Monday, October 27, 2008

Why I hate neoconservatives

Neoconservatives are not really conservatives at all. They are responsible for singlehandedly destroying the Bush presidency and the Republican party. Mind you, left to themselves, both the President and the Republicans could have destroyed themselves (and eventually did) - and we have evidence - the handling of Hurricane Katrina, the $100 trillion unfunded liability that the Prescription Drug Benefit is, et al. - the demonstrate it so.

Neoconservatives are responsible for foreign policy modeled on the Project for a New American Century's American imperialist model. Imperialism should not be the goal of a conservative - not in any century. But that's just the tip of the iceberg (or rather "tip of the spear," as I'm sure they would appreciate a more bellicose metaphor).

Neoconservatives and their spear carriers at National Review and The Weekly (lack of) Standard(s) have been responsible for defending an unjust war against a people who did not attack us on 9/11 and which has been responsible for hundreds of thousands of dead civilians ("collateral damage" in their parlance) and thousands of dead Americans - more than anyone really knows since those who die en route to Ramstein are not included in the "official count."

Neoconservatives are responsible for a nearly eschatological policy on Israel which places the interests of Israel, a bully superpower in the Mideast, above the interests of America. It's not enough for America to arm and finance Israel, but apparently we must care when it rattles its perpetual sabre against countries that have no chance of effectively attacking or defeating it, ever.

Neoconservatives are responsible for cheering on the recent bailout of banks, our government's largest blunder in banking since the treacherous 1913 Federal Reserve Act - which passed because even back then, conservatives (in this case Taft and T. Roosevelt) couldn't decide who was Republican or not, and so the bankers' man, Wilson, won.

What do these principles have in common with conservativism? I would answer the same way Tertullian did when he pondered what Athens had to do with Jerusalem: "Nothing!"

By maintaining even a shadow of alliance with these snakes and vipers, the real conservative movement is impugned. The real reason a lot of us face resistance from people in the world when we begin to talk about conservativism is because for those who haven't yet been introduced to the Permanent Things, conservatism IS the National Review and their water boys at the Fox News Channel.

Let's not let agreement on one or two issues (which, at this moment I can't even name) make us pretend that we have anything in common with "neoconservatives" other than the mendacious title of "conservative" that they arrogate to themselves.

Yes, conserve indeed. Conserve endless war in the Middle East to spread democracy at the point of a gun in homage to Wilsonian foreign policy. Conserve a military presence abroad in over 700 known military bases whose presence is not peacekeeping, but a prop to global hegemony which costs taxpayers trillions. Conserve an imperialist presidency in which the fictions of a simple mind, like the newly-invented phrase "enemy combatant," the "rules" found in the black hole of geography, Guantanamo Bay (a land not ruled by Cuban, American, or international law, apparently), and the policy of wiretapping the private conversations of American citizens, hold sway. Yes, conserve all these things if you please. But don't pretend to hold to the mantle, nay even a corner of the mantle, of Russell Kirk and others like him.

1 comment:

I AmYou said...

Very interesting essay, with simple words and a clear thought it explains what neocons are doing the the USA and the World.