LibertyEagle
09-08-2015, 03:46 PM
Conservatives, Neoconservatives and Constitutionalists
John F. McManus, John Birch Society President
August 2010
Early members of The John Birch Society commonly labeled their own and the Society’s political preference as “conservative.” These doughty Americans were opposed to government controls, the United Nations, and anything that smacked of communism. Occasionally, someone with a bit of history under his belt would interject that liberals of the 19th Century were the equivalent of conservatives in the 20th. True enough, but “So what!’ was the frequent rejoinder. It had already become obvious that the terms conservative and liberal weren’t defined with any precision.
Jump ahead 20-30 years and JBS members found themselves being lumped together with so-called conservatives who were advocating bigger government and foreign interventionism. Mercifully, some prominent promoters of these very un-conservative views adopted the term “neoconservative” for themselves. The most prominent of the neocons, journalist Irving Kristol, reveled in being characterized as “the godfather of Neoconservatism,” a title he richly deserved.
Irving Kristol took delight in being characterized as “the godfather of Neoconservatism.”
Kristol spelled out neocon belief in his 1995 opus Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea. He said that it squared with Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” and wanted nothing to do with “the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism.” There you have the definition of neoconservatism: socialism and internationalism. Kristol went so far as to candidly admit, “I regard myself as lucky to have been a young Trotskyite and I have not a single bitter memory.” The partner of Lenin in communizing Russia, Trotsky later fell into disfavor for backing the slower route to deadly totalitarianism. If one accepts Kristol’s definition, and there is no reason not to do so, Trotsky was the first neoconservative.
Though few knew for many years, William Buckley actually preceded Kristol as a neocon, although he postured as a conservative while leading many otherwise patriotic Americans into the neocon swamp. In 1952 while working in “deep cover” (his term) for the CIA in Mexico, Buckley penned an article in the Catholic periodical Commonweal in which he called for “Big Government for the duration,” “a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores,” “large armies and air forces,” and “the attendant centralization of power in Washington.” No neocon ever said it more clearly.
Buckley, of course, is still lauded by unthinking conservatives, especially for his incessant and dishonest castigation of The John Birch Society. If he is the epitome of conservatism, JBS members of the 21st Century want nothing to do with it. Which is why the term “constitutionalist” has been adopted. Unlike conservative or liberal, constitutionalist can be defined. And it can’t be shifted into backing tomorrow what it rejected yesterday. The mass media may refer to the two Bush presidents, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, William Kristol and a host of others as “conservatives” but even these propaganda organs wouldn’t call them constitutionalists.
The Constitution is defined. Conservatism is not. Neoconservatism has taken conservatism’s place and, while we emphatically disagree with what Irving Kristol wanted for America, we can at least thank him for his honest definition. Not so with Bill Buckley who bared his real beliefs in 1952 but then dishonestly postured as America’s premier defender for decades.
Today’s neocon favors the United Nations, undeclared wars, a form of socialism slightly milder than what is offered by Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, steps toward world government such as phony free trade agreements, open borders, and a Supreme Court peopled by justices who will “interpret” rather than obey the U.S. Constitution. It is increasingly obvious that Americans are discovering (some are re-discovering) the Constitution. There’s hope for the future there. Let’s do all we can to spread awareness of the worth and the need to enforce the “supreme law of the land.”
John Birch Society
http://www.jbs.org/
John F. McManus, John Birch Society President
August 2010
Early members of The John Birch Society commonly labeled their own and the Society’s political preference as “conservative.” These doughty Americans were opposed to government controls, the United Nations, and anything that smacked of communism. Occasionally, someone with a bit of history under his belt would interject that liberals of the 19th Century were the equivalent of conservatives in the 20th. True enough, but “So what!’ was the frequent rejoinder. It had already become obvious that the terms conservative and liberal weren’t defined with any precision.
Jump ahead 20-30 years and JBS members found themselves being lumped together with so-called conservatives who were advocating bigger government and foreign interventionism. Mercifully, some prominent promoters of these very un-conservative views adopted the term “neoconservative” for themselves. The most prominent of the neocons, journalist Irving Kristol, reveled in being characterized as “the godfather of Neoconservatism,” a title he richly deserved.
Irving Kristol took delight in being characterized as “the godfather of Neoconservatism.”
Kristol spelled out neocon belief in his 1995 opus Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea. He said that it squared with Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” and wanted nothing to do with “the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism.” There you have the definition of neoconservatism: socialism and internationalism. Kristol went so far as to candidly admit, “I regard myself as lucky to have been a young Trotskyite and I have not a single bitter memory.” The partner of Lenin in communizing Russia, Trotsky later fell into disfavor for backing the slower route to deadly totalitarianism. If one accepts Kristol’s definition, and there is no reason not to do so, Trotsky was the first neoconservative.
Though few knew for many years, William Buckley actually preceded Kristol as a neocon, although he postured as a conservative while leading many otherwise patriotic Americans into the neocon swamp. In 1952 while working in “deep cover” (his term) for the CIA in Mexico, Buckley penned an article in the Catholic periodical Commonweal in which he called for “Big Government for the duration,” “a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores,” “large armies and air forces,” and “the attendant centralization of power in Washington.” No neocon ever said it more clearly.
Buckley, of course, is still lauded by unthinking conservatives, especially for his incessant and dishonest castigation of The John Birch Society. If he is the epitome of conservatism, JBS members of the 21st Century want nothing to do with it. Which is why the term “constitutionalist” has been adopted. Unlike conservative or liberal, constitutionalist can be defined. And it can’t be shifted into backing tomorrow what it rejected yesterday. The mass media may refer to the two Bush presidents, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, William Kristol and a host of others as “conservatives” but even these propaganda organs wouldn’t call them constitutionalists.
The Constitution is defined. Conservatism is not. Neoconservatism has taken conservatism’s place and, while we emphatically disagree with what Irving Kristol wanted for America, we can at least thank him for his honest definition. Not so with Bill Buckley who bared his real beliefs in 1952 but then dishonestly postured as America’s premier defender for decades.
Today’s neocon favors the United Nations, undeclared wars, a form of socialism slightly milder than what is offered by Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, steps toward world government such as phony free trade agreements, open borders, and a Supreme Court peopled by justices who will “interpret” rather than obey the U.S. Constitution. It is increasingly obvious that Americans are discovering (some are re-discovering) the Constitution. There’s hope for the future there. Let’s do all we can to spread awareness of the worth and the need to enforce the “supreme law of the land.”
John Birch Society
http://www.jbs.org/