Skip to main content

Neoconservative Sleaze Bill Kristol Comes Clean - Act II

Irving Kristol, father to Bill Kristol and godfather of so-called neoconservatism, famously said, "A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality."

Bill Kristol might restate it : "A liberal is a neoconservative who can't comprehend reality."

Tossed over the side by the New York Times, Kristol's parting words (chock full of sentimentalist war-reverence and trite pseudo-patriotism) make it clear his "neoconservatism" is little more than hyper-militaristic global liberalism.

Ideologically, nothing really distinguishes a neoconservative from the big government, big scheme collectivism we have seen through decades of rehashed cookie-cutter liberal dogma.

The neoconservatives' messianism simply has a much wider scope. Neoconservatives are liberals who think big and play deep.

So, it is absolutely no surprise that the Beltway-recognition-obsessed Kristol now gushes platitudes for the promise(s) of Obama. Kristol never met a powerful, grandiose, messianic chief executive he didn't like. If he was goo-goo for Bush, well he's just ga-ga for Obama.

I am sure Kristol cheered the recent Obama administration strikes into Pakistan. Even Kristol knows the Iraq war horse has been ridden flat (he really should know) so it is time to move on to the next round of aggressive interventionism around the middle east....and beyond.

Any false attachment Kristol (and his erstwhile "liberal" critics) may invest in himself with Ronald Reagan is little more than Kristol's (and their) twisted revisionism. This is merely Kristol continuing his quest to hijack Reagan's identity.

After all, he and his fellow neoconservative parasites hijacked the Republican Party over the last 20 years, beginning as second-tier proteges to Bush 41's "wise" men....who in retrospect were wiser, by miles, than Bush 43's Kristol-led wrecking crew.

As far as Kristol's penchant for revisionism, he recently tried similar legerdemain on the Contract with America.

National Interest editor, Jacob Heilbrunn wrote some revealing comments, from an anti-conservative position (Hey, Jake, feel free to have Bill Kristol. Demagogues deserve each other) :

"Instead of frothing at the mouth about Obama's perfidy, Kristol essentially acknowledges that he's the real thing. He even likens him to neocon hero Ronald Reagan. According to Kristol, "Still, there will be trying times during Obama's presidency, and liberty will need staunch defenders. Can Obama reshape liberalism to be, as it was under F.D.R., a fighting faith, unapologetically patriotic and strong in the defense of liberty? That would be a service to our country."

This is a huge concession, at least for Kristol. It suggests, indeed, that, like David Brooks, Kristol is coming around to the view that Obama's election may even be a good thing.

----

For now, the comments of Kristol and David Frum, who has been highly critical of the Republican leadership, indicate that there is movement inside the GOP's cadre of thinkers.

No doubt many will celebrate Kristol's exit. But after decades on the right, the neocons are returning to their liberal origins. Isn't it interesting that Kristol's most interesting op-ed came at the end and could have been titled "In Defense of Liberalism"


Kristol, Brooks, and Frum : the "GOP's cadre of thinkers". Oh how laughably rich. Hell, why not just throw George W Bush into that equation?

Even more rich is Kristol's sudden concern for liberty. I am sure he has his own definition, far more in line with what he and similar national statists think is appropriate. I would venture it hardly jibes with what any conscientious American citizen thinks is liberty, or at least one with the slightest cognizance of the stain and strain Kristol and his fellow travelers brought to our constitutional republic.

If I didn't know any better I would think that all along Bill Kristol was a power-mongering demagogic ideologue out to kill the GOP, conservatism, Reagan's essential message, and limited constitutional governance, all in one fell swoop...throwing a match behind him as he travels back home to the collectivist left.

Oh, but he's no liberal...

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...