatives (neocons) who had graduated from the World War II-era OSS into the CIA, bringing their anti-Stalinist, but definitely Trotskyite (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j061303.html), ideas with them. The repackaging of this anti-American philosophy as "neoconservatism" rivaled any campaign Madison Avenue ever concocted for a "new" detergent that would get your clothes whiter and brighter.

The original OSS/CIA neocons, including the aforementioned Willmoore Kendall, spotted young Bill Buckley when he was on the staff of the Yale Daily News, and tagged him as a likely rising star of their movement. (Buckley, of course, was also tapped to join the secretive Skull and Bones society while at Yale, as had both presidents Bush and Senator John Kerry.) At Kendall's urging, Buckley joined the CIA after graduating from Yale. Through Kendall, Buckley became acquainted with James Burnham, another OSS/CIA veteran who would become a prominent figure at National Review. So strong was the CIA connection that the brilliant economist and former contributor to Buckley's magazine, Murray Rothbard, said in 1981: "I'm convinced that the whole National Review is a CIA operation."

There is much more that must be considered to fully comprehend William F. Buckley, the star quarterback of the neoconservative movement. Those who are interested in learning "the rest of the story" are encouraged to read William F. Buckley, Jr., Pied Piper for the Establishment (http://www.amazon.com/William-F-Buckley-Jr-Establishment/dp/1881919064), by John F. McManus.


SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/457-william-f-buckley-jr-the-establishments-house-conservative

I'm sorry. But, while that's a good article for showing some of Buckley's faults, it's terrible for showing him to be a neocon. The section entitled "Neoconservatism Explained" does not come anywhere close to explaining neoconservatism. And in fact, it appears that the author himself uses the word as indiscriminately as the typical Ron Paul supporter does.

[erowe1]

As for neoconservatism, it would take a book to trace the history of that movement, and fortunately, an excellent book tracing not only the neocon movement, but its most prominent spokesman for over five decades, was written by The John Birch Society's current president, John F. McManus. It is titled: William F. Buckley, Jr.: Pied Piper for the Establishment (http://www.amazon.com/William-F-Buckley-Jr-Establishment/dp/1881919064).


Again, this is just carelessness. Where does the author of this article get the idea that Buckley was the most prominent spokesman for the neoconservative movement? Do any actual genuine self-professed neoconservatives think that?

If he objects to using all those different labels, such as neoconservative and pragmatist, to divide up the factions of the GOP, because he considers the differences between them trivial and prefers to treat them as one great monolith, then that's fine, I can see that. But then once he's made that move, he shouldn't go on to take one of the labels of one of those divisions, such as the label "neoconservative" and apply it to the whole monolith, to encompass all the other subgroups that that label doesn't normally include.

[specsaregood]

I still don't think that's a good definition. Demint is defintely not the prototypical neocon.

At the very least, the most essential part of a definition of neoconservatism is it's advocacy of transforming other nations into democracies. That might not be a sufficient definition, but it's definitely a requirement. If you don't have that, you don't have a neoconservative. So Reagan's support for Hussein and other foreign despots, while interventionist, was very markedly anti-neoconservative.

In the Bush years, the hallmark of neoconservatism was the Iraq War, and not just the war itself, but the plan to install a democracy there afterwards. I don't know what earlier leanings toward neoconservatism Buckley had, but he definitely was vocally against the Iraq War and especially the nation building aspect of it.

Have you read the wiki article on it yet? That might be a good starting point to discuss the proper definition. It does agree with your points about general interventionism vs. neoconservative interventionism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism



Neoconservatism is a right-wing political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries.[1][2][3] Consequently the term is chiefly applicable to certain Americans and their strong supporters. In economics, unlike paleoconservatives and libertarians, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.[4]

The term neoconservative was used at one time as a criticism against proponents of American modern liberalism who had "moved to the right".[5][6] Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the current sense of the term neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy.[7] According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about."[8] The term "neoconservative" was the subject of increased media coverage during the presidency of George W. Bush.[9][10] with particular focus on a perceived neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of the Bush Doctrine.[11] The term neocon is often used as pejorative in this context.

The first major neoconservative to embrace the term, Irving Kristol, was considered a founder of the neoconservative movement. Kristol wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'"[5] His ideas have been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.[12] Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy".[13][14] Kristol's son, William Kristol, founded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century.

[FrankRep]

I'm sorry. But, while that's a good article for showing some of Buckley's faults, it's terrible for showing him to be a neocon. The section entitled "Neoconservatism Explained" does not come anywhere close to explaining neoconservatism. And in fact, it appears that the author himself uses the word as indiscriminately as the typical Ron Paul supporter does.


A Profile of William F. Buckley Jr. (http://usconservatives.about.com/od/champions/p/BuckleyProfile.htm)

About.com


Death:

On Feb. 27, 2008, Buckley died at his desk, reportedly from complications of diabetes and emphysema. His contributions as a conservative commentator, writer and editor are unparalled in modern journalism. According to his friend and fellow writer, Paul Gottfried, Buckley spent much of his life as a neoconservative, but died a paleocon.

[erowe1]

Have you read the wiki article on it yet? That might be a good starting point to discuss the proper definition. It does agree with your points about general interventionism vs. neoconservative interventionism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Yes, I have. I agree that it's a pretty good source. But if you've read it, how could you accept the definition of neocon that you gave above, when that definition isn't supported in that wiki article? It says pretty much what I've been saying here. The very first line even states exactly as I did that supporting democracies in foreign countries is an essential part of neoconservatism.

[specsaregood]

Yes, I have. I agree that it's a pretty good source. But if you've read it, how could you accept the definition of neocon that you gave above, when that definition isn't supported in that wiki article? It says pretty much what I've been saying here.

Well I did say it agreed with you. :) I hadn't read that article in at least a year. I don't think I was that far off with my definition though.

[erowe1]

Well I did say it agreed with you. :) I hadn't read that article in at least a year. I don't think I was that far off with my definition though.

OK. I don't think you were far off. But it's not just intervention alone that defines them, it's a particular kind of intervention. Like I mentioned, Reagan's support for Hussein was diametrically opposed to neoconservatism, but it was still foreign intervention.

[specsaregood]

OK. I don't think you were far off. But it's not just intervention alone that defines them, it's a particular kind of intervention. Like I mentioned, Reagan's support for Hussein was diametrically opposed to neoconservatism, but it was still foreign intervention.

I think you are correct in that neocon is much too broadly used. But I think the problem is that statists in general support all kinds of interventionism and they just push the democracy building intervention type because it is easier to sell to the masses because they think that makes it moral and those same people support domestic statism so they all get lumped together.

[erowe1]

A Profile of William F. Buckley Jr. (http://usconservatives.about.com/od/champions/p/BuckleyProfile.htm)

About.com


Death:

On Feb. 27, 2008, Buckley died at his desk, reportedly from complications of diabetes and emphysema. His contributions as a conservative commentator, writer and editor are unparalled in modern journalism. According to his friend and fellow writer, Paul Gottfried, Buckley spent much of his life as a neoconservative, but died a paleocon.

That's an interesting quote. I like Gottfried. It looks like it came from this interview (although he could have said similar things more than once).
http://usconservatives.about.com/od/thinkersanddoers/a/GottfriedStory.htm

If so, he was actually even more nuanced in defining Buckley:

“Buckley started out as a paleocon,” he said. “But he became a trophy to the neocons. He was a brutal writer, a great stylist, but he marginalized the rest of us. He threw us to the wolves.”

A few months before his death, however, Gottfried said Buckley appeared to have a change of heart.

“Just before he died, he attacked the neocons for the war in Iraq,” he said. “He called it a ‘War of choice.’ It created tremendous bitterness among the neocons and they denounced him as a paleocon. So Buckley died a paleocon.”

[catdd]

I've made it my life's work to remove the Neocon influence that has infected the Republican Party and to do everything within my power to help return the GOP to it's original platform.
That is my passion. Some people specialize in auditing the fed, some 9/11, some getting elected to office; but I see Neocons as the greatest threat to world peace and the well being of our country, and I will do whatever it takes to wreck their agenda.