← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 5735 | Posts: 7 | Started: 2003-03-22
2003-03-22 22:44 | User Profile
Quid sit neoconservatism? by Jim Kalb
** Quid sit neoconservatism? Jim Kalb
"Neoconservatism" is a contentious term, but itââ¬â¢s useful as a description of a movement that attempts to moderate and so stabilize liberal modernity. In particular, neoconservatism accepts both the modern aspiration to reform all things and bring them in line with clear universal principles, and the liberal choice of freedom, equality and efficiency as the principles that are to be made authoritative.
What defines the post-60s public world is unreserved acceptance of liberal modernity. Neoconservatism is the only kind of conservatism that can appear reasonable or even sane in such a world. Domination of popular conservatism by neoconservatives should therefore come as no surprise. A movement must be able to explain itself to the general public, and other forms of conservatism canââ¬â¢t do so because under accepted principles of public discussion their views are evil or insane. The point is illustrated by David Frumââ¬â¢s recent article attacking paleoconservatives, in which he is able without argument to treat beliefs that ethnicity matters, and that there are standards by which the actually-existing polity can be found wanting, as proof of unfitness for participation in public life.
What gives neoconservatism somewhat of a conservative tinge is that it recognizes that at some point liberal principles become self-destructive. Neoconservatives therefore define freedom and equality in less ambitious ways than liberals, in an attempt to make them consistent with a stable, orderly and progressive society. They praise Martin Luther King to the skies as a hero of equality, but their MLK is one who favors moral restraint and the merit standard. Only such a Martin Luther King, they believe, is consistent with long-term social well-being. Their entire project thus depends on their ability to determine the meaning of accepted political concepts and symbols.
It follows that for ambitious intellectuals and publicists neoconservatism has a special appeal. It demands that public life be based on uniform rational principles interpreted in a particular way that most people donââ¬â¢t accept as a matter of course. If follows that it requires centralization of education, and of intellectual and cultural life, so that the necessary principles can be correctly articulated and explained and continuously inculcated. It also demands that inconsistent views be squashed. A necessary consequence is to give a great deal of importance to those who are in a position to define the principles and their meaning, and who have a taste for squashing. Hence, among other manifestations, the Frum article. Posted by Jim Kalb at March 20, 2003 10:11 PM
Frumââ¬â¢s recent article [url=http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp]http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp[/url]
url: [url=http://jkalb.freeshell.org/tab/archives/001079.php]http://jkalb.freeshell.org/tab/archives/001079.php[/url] **
2003-03-22 23:11 | User Profile
'The public' does not hold as evil or insane the principle that ethnicity matters. It is media, academic, and governmental elites who try to enforce this view on white Gentile Americans.
2003-03-23 00:32 | User Profile
Originally posted by Faust@Mar 22 2003, 16:44 ** They praise Martin Luther King to the skies as a hero of equality, but their MLK is one who favors moral restraint and the merit standard. Only such a Martin Luther King, they believe, is consistent with long-term social well-being. Their entire project thus depends on their ability to determine the meaning of accepted political concepts and symbols.
**
A great point and one that I sensed, but never could quite put a finger on it like Kalb does here.
Great article, Faust. Thanks for posting it.
2003-03-23 05:01 | User Profile
The neocons don't need consistent interpretation of symbols. American society has long had enough postmodern elements to make obvious inconsistencies--MLK as communist, and upholder of sober moral reasoning--acceptable. All the neocons need to do is add enough of their interpretations to the froth. Of course, people like Frum don't understand this, because he is not merely a neocon, but a decidely Jewish neocons who is pursuing Jewish interests: these involve castigating conservatives as Nazis, MLK-haters.
Normal Americans are happy to love and hate MLK all at the same time.
2003-03-23 05:52 | User Profile
I notice the neocon MLK-o-philes get irritated when you mention that MLK was a plagiarist, a womanizer/sex-addict who could give Clinton a run for his money, and a communist who received funding from the KGB. They know these charges are true, and even Jesse Helms made them part of the record on the Senate floor. Yet, they'd rather not be reminded of those things; they push it all aside and say, "Yeah, but he was a 'great man' who caused 'needed' social change," etc. The thing is that they would never give that kind of pass to a similar figure on the paleo-Right.
2003-03-23 07:18 | User Profile
PaleoconAvatar,
All too True!
** I notice the neocon MLK-o-philes get irritated when you mention that MLK was a plagiarist, a womanizer/sex-addict who could give Clinton a run for his money, and a communist who received funding from the KGB. They know these charges are true, and even Jesse Helms made them part of the record on the Senate floor. Yet, they'd rather not be reminded of those things; they push it all aside and say, "Yeah, but he was a 'great man' who caused 'needed' social change," etc.**
More lies and nonsense from Horowitz on MLK
** Dr. King's Most Embarrasing Moment By David Horowitz FrontPageMagazine.com | January 20, 2003
Martin Luther King was a great man, and a conservative one, which is why the left turned its back on him in 1965. His primary mission was to make black Americans first class American citizens protected by the Constitution. With the passage of the Civil Rights Acts in 1964 and 1965 he succeeded. His next goal was to support Lyndon Johnson's Great Society effort to bring black America to social and economic parity with white America.
But the left wasn't interested in black America. It was interested in helping the Communists win in Vietnam. Because King wouldn't oppose the war, the left turned its back on him. ... in 1967, he capitulated to their anti-American fervor gave them what they wanted -- the worst speech that ever passed his lips. This is speech that contains the phrase the left wants Americans to remember King by -- not "I Have A Dream" but this: "[America is] the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."
This was a lie in 1967 when he said it and it is a lie now. Saying it was the most shameful moment of King's illustrious career...
url: [url=http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5649]http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...cle.asp?ID=5649[/url] **
2003-03-23 12:30 | User Profile
Martin Luther King was a great man, and a conservative one
That quote is astounding in its audacity! The term "conservative" obviously has come to mean nothing when someone claiming to be a "conservative" uses it in that way and keeps a straight face. I know the FrontPageMag crowd shouldn't shock me. I know that by now I should have seen everything out of them and they shouldn't phase me, but holy God, the whoppers that they whip out on the credulous public just continue to floor me. The neocons are a bottomless pit of confusion and deception. Just when I think they've maxed out their credit line of believability, they come out with a statement like this that takes it to a whole new level. They are the source of ideological "Shock and Awe," indeed! And what will the public buy next? P.T. Barnum was so right about suckers being born every minute.
I've always said it won't be long before they routinely begin calling Clinton a conservative. Just give them time. They're already praising LBJ in the quote above! I don't remember the neocons as being able to get away with something as blatantly falsely "conservative" as praising LBJ just a few years ago--they're definitely becoming more overt in displaying their liberal roots--their true colors.