There is a spectre haunting the American conservative movement and that spectre is neoconservatism, false conservatism-an ideological mole, if you will. This should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the circuitous and often frustrating path of true conservatism, a path strewn with the crumbs of both hope and despair.
POP QUIZ: What do the following individuals, organizations and media outlets have in common: George Bush and his late and unlamented administration; Rush Limbaugh, the head of the GOP; ALL the self-promoting demagogues on Radio Right; Newt Gingrich; National Review, and its bookend nincompoops, Lowry and Goldberg); FOX News and its collection of pundits and demagogues (Hannity, O’Reilly, Beck, Ingraham, yadda, yadda...); Kristol; Krauthammer; Malkin; Coulter; the Wall Street Journal; the Weekly Standard; the New York Post; The Conservative Chronicle; the American Enterprise Institute... et al ad nauseam
ANSWER: They are all neoconservatives (neocons), that is conservative impostors, parasites, actually, who have taken over the conservative movement, subverted it and replaced it with a vile and ruinous ideology. Neocons then used that ideology as a tool to steer and manipulate America into death and debt, with their obscene and inane ventures into Iraq and Afghanistan, into pulling the Trojan Horse of globalism within our gates, into Empire Building and neo-Manifest Destiny [Ironic note: America is an anomaly in that despite all the talk of being a nation of immigrants, and of globalism, America is an insular nation. Americans are largely ignorant of U.S. history, let alone world history, of foreign customs and cultures and of geography. Yet, America considers itself qualified to meddle in the business of the world’s countries. Curious, yes?]. And the neocons are the chief cheerleaders for America’s meddling.
The spring 1986 edition of The Intercollegiate Review (Vol. 21 No. 3) contained “The State of Conservatism: A Symposium,” featuring such conservative thinkers as Russell Kirk, Gerhart Niemeyer, Paul Gottfried, et al who offered a tempered view of the state of American conservatism. And most of the contributors expressed an awareness of the dangers of the neoconservative ideology encroaching on the conservative movement. And therein lies the major difference between genuine conservatism and neoconservatism, as genuine conservatism is a movement whereas neoconservatism, just as with ritualistic Liberalism/progressivism, neoconservatism’s counterpart on the Left, is an ideology.
But how did the neocons manage to subvert conservatism? Clyde Wilson, one of the contributors to the aforementioned Intercollegiate Review symposium, has an idea: “The offensives of radicalism have driven vast herds of liberals across the border into our territories. These refugees now speak in our name...It [the language of the refugees] contains no words for the things we value. Our estate has been taken over by an impostor, just as we were about to inherit.”
For the decades beginning with the presidency of F.D.R. (Indeed, one could begin with Woodrow Wilson’s.) America has been unduly beset with two political ideologies. I say unduly beset with, as America is not a nation of ideology, but rather a country of the middle, and that middle has long been reflected by our oft savaged middle class, which today is beset with troubles from all quarters. The collective soul of these two ideologies, progressivism and neoconservatism, may be illuminated by the following observation from Edmund Burke: “The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts.” And these two ideologies have proved adept at nibbling away at America’s liberty.
Progressives (progs), as former big “L” Liberals now wish to be called, and neocons are thought to be polar opposites, but are similar. Following are a few similarities: ONE- Both are ideologies, not movements, and both are incapable of showing remorse for the consequences of these blundering ideologies (Progs and neocons are the geriatric driver who, after causing a deathly pileup on the freeway, denies the responsibility for his carnage (Example: Neocons will forever deny their Iraq War carnage), TWO- Both progs and neocons have a disdain for history. The inconvenient truth for both ideologies is history, as it often proves inconvenient to their world designs, THREE- Both ideologies are statist in their outlook, as they favor Sugar Daddy Government, but only when their side is the one receiving the sugar-coated treats, FOUR- The Big Lie is lavishly used, unfair and unbalanced, by both ideologies, FIVE- Both the progs and the neocons are shameless in their pandering to an array of groups, causes and individuals with whom their ideologies are linked, SIX- Both the progs and the neocons resent being identified for what they are, but if it walks, speaks and acts like what it is, then that is what it is...QUACK! QUACK!
Again, quoting from The Intercollegiate Review, Gregory Wolfe’s introduction to that symposium: “The dangers that threaten the integrity of the conservative movement can be summarized in a single term: “politicization.” Ironically, conservatives launched themselves into the political sphere in an attempt to forestall the all-encompassing politicization of society that is the legacy of twentieth century ideology.” And if nothing else the neocons doused genuine conservatism in the unstable fluid of politicization.
But neocons are ideological chameleons and keep altering their appearance to confuse those who would discover them. For example, neocons have adopted the sly label of “compassionate conservatism,” and former Bush speechwriter, Michael Gerson, wrote a book entitled “Heroic Conservatism.” But regardless of what label or mantra neocons employ, it still translates into: Big Government, foreign intervention, needless death and debt. “The Great Decider’s” administration was ruinous to the heritage, the fabric and the continued sovereignty of these United States-what’s left of it, anyway.
But where did these neocon identity thieves come from? It is not without a certain degree of irony that the neocons acquired prominence during the 1980s under the Reagan presidency as a pro-Israel, anti-Communist force. And a number of this lot were ex-communists of the Trotskyite persuasion and many of these found a voice in Norman Podhoretz’s Commentary magazine, which came to represent a major voice of neoconservative thought.
After the fall and fragmentation of the Soviet Empire the neocons saw an opportunity to drape themselves in the diaphanous gown of democracy and become interventionists on behalf of their vision of Globalist Manifest Destiny. They would have America fill the “Empire Void” left by the Soviets (And the Victorian British before them.). And whereas any person with a modest knowledge of history and a modicum of common sense, views the Iraq War as ruinous to America, the neocons view it as a jewel in their interventionist crown.
But what components does neoconservatism comprise? What is its structure? In short, how do the neocons manage to fool some of the people all of the time?
The Great American Malady. The late Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in his wonderfully illuminating book, “Leftism Revisited: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot” made the following observation: “Needless to say, Wilson [President Woodrow] suffered from the Great American Malady, the belief that people the world over are “more alike than unlike;” in other words, that non-Americans are nothing more than inhibited, under-developed could-be Americans with the misfortune of speaking a different language.”
Neoconservatives are afflicted with the same Great American Malady, as they are proponents of mucking about the world, while ignoring America’s erosion [Think of neocons as Dr. Phil; America as Britney.]. Neocons hold the arrogant belief that democracy (But in what form?) may be plugged in here, there-everywhere! The inconvenient truth is that democracy is not a platform compatible with many of today’s political and social operating systems. America’s Framers were wary of democracy in general, and specifically of it morphing into oligarchy, which is what America has become.
Too, one senses the neocons desperately want to recreate Britain’s Victorian Empire, one which roamed far and wide. The British spent decades in Iraq and in Afghanistan (Who knew?), where they lost three wars. The British with all their democracy experience, military power and resources, failed to solve the problems of Iraq and Afghanistan, and of the region in general [For anyone wishing to read a wonderful, in-depth treatment of the British Victorians seek out James Morris’s “Pax Britannica Trilogy.”].
they do it from religious conviction.” - Blaise Pascal
Gimme some of that ol’ Testament Religion-the Israel and the Evangelical card. One is not supposed to notice, let alone give voice to, the fact that support of Israel is the prime component of the neocon movement, as many neocons are Jewish. Thus, an inconvenient question may be asked of alleged Jewish intellectuals: Why for decades have so many gravitated toward movements which threaten America and her sovereignty? First, it was Marxism, then Stalinism, then in the ruinous Sixties many embraced the counter-culture ethic and its disdain for America. And now many so-called Jewish intellectuals gravitate toward neoconservatism, the stupid ideology, to lift J.S. Mill’s description of British conservatism. Despite their indignant protests to the contrary many neocons fret more over Israel’s problems rather than over America’s-unless, of course Israel is involved in that current American problem. Too, neocons expect all candidates for higher office to pander to Israel’s agenda (And are almost never disappointed.), and to forgive all of Israel’s transgressions, such as Israel’s penchant for spying on and stealing America’s military secrets. And Israel does that why?
When President Bush announced his “Axis of Evil” in 2002 (Iraq, Iran, North Korea) it was Iraq the neocons invaded. It is Iran the neocons desperately want to bomb. And North Korea, the most brutal and dangerous of the three? Well... But then North Korea does not have oil and is not in close proximity to Israel.
Evangelicals covet Israel-the idea and the land of-not the Jews who live there. And the Bush Administration has played this Evangelical card for all it’s worth. The Evangelicals are wrapped up in talk of Armageddon (How many Armageddon dates have come and gone now?), and the manufactured nonsense surrounding the Book of Revelation.
The Bush Administration. The neocons may have deadheaded their way inside Fortress Beltway aboard the Reagan freight, but once inside the fortress these ideological hobos crashed the Bush Barbecue and ended up deciding what (and who) was to be grilled. And Bush was more than willing to allow this lot to fire up the political grill.
“Demagogues succeed for the same reason as confidence tricksters-because they have a gift of gab, charm, and an intuitive knowledge of human nature, because their personality is magnetic, and their manner is open and affable. Men and women are so easily gulled, that a talented swindler can always be certain of making a handsome living.” - From Aldous Huxley, “Proper Studies” (1927)
The nattering nabobs of neoconservatism. The above Huxley excerpt introduces another component of neoconservatism, namely its shrill shill machine for agitprop dissemination, and to this end neoconservatism has become demagogue central. Or as Edmund Burke observed, “The publick is the theatre for mountebanks and impostors.” And neocon agitprop has no shortage of demagogues, ideological swindlers, mountebanks and impostors.
all the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and
hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
Neocon demagogues and blatherskites encompass the war profiteers of talk radio, the TV pundit/expert crowd and the loony neocon blogosphere. In short, neocon publicity whores to whom publicity and wealth are the chief rewards. They resemble John Wayne: tough-talking and patriotic-sounding on the set, but in real life, well, not so much. These demagogues extoll service in the ruinous Iraq War, thus the above excerpt from George Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia, as it defines the hypocrisy of these neocon shills, who weep about the nobility of military service and of war as they stay at home to rake in the dough from their exploitation of their war patriotism, which, oh, by the way, includes the exploitation of our military dead. These frauds daily thrust themselves-NOT at enemy positions-but at their own cameras and microphones as they storm the beaches of self-serving publicity.
Neocon talk radio (Tantrum Talk)/cable TV pundit enrages are the political extension of America’s long history of America’s religious scam artists and frauds: the fictional Elmer Gantry, Aimee Semple McPherson, Father Coughlin (The “radio priest” of the 1930s), Jimmy “I have sinned!” Swaggert and Jim and Tammy Faye, et al-polished demagogues whose focus is on politics rather than religion.
Prolefeed, (Newspeak from Orwell’s 1984: “The rubbishy entertainment and spurious news which the Party handed out to the masses.”
News Corp & FOX News-buffoons & babes. The chief conduit for neocon/globalist orthodoxy to the masses is News Corp., which is owned by the communications Croesus, Rupert Murdoch. News Corp. comprises a number of alleged news and entertainment outlets, which includes that affront to Alexander Hamilton’s memory, the New York Post [The only redeeming aspect of the Post is Phil Mushnick, whose column on sport, TV and the frauds and scam artists within, is one of the dwindling bright spots of American journalism.], the Wall Street Journal, which sounds more and more like the Post), and FOX News. FOX News offers a nightly lineup of yelling, gesticulating neocon demagogues sprinkled with a dose of bubbly babes, who are employed for scenery.
Neoconservatism in print. Commentary, the late William F. Buckley’s National Review and the weekly The Conservative Chronicle present themselves as conservative publications, but in reality are neocon organs. Commentary is a seminal neocon organ, but National Review, once a respected conservative journal, has become a haven for a collection of neocon nonentities. Perhaps Murdoch will buy NR and change its name to Neocon Review, a fitting fate for a once respected magazine. The Conservative Chronicle supplies a weekly collection of newspaper columns from so-called conservatives, unfortunately, with the exception of Patrick Buchanan those individuals reproduced within the pages of the Chronicle read as a lineup of neocon shills. Other organs of neocon orthodoxy are William Kristol’s Weekly Standard, the American Enterprise Institute...
Slime, baby, slime! Another component of neocon agitprop (and of rit Lib agitprop, as well) is the use of basic, old-fashioned slime against those individuals and groups who question neocon orthodoxy. Consider what the neocons are beginning to manufacture about Obama, and what they did manufacture about Ron Paul.
The November 28, 2007 (Volume 22, Number 48) edition of the Conservative Chronicle carried a column by Mona Charen entitled “Candidate Ron Paul: Too close to kooky.” In her slime piece, Charen manages to coyly link Ron Paul with the following: isolationists; the wearers of tinfoil hats; Nazis; generic “black helicopter” kooks; deniers of 9/11; neo-Nazis, and, of course, the tired neocon standard, anti-Semites. As regards this last, Charen writes: “...he [Paul] inveighs against the “neo-cons” (shorthand for Jews in some circles) and he gives aid and comfort to the paranoid by appearing on their favorite radio shows.”
Kimberley Strassel in her Wall Street Journal column [“Potomac Watch” 14 December 2007] wrote a somewhat more reasoned appraisal of Mr. Paul (”The Gospel of Paul”), but includes this, “His [Paul’s] more kooky views (say, his belief in a conspiracy to create a “North American Union”) and his violent antiwar talk have allowed the other aspirants to dismiss him.” Yes, Ms. Strassel, let us not have any of that violent antiwar talk against the noble Iraq War-it’s going quite swimmingly, don’t you think?
Aside from slime, the neocons are attempting to manufacture an environment where the mere use of the word “neocon” is considered anti-Semitic (Jonah Goldberg, June 2009, is the latest neocon git to attempt this.). One should know that affixing the label of anti-Semitism to opponents is a favorite strategy of neocons, as they have used it against a wide variety of individuals for a wide variety of reasons. The courageous Aleksander Solzhenitsyn was accused of being an anti-Semite. And Russell Kirk, a cornerstone of American conservatism, was accused of being an anti-Semite by Midge Decter, wife of Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary. In fact, anyone who utters even the most benign criticism of Israel, or its agenda, is immediately proscribed for sliming by the Marats of the neocon Sections [Curiously, on a trip to Israel, Bush stated that Israel should end its occupation. Is he now eligible for anti-Semite status?].
Additional neocon slime attacks include those on John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, who had the audacity to author a paper entitled “The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” and which originally appeared on the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard website. Too, the vile attacks on one Charles Freeman by neocon slime merchants such as Lowry and Goldberg of the pseudo-conservative National Review, various AIPAC shills, Michael Goldfarb of the pseudo-conservative Weekly Standard...[Note: The epithet “anti-Semitism” is used so often that, like the epithets “racist” and “fascist,” it has acquired an almost comic undertone. Perhaps the neocons shall adopt a new word, you know, combine “fascist” with something or other...Hey, how about “Islamofascist...Taken? Damn!]
What shall the neocon legacy be? Now there is a fat pitch left over the plate, as the neocon legacy shall be the ruinous Bush presidency in general and the Iraq War in particular. Even the Neocon Shill Machine shall find it difficult to produce enough fog to shroud the spectres of death and fiscal irresponsibility which walk with the neocon legacy.
Perhaps one tact the Old Guard/traditional conservatives could take would be to form a new party and with a brand new name (Framers Party?). In doing so true conservatives could draw a line of demarcation between the conservative movement and neoconservatism ideology and demagoguery.
The late Sam Francis’ article entitled “The Neo-Conservative Subversion,” which appeared in the Occasional Papers of the Conservative Citizens Foundation (Issue Number Six, 2004), noted: “Foolishly, conservatives allowed this gang of pseudo-conservatives not only to enter their ranks but even to dominate key financial and policy-making organizations, so that today the entire conservative movement has come under virtual neo-conservative control and the commitments and ideas of real conservatives have been abandoned and forgotten. Not until American conservatives understand what happened to their movement and why and have reclaimed it by throwing out the leftists who have stolen it-or until they are able to construct a new movement free of neo-conservative influence-can the American right hope to recover the country and civilization they have lost.”
Amen!
