Lind has been going full-bore after the “Israel Lobby” for awhile now. He apparently loves a good conspiracy theory too, as indicated by this excerpt from BG’s first link:
“The neo-con defence intellectuals, as well as being in or around the actual Pentagon, are at the centre of a metaphorical ‘pentagon’ of the Israel lobby and the religious right, plus conservative think-tanks, foundations and media empires.”
Oo, scary stuff. Never mind challenging an idea or policy - if you can get people to fear and hate shadowy cabals, you can do an end run around actual debate.
I know, I read that whole story in Lind’s book, Up From Conservatism. What’s your point? If you want to make a case that Lind was wrong about any of the above – go ahead and make it.
Minotaurus, yes there are Christian Zionists who support Israel out of some twisted eschatology. And there are Christian Zionists who support Israel for other theological reasons, like the part of the bible where Gods says that he will bless those who bless Abraham and his descendents, and curse those who curse him.
Now, the next question is, are any of those people neoconservatives? And the answer is clearly, no. Neoconservatism is a secular movement, not a religious movement. Not all neoconservatives are Jewish, but those that aren’t surely aren’t Biblical literalist christians either.
Neoconservative does not simply mean a conservative hawk who supports Israel, does it? Jerry Falwell is not a neoconservative, right? George Bush is not a neoconservative, right? Neoconservative doesn’t just mean “conservative”, right? Neo doesn’t mean “very”, right?
Neoconservatives were former liberal or leftist intellectuals, mostly secular jews, who joined the conservative side because they felt the liberalism/leftism was insufficiently anti-communist. They surely aren’t Christian Zionists who want to immanatize the eschaton.
To political theorists, at least in the UK, the term “neoconservative” has a very exact definition and is a major part of political discourse. A “neoconservative” is defined as someone who allies a free-market based neo-liberal financial policy to a more conservative/traditionalist, “(family) values-based” social agenda, often with a strong authoritarian and/or militiaristic streak. The ideal state of a neoconservative might be defined as “strong but small”; Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan are the archetypal examples.
The term “neoconservative” is used to distinguish them from traditional conservatives, who tend to be conservative both financially and socially (eg. they may favour protectionism, for example), and neoliberals, who are basically semi-libertarian, at least in regard to financial and social agendas.
However, the term has become so bandied-about in common political discourse that now its anyone’s guess what people will think when they hear it.
My point is, if you want an objective view of any organization or movement, you don’t go to those people who have an emotional attachment with the organization or movement. That’s especially true about ex-members. They tend to bear grudges. I know you like the guy’s writing, probably because you agree with him on most things, but I’m just saying, don’t take it as gospel.
I, and many other people have made the argument that Lind is wrong about the “Trotskyite” nature of neoconservativism. The evidence just isn’t there, and if you think it is, show me it. With the exception of, like I said, Horowitz (who was really more of a Maoist), name some prominent ex-Trotskyists in the neocon movement. You have some Schachtmanites, like I was saying, a few of whom, you could even argue, were with Schachtman before he split with Trotsky. But it’s just wrong to make the claims he made.
He’s suggesting an organized interconnected effort among a wide range of people and groups to subvert foreign policy. I suggest that the evidence of such an effort is lacking. If one believes it is so, one is obliged to demonstrate the supporting evidence clearly, not just drop names all over the place and implying that all right-thinking people can connect the dots.
We did this type of debate recently over the Mearsheimer and Walt “Israel Lobby” thesis, and Lind’s diatribes disgust me in the same way. Instead of openly engaging in ideas, people like this poison debate by suggesting that opponents’ ideas could not prosper without the influence of cabals, complete with lurid overtones of bigotry.
Yeah, I already agreed that there are Christian Zionists who support Israel for various theological reasons, some twisted and pathetic, others more or less reasonable.
What does that have to do with neoconservative?
You somehow have mixed these groups together. The only thing neoconservatives and Christian Zionists have in common is both support Israel. That’s it. Neoconservatives because many are secular jews and are in favor of a hawkish foreign policy. Christian Zionists because they are paleoconservatives who want to immanatize the eschaton.
Why do you believe these two groups largely overlap? You think this Rev. Clyde Lott from your article is a neoconservative? Of course he isn’t. Let me say one more time. He is NOT a neoconservative. I’d appreciate it if you’d give some indication that you’d considered what I said. I don’t need to see any more articles about Christian loonies hopped up on the Book of Revelation. What I want to see is evidence that these people are, get this, NEOCONSERVATIVE.
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
With the exception of, like I said, Horowitz (who was really more of a Maoist), name some prominent ex-Trotskyists in the neocon movement. You have some Schachtmanites, like I was saying, a few of whom, you could even argue, were with Schachtman before he split with Trotsky.
I think most commentators who find a Trotskyist influence in the neocons are perfectly aware of the history you describe but do not consider it as supporting any important distinction; Schachmanite is a branch of Trotskyist.
And how does pointing out a Trotskyist connection to neoconservatism constitute “trashing” it?
What? I thought we had settled all this, in the thread you mention – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=365092. The Israel lobby is real; it really is powerful; it really is, in some respects, secretive; and the neocons really are members or at least supporters of it. What part of that would any reasonable person think of disputing, at this point?
Settled? I recall adherents to the Mearsheimer/Walt thesis flailing about helplessly, unable to support the concept of a subversive force distorting our foreign policy, with some giving up and trying to switch the debate to U.S. policy in the MidEast in general.
Highly disputed, at least in the formulation claimed by M/W.
This imputation of being “really powerful” suggests undue and improper powers not available to groups lobbying for Arab/Palestinian interests; unproven.
Not demonstrated that Israel’s supporters are any more “secretive” than those lobbying against its interests.
Not a well-defined or monolithic group as claimed, or shown to have the pervasive influence attributed to it.
Members? Is there an initiation ceremony and membership cards? Certainly some of the individuals popularly defined as “neocons” are pro-Israel, but I think you’re getting carried away with this membership stuff.
As you can see, virtually all of it. Sorry to be unreasonable.
It’s hard being one of the few posters on this topic who has a clue what he’s talking about. But here goes:
If you want to know who the neoconservatives are and what they believed, all you have to do is visit your local librariy, dig out the old issues of Commentary magazine from the Seventies and early Eighties, and do a little reading.
Find some books by Irving Kristol or Norman Podhoretz, and you’ll find out all you ever needed to know about the neoconservatives and their beliefs.
From what I’ve seen in posts like this, “neocon” has become a stupid, meaningless, all-purpose phrase for “all conservatives I don’t like.”
So what? We could debate the “formulation” of the religious right, but nobody would deny the religious right is real, and important, and powerful.
No, it doesn’t. Nothing particularly “undue” or “improper” about using good organization, dedication and money to achieve political aims. What it does suggest is that the Israel Lobby wields political influence out of proportion to its numbers – but so does every lobby, that’s what a lobby is for.
Not alleged, either.
As with the religious right – it can exist, and wield power, without having a single leadership or definable membership. Which is why I can confidently speak of the neocons as being "members or at least supporters" of the Israel Lobby.
Rjung, name some neoconservatives for me. Which American political or intellectual figures do you consider to be neocons?
Jerry Falwell? George Bush? Pat Buchanan? Joe Lieberman? Rush Limbaugh? Bill O’Reilly? Ann Coulter? Strom Thurman? Andrew Sullivan? Tom DeLay? Trent Lott? Newt Gingrich? Who are they, exactly?
That’s the funny thing about these debates. Neocons do this, neocons do that, neocons believe this, neocons believe that.
But I never hear the neocon bashers identifying exactly who these neocons are. Why not just use “Republican” or “conservative” if that’s what you mean?
There is such a thing as a neoconservative movement, and some Bush administration officials and conservative talking heads are part of it. But what I can’t understand is why the term is identified with the Bush administration, the Republican part, and right-wing politics in general. What causes this confusion among so many people? Or if you believe that I’m the one that’s mistaken, explain why you believe the word “neoconservative” can be used as a synonym for “partisan Republican”.
Elliott Abrams
Richard L. Armitage
William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner
John Bolton
Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama
Robert Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol
Richard Perle
Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld
William Schneider, Jr.
Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz
R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick
(Though I believe Francis Fukuyama has subsequently recanted his neoconservative views, which immediately earned him the ire and brickabats of his former colleagues…)
Jeane Kirkpatrick
Charles Krauthammer
Bill Kristol
Irving Kristol
Richard Perle
Norman Podhoretz
Paul Wolfowitz
OK, I’ll buy all these people as neoconservatives! Yep. That there’s a list of people commonly described as neoconservatives, all right. Got yourself a heaping helping of neoconservatism.
So, let’s go back a bit, to earlier in the thread. Which of them are “Christian end-of-the-world types who think the Jews need to be in Israel to confirm Biblical prophecy ( and be killed when it happens ).” Which of them "have been smearing all the conservatives [rjung likes] as “certified nutcases.” "? Which of them are part of “a-very-real-evil-or-at-any-rate-stupid-conspiracy-that-really-has-landed-us-all-in-the-shit”? Which of them are former Trotskyites? Which of them are part of “some sort of secret underground organization that planes [sic] to take over the control of a nations and so [forth]”?
So far you’ve got a list of 7 neoconservative conspirators. Who else belongs on this list of enemies of freedom?
No, it doesn’t. Nothing particularly “undue” or “improper” about using good organization, dedication and money to achieve political aims. What it does suggest is that the Israel Lobby wields political influence out of proportion to its numbers – but so does every lobby, that’s what a lobby is for.