PDA

View Full Version : "National Conservatism" Conference has mostly neo-con panelists on Foreign Policy




Libertea Party
07-14-2019, 03:09 PM
There's some buzz (https://www.dailywire.com/news/48154/hammer-national-conservatism-conference-2019s-most-josh-hammer)around this event. I might have issues with the "National Conservatism" approach but I didn't think foreign policy would be one of the bigger ones. This looks like neocons co-opting the Trump/Buchanan line on foreign policy issues.

Despite Tucker's and Thiel's presence it has the feel of a MEK (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/giulianis-cuckoo-praise-for-the-mek/) or CUFI (http://support.cufi.org/site/PageServer?pagename=2019Summit_Register#speakers) get together for the foreign policy discussions. This will make it a hat trick for John Bolton and Cliff May (MEK, CUFI, National Conservatism).

I could be wrong but from a quick search most of the foreign policy panelists (highlighted below) are AEI/Hudson/Manhattan Institute drones. There are some solid names associated with The American Conservative (Daniel McCarthy, Scott McConnell, etc) but they are pigeon holed and sequestered into the non-foreign policy sessions.

Looks like just an extension of the neo-con strategy of co-opting and agitating domestic groups to support their insane foreign policy. Instead of Christian evangelists and Iranian exiles it's Trump/Buchanan "nationalist" types. I hope Tucker, McCarthy, etc get the chance to rebut their propaganda or better yet their audience is non-existent simply due to lack of interest.

Pretty annoying since this really looks like something Pat Buchanan would put together and the neocons purposely stacked (it seems) it with his lifelong ideological opponents with not even a Buchanan/Trump/Paul perspective on the foreign policy panel. Shameless co-opting as described by none other than Conference guest and TAC founding Editor Scott McConnell (https://lobelog.com/scott-mcconnell-how-the-neocons-are-co-opting-the-tea-party/) himself. Sigh :rolleyes:

https://nationalconservatism.org/conference-schedule/

Conference Schedule
National Conservatism:
Founding Conference, Washington DC
July 14-16, 2019
PDF

Sunday, July 14
5:30 pm Registration
VIP Reception
6:30 pm Dinner (Ritz-Carlton Ballroom)
Keynote Address 1:
Introduction
Peter Thiel, “The Star Trek Computer Is Not Enough”
9:00 pm End of Day 1
Monday, July 15
9:00 am Plenary I (Ritz-Carlton Ballroom)
Speaker 1 Chris DeMuth, “The Nationalist Awakening”
Speaker 2 David Brog, “Roots of American Nationalism”
Speaker 3 Mary Eberstadt, “Social Conservatism and the National Interest”
Speaker 4 Rusty Reno, “Christian Universalism and American Nationalism”
Speaker 5 Yoram Hazony, “Why National Conservatism?”
11:00 am Coffee Break
11:30 am
Keynote Address 2: (Ritz-Carlton Ballroom)
Tucker Carlson, “Big Business Hates Your Family”
+ Q & A
Session Chairman: Rusty Reno

12:30 pm Lunch Break
2:00 pm Breakout I

B: International Institutions vs. National Independence (Ritz-Carlton Ballroom)
Ryszard Legutko, “Nationalism, Conservatism and the European Union”
John Fonte, “American Transnationalism, the EU, and the Davoisie”
Daniel Pipes, “How Immigration and Islamization Build Nationalism in Europe”
John O’Sullivan, “Euro-Nationalism or Euro-Imperialism?”
Session Chairman: John Lenczowski

A: The Nation and Conservative Tradition (Plaza Ballroom)
Yuval Levin, “Burke and the Nation”
Ofir Haivry, “Burke and the American Constitution”
Michael Barone, “The Conservative Tradition in America”
Session Chairman: Daniel McCarthy
3:30 pm Coffee Break
4:00 pm Breakout II A: American National Conservatism (Ritz-Carlton Ballroom)
Rich Lowry, “Why America Isn’t an Idea”
Daniel McCarthy, “National Conservatism in the Early American Republic”
Amity Shlaes, “Coolidge Nationalism and the Things of the Spirit”
Andre Archie, “Narrative and the Nation”
Session Chairman: Ron Docksai

B: Immigration (Plaza Ballroom)
Amy Wax, “American Greatness and Immigration: The Case for Low and Slow”
Scott McConnell, “Is a Nationalist Immigration Policy Even Possible in West?”
Mike Gonzalez, “Ending the Regime of Race”
Luma Simms, “Immigration and the Desire for Rootedness”
Session Chairman: Ryan Williams
5:30 pm
Dinner Break

Student Session (Plaza Ballroom)

7:00 pm
Public Debate (Ritz-Carlton Ballroom)
Resolution: “America Should Adopt an Industrial Policy”
Debaters: Oren Cass and Richard Reinsch

9:00 pm End of Day 2
Tuesday, July 16
9:00 am
Plenary II (Ritz-Carlton Ballroom)
Speaker 6 J.D. Vance, “Getting Beyond Libertarianism”
Speaker 7 Michael Anton, “Downsides of Hard and Soft Imperialism”
Speaker 8 Paulina Neuding, “Nationalism as an Antidote to Racism”
Speaker 9 David Webb, “National Cohesion and the Complexity of Identity Politics and Culture”
Speaker 10 Patrick Deneen, “Sustainable Conservatism”

11:00 am Coffee Break
11:30 am Keynote Address 3: (Ritz-Carlton Ballroom)
Amb. John Bolton, TBA+ Q & A
Session Chairman: Chris DeMuth
12:30 pm Lunch Break
2:00 pm Breakout III
A: National Conservatism and Foreign Affairs (Ritz-Carlton Ballroom)
Session Chairman: Colin Dueck
David Goldman, “Imperial China’s Challenge to Nationalism”
Rebeccah Heinrichs, “The Case for Strong Allies”
Michael Doran, “Nationalism and Foreign Policy: The Case of the Middle East”
Cliff May, “America as Sheriff, Not as Cop”

B: What is Economic Nationalism? (Plaza Ballroom)
Session Chairman: John Burtka
John Carney, “Economic Nationalism vs. Special Interests”
Salena Zito, “What’s This Revolt About?”
Julius Krein, “A Strategy for National Development”
3:30 pm Coffee Break
4:00 pm
Breakout IV
A: Identity Politics vs. National Conservatism (Ritz-Carlton Ballroom)
Session Chairman: Ken Masugi
Josh Mitchell, “Identity Politics and the Stain of Inheritance”
Charles Kesler, “Nationalism, Creed, and Culture”
David Azerrad, “What Comes after Identity Politics?”
Bob Woodson, “Conservative Values in Rebuilding Family and Community.”

B: Globalism and the Nation (Plaza Ballroom)
Session Chairman: David Brog
Chris Buskirk, “Globalism Dehumanizes Us and Threatens Ordered Liberty”
Frank Buckley, “The Logic and Limits of American Nationalism”
Jules Gomes, “Christianity, Globalism, and the Nation”
Arthur Milikh, “The Nation and Big Tech”

5:30 pm Break
6:30 pm Dinner (Ritz-Carlton Ballroom)
Keynote Address IV: Sen. Josh Hawley, TBA
9:00 pm End of Conference

Safe Travels!

Swordsmyth
07-14-2019, 03:58 PM
The answer to the poll question is YES.

We should try to have a presence anywhere we can to counter the Neocons and spread the truth.
Preaching to the choir is important to keep the movement going but it is a dead end in the long run.

Mark
Chapter 2

16 And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-2-16/)
17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-2-17/)

Swordsmyth
07-14-2019, 04:00 PM
I voted wrong in the poll because I read the question wrong.

Change one NO to a YES.

oyarde
07-14-2019, 04:12 PM
I voted .

ThePaleoLibertarian
07-14-2019, 05:24 PM
The term "neocon" is thrown around entirely too often.

Libertea Party
07-14-2019, 05:36 PM
The term "neocon" is thrown around entirely too often.

Is there an objection to referring to any of the speakers on the foreign policy panel above as neocons?

PAF
07-14-2019, 05:48 PM
Is Ron Paul and Walter Block attending lol?


I voted NO

From my perspective, most if not all of these folks are already grounded in their positions. Ideas of liberty may get a few hand claps here and there, but dismissed by the time food is served.

Again, from my perspective, time and money is better spent staying away from extremely well-spoken promoters of lobbyists, and instead reach out to the populace and college-age kids who are looking for answers. Locally and from the bottom up, not top down.

But hey, if ya have a few thousand frn's for Surf and Turf that you can get elsewhere for $60, it is your money and you can do as you wish. Basically you would be "funding their cause".


6662

Libertea Party
07-14-2019, 07:05 PM
Good point about potentially funding our opponents. The "Edmund Burke Foundation" has zero documentation that I can see. Only this first conference list of speakers gives us any clue. If I'm right about the orientation of the speakers it's not a good sign.

Just really resent the fact that that people like Bolton and May get to present their approach as the only appropriate policy regardless of their different audiences. "Nationalist Conservatives" while being "Friends of Free Iran" when it means supporting another countries regime change risking American soldiers lives.

The true "Nationalist" or Patriotic policy would be the following set forth by POTUS # 1 (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp). It's so relevant it's hard to believe that we'd deviate and call any other policy America First:

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf7VPklv8GY

ThePaleoLibertarian
07-14-2019, 09:16 PM
Is there an objection to referring to any of the speakers on the foreign policy panel above as neocons?
The only one I'm really familiar with is John Bolton, and, despite popular belief, he is not a neocon. He's actually far more pro-war than most neoconservatives. Real dyed-in-the-wool neocons are idealists, students of Leo Strauss and true believers in the universal and transcendent power of liberal democracy. That a country very close to ours lurks underneath every dictatorship, ready to be freed when the strongman leader falls.

John Bolton once said we should have taken out Saddam, handed the Iraqis a copy of The Federalist Papers and left. That is totally antithetical to neoconservatism.

Libertea Party
07-14-2019, 11:27 PM
The only one I'm really familiar with is John Bolton, and, despite popular belief, he is not a neocon. He's actually far more pro-war than most neoconservatives. Real dyed-in-the-wool neocons are idealists, students of Leo Strauss and true believers in the universal and transcendent power of liberal democracy. That a country very close to ours lurks underneath every dictatorship, ready to be freed when the strongman leader falls.

John Bolton once said we should have taken out Saddam, handed the Iraqis a copy of The Federalist Papers and left. That is totally antithetical to neoconservatism.

That's a fair point. There's even some arguments that he's an "isolationist" because he doesn't respect international institutions. I guess we technically could/should use the term "hawk" or maybe "interventionist". Here is Bolton even denying specifically being a neocon (https://www.the-american-interest.com/2007/03/01/exit-interview-john-bolton/). Maybe I just don't buy or value the distinction as much as others. Also he just might be a slippery fellow and be avoiding the bad neocon branding to purposely muddy the waters to further his agenda.

We're counting on these guys to present themselves accurately and that's a mistake imo. In his case he's explicitly made the case for "deception" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGvoX9GMml8) in national security affairs. In fact neocons explicitly promote the "noble lie" in much the same manner (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#Leo_Strauss_and_the_.22Noble_Lie.2 2)

To your example about Iraq here he is saying in May 2015 that we didn't stay long enough (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/john-bolton-no-regrets-about-toppling-saddam):

"I still think the decision to overthrow Saddam was correct. I think decisions made after that decision were wrong, although I think the worst decision made after that was the 2011 decision to withdraw U.S. and coalition forces," Bolton said. "The people who say, oh things would have been much better if you didn't overthrow Saddam miss the point that today's Middle East does not flow totally and unchangeably from the decision to overthrow Saddam alone."

This seems quite different from the 2007 quote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton#Iraq) "the only mistake that the United States did with regard to Iraq was to not leave earlier after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and tell the Iraqis "Here's a copy of the Federalist Papers. Good luck" referenced.

Personally I think he's just being dishonest and shifts his rationale for whatever sounds best to the audience that is in front of him at the moment. His overriding goals -- in my opinion-- are overthrowing as many regimes as possible. He might genuinely believe it's worth the sacrifices for America or the World to do so --or might just enjoy the thrill-- but I think his behavior is predictable and wouldn't differ in action from a neocon.

That's part of the reason why his and others presence-- to the exclusion of any dissenting voice-- at this "National Conservative" conference bothers me. I believe he and the organizers are trying to convince Americans and conservatives that what he's promoting is in the spirit of nationalism/America First. In my opinion it's a manipulative effort and muddying of terms with no other panelists to counter them.

That people like McCarthy, McConnell, and others whose "nationalist" perspective finally gets a hearing -- after years of writing -- only to be converted for "interventionist" or "neocon" purposes really seems like a bit of an injustice. The American Conservative Magazine was founded to oppose the Iraq war(!) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Conservative#History) and now it seems they are being asked to give their audience over to the neocons/interventionists.

We'll see how things pan out but I may consider reaching out to some of the TAC writers about their experience at this event.

nobody's_hero
07-15-2019, 07:04 AM
The term "neocon" is thrown around entirely too often.

I think the term "co-opting" is thrown around too much.

What we're really saying is that someone is trying to spoil our movement so we're just gonna give up, break off and go hide out back in the libertarian treehouse.

We gotta quit doing that. At some point, we've gotta start fighting back for what is rightfully ours.

Libertea Party
07-15-2019, 08:06 AM
I think the term "co-opting" is thrown around too much.

What we're really saying is that someone is trying to spoil our movement so we're just gonna give up, break off and go hide out back in the libertarian treehouse.

We gotta quit doing that. At some point, we've gotta start fighting back for what is rightfully ours.

By drawing attention to it (and adding a poll) I was hoping that we'd at least be aware of the efforts so we can be active/fight it if it makes sense to do so.

Also bunch of articles came out yesterday and the following tweet seems to suggest that some -- Thiel in this case -- are promoting a restrained Foreign policy to the crowd. Thiel seems to be carrying Trumps water a little too much generally but it's a positive sign that the argument so far is "why Trump is less interventionist and that's good" and not "why Trump isn't doing more":

1150563324003831808

We can check out "National Conservatism" search on Twitter and there are political outlets like The Hill etc. sharing info from the conference so we can see what's going on to a degree.

PAF
07-15-2019, 08:34 AM
By drawing attention to it (and adding a poll) I was hoping that we'd at least be aware of the efforts so we can be active/fight it if it makes sense to do so.

Also bunch of articles came out yesterday and the following tweet seems to suggest that some -- Thiel in this case -- are promoting a restrained Foreign policy to the crowd. Thiel seems to be carrying Trumps water a little too much generally but it's a positive sign that the argument so far is "why Trump is less interventionist and that's good" and not "why Trump isn't doing more":

1150563324003831808

We can check out "National Conservatism" search on Twitter and there are political outlets like The Hill etc. sharing info from the conference so we can see what's going on to a degree.


The title is a dead giveaway and says it all:

Peter Thiel, “The Star Trek Computer Is Not Enough”

A restrained foreign policy is indeed good, but keep in mind the shift is away from bombing and destroying, to one of population control, which is cheaper and easier to deploy.

Read here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?536555-Northrop-Captures-95M-DHS-Biometrics-ID-Contract-(Drain-the-Swamp-)) and here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?536686-Biometric-Update).

Libertea Party
07-16-2019, 10:01 PM
Sigh

At least one non-interventionist, Cassandra Fairbanks (https://twitter.com/CassandraRules), was there. The clapping was only half the room it seems in the video. Still disappointing:

1151331780810727431

Libertea Party
07-16-2019, 10:41 PM
Even the clapping was stilted. One person did it...then a pause... and others joined in probably just to be courteous

Libertea Party
07-17-2019, 08:05 AM
Despite my hopes otherwise... but called it. Below is the perspective from one of the most prolific anti-interventionist writers that attended. Such a sham and disappointment. We need to figure out a way to combat this insidious tactic:

Nationalism, Not Neoconservatism by Jim Antle
(https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/nationalism-not-neoconservatism/)
"But a nontrivial number of speakers who were on the schedule purely for their foreign policy expertise would have been comfortable during the administration of George W. Bush, who was no nationalist conservative. Bolton, who at one point stressed the common ground between President Trump and John McCain, illustrated how to package the old foreign policy to appeal to those interested in a new conservatism.

...

It’s important because while Bush and McCain always grounded their foreign policy in morality and universalism, the “blood and soil” appeals they both disdained (although American nationalism has always been more complicated than lineage, ethnicity or geography) were crucial to their wars of choice achieving popular support. Neoconservatism shorn of nationalism can easily be marginalized, as it largely was during the 2016 Republican presidential primaries.

...

This has been a longstanding problem. Conservatives who are skeptical of our wars tend to speak out on other topics, like domestic policy. The people said to have real national security or foreign policy experience are neocons or worse. There is no diversity of opinion. The American Spectator’s Tom Bethell once remarked that the Tea Party was like the pre-neocon conservative movement, but just as ripe for neocon takeover. Is this true of national conservatism too?

...

There is much that is promising about the nationalist project. It would be a shame if it was used an excuse to repeat past conservative mistakes on war and peace."

Read the whole thing (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/nationalism-not-neoconservatism/)

PAF
07-17-2019, 08:10 AM
Even the clapping was stilted. One person did it...then a pause... and others joined in probably just to be courteous


And then the food was served?

Libertea Party
07-17-2019, 08:28 AM
And then the food was served?

Possibly... indeed that could have been why they were clapping. Or it could be that they were finally allowed to leave the room. Talk about detention camps lol:

1151153486358335490

Libertea Party
07-19-2019, 04:22 PM
Videos up:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTFA0FGIf6R1f_inJm9NJhA/videos

Only watched the first 4 that were uploaded so far (Thiel/Carlson/Bolton/Hawley). Some some straw-men (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) were set up but only mildly objectionable -- so far-- and no concrete policy suggestions I can see. Thiel got a pretty good round of applause that was organic (unlike Bolton) when he briefly touched on foreign policy.