Letters to the Editor
L.W.M.
Published Letters: 6163 Editor's Choice: 5
-
It looks like more than a few people...
[Read the article: Neocons' rejection of the rule of law extends to the personal level]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]are beginning to see them in the same light as Peter Viereck.
Dangerous radicals.
Jacobinism, Bolshevism
The "traditional" conservative Claes G. Ryn has argued that neoconservatives are "a variety of neo-Jacobins." Ryn maintains that true conservatives deny the existence of a universal political and economic philosophy and model that is suitable for all societies and cultures, and believe that a society's institutions should be adjusted to suit its culture, while Neo-Jacobins
are attached in the end to ahistorical, supranational principles that they believe should supplant the traditions of particular societies. The new Jacobins see themselves as on the side of right and fighting evil and are not prone to respecting or looking for common ground with countries that do not share their democratic preferences. (Ryn 2003: 387)
Further examining the relationship between Neoconservatism and moral rhetoric, Ryn argues that
Neo-Jacobinism regards America as founded on universal principles and assigns to the United States the role of supervising the remaking of the world. Its adherents have the intense dogmatic commitment of true believers and are highly prone to moralistic rhetoric. They demand, among other things, "moral clarity" in dealing with regimes that stand in the way of America's universal purpose. They see themselves as champions of "virtue." (p. 384).
Thus, according to Ryn, neoconservatism is analogous to Bolshevism: in the same way that the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy established ways of life throughout the world to replace them with communism, the neoconservatives want to do the same, only imposing free-market capitalism and American-style liberal democracy instead of socialism.
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, had the following to say in a December, 2005 interview with the German weekly Der Spiegel: "They are not new conservatives. They're Jacobins. Their predecessor is French Revolution leader Maximilien Robespierre."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative#Jacobinism.2C_Bolshevism
-
The best part of any religion
[Read the article: Brit Hume is a "journalist"; Keith Olbermann is "partisan"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]is the good works of selfless individuals... But these individuals would do that if they were Buddhists or atheists or Marxists like Father Camillo Torres.
-
Alan Walker... "Why Use "Neo" When Just Plain "Conservative" Will Do?"
[Read the article: Neocons' rejection of the rule of law extends to the personal level]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is some legitimate argument made for this. Phil Agre does here:
What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
Liberals in the United States have been losing political debates to conservatives for a quarter century. In order to start winning again, liberals must answer two simple questions: what is conservatism, and what is wrong with it? As it happens, the answers to these questions are also simple:
Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
These ideas are not new. Indeed they were common sense until recently. Nowadays, though, most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" have little notion of what conservatism even is. They have been deceived by one of the great public relations campaigns of human history. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States...
http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html
It does explain this...
So then the difference is, organized white collar fraud on a mammoth scale affecting millions of people and destroying the lives of thousands = OK. Petty theft after a hurricane = Capital Offense.
It's semantics, labeling, branding... I think conservatism is really proceeding with thoughtful caution and moderation in your endeavours. In that sense, I wish I had been more "conservative" at many times in my life.
When I read this New Yorker piece about Peter Viereck, The First Conservative, I began to think about it again, and differently.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/10/24/051024fa_fact1
Paul,
That would mean Viereck was mistaken as well. Quite possible, and his elitism is somewhat disturbing (aristocratic, even). I appreciate your always knowledgeable feedback and will look into Joseph de Maistre. I find this a fascinating line of inquiry. In point of fact, I think Viereck was referring more to the McCarthys, Coulters, etc.
-
-- Michael Harold
[Read the article: Neocons' rejection of the rule of law extends to the personal level]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Too much credit... yes. I agree with you. Democracy is what they are evangelistic about (the secular, free market, capitalist kind).
If a country decides to exercise the power of democratic self-determination and become communists or socialists, or even an Islamic state not aligned within the sphere of influence of the United States, then they must be persuaded otherwise, by force, if necessary.
-
Sounds like Democraphobia to me
[Read the article: Neocons' rejection of the rule of law extends to the personal level]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's rather arch that the topic is Rule of Law which boils down to consent to external standards. And yet the people making the claim are just another angry mob like everyone else.
Is this your RealBlog, RealName?
http://spinnada.blogspot.com/2005/12/iraq-democraphobia-of-left.html
It's hilarious...
-
jojo...Two things that may provide for a different outcome...
[Read the article: Neocons' rejection of the rule of law extends to the personal level]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The collapse of the center
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-op.schaller02may02,0,7506945.column
And the nutroots comprised of us dirty effing hippies is moving the Overton Window back to where it belongs.
-
one more time...
[Read the article: Neocons' rejection of the rule of law extends to the personal level]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sectors of the American Right...
http://www.publiceye.org/research/chart_of_sectors.html
Study the right: http://www.publiceye.org/study_right.html
-
Jojo
[Read the article: Neocons' rejection of the rule of law extends to the personal level]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think anything that slams the brakes on and keeps the bus from going over the cliff is better than nothing. It may take 30 years to move things back to some sort of political balance and equilibrium.
-
Good catch, Arne
[Read the article: Neocons' rejection of the rule of law extends to the personal level]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My eyes tend to glaze over...
Amongst the dross and effluvium, we have this:
If Glenn Greenwald had an ounce of journalistc integrity, he'd deal squarely with the fabulous, textbook reporting done by the WSJ editorial writers on the Wolfowitz story.
The WSJ editorial staff are "reporters"?!?!? More like paid shills for the Republicans....
-
False or deceptive advertising may be regulated...
[Read the article: Brit Hume is a "journalist"; Keith Olbermann is "partisan"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Advertising or "Commercial speech" enjoys somewhat less First Amendment protection from governmental encroachment than other types of speech. The Federal Trade Commission, for example, may regulate speech that is found to be "deceptive."
If corporations, even media and news corporations, want to publish falsehoods and lies for monetary gains, a stiff fine imposed by a regualtory agency may have the desired effect of keeping them honest.