February 28, 2007

I recently got into a debate with a friend of mine. I was complaining about how the National Republican Party had been high jacked by “neocons,” who were not conservatives at all. My friend seemed to resent the term “neocon.” He suggested that people who used the term neoconservative were closet anti-semites or somehow anti-Israel. However, my main gripe has nothing to do with foreign policy.

My argument is that the dominance of neoconservatism in the Republican party has alienated two important factions: traditional conservatives and libertarians. They have done this by influencing the G.O.P. to abandon both national identity and limited government.

The main problem that conservatives and libertarians have with “neocons” is the fact that they embrace big government. Don’t take my word for it: just ask Irving Kristol, the grandfather of the neoconservative movement.

In August 5, 2005 issue of The Weekly Standard, Kristol said that “The historical task of neoconservatism is to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.”

Read that again.

Think about it.

Kristol says that he wants to change conservatism. But how exactly?

Simply put, he wants to do away with what I consider THE central issues of the conservative/ libertarian cause: smaller, less intrusive government and fiscal responsibilty. Irving Kristol has said that this “new conservative politics feels no alarm or anxiety about he growth of the state in the past half century, seeing it as natural, even inevitable.”

This is the essence of neoconservatism. Conservatives and Libertarians look at the “Leviathan State” and cringe. By contrast, Neoncons look at it and say “Cool!”

I despise the neocon philosophy, because big government goes against everything that true conservatism stands for. Traditional conservatives believe that the size of he state can only grow at the expense of human liberty and freedom, and don’t see the growth of government as “inevitable.”

Perhaps the second biggest player in the neoconservative movement is William Kristol of The Weekly Standard, the neocon bible. As the debate over illegal immigration was coming to a head in 2006, Bill Kristol expressed his disdain for those who opposed amnesty for illegal aliens. He used the word “yahoo” to refer to those who favored an “enforcement only” stance on illegal immigration.

In the April 2006 issue of The Weekly standard, he mocked those who opposed amnesty for illegal aliens:

Most Republican officeholders know that the political–and moral–cost of turning the GOP into an anti-immigration, Know Nothing party would be very great. It could easily dash Republican hopes of becoming a long-term governing party. How many Republicans will have the courage to stand up and prevent the yahoos from driving the party off a cliff?

Most insulting of all was Kristol’s treatment of Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo. He referred to Tancredo as an “anti-immigration yahoo.” Really, I’m not making this up.

I’ve given two examples here about how the neocons have driven the G.O.P. over a cliff. Entire books have been written on the poisonous influence of the neocons on the Republican party. Simply put, they are more than worthy of our disdain, whether you are a conservative, libertarian, or even liberal.

Yes, conservative pundits are always happy to bash “liberals.” There’s a time and a place for that sort of thing, but what the G.O.P. needs right now is a civil war in which the neocons are defeated.


I'm not disputing anything in your last post. I'm saying the word has gained a negative connotation due to usage by whack-a-loons that use it as an epithet. Don't be surprised when conservatives, especially conservative bloggers, get offended by it.

Chad E. Rogers
Chad E. Rogers

As per your first point, please read Irving Kristol's own words. He uses the word "neoconservative" to apply to HIMSELF AND HIS OWN PHILOSOPHY. I mean, it's right there, in plain English. He says that big government is acceptable. Bill Kristol, Irving's son, uses the same word to describe himself, and openly admits to accepting amnesty for illegal aliens. Conservatives and libertarians are not the same, but once upon a time, they were more easily gathered under the big tent of the Republican party. George H.W. Bush (41) was the beginning of the end of the libertarian/ Republican alliance- the neoconservatism of George Bush (43) has finished it.


1.) Conservatives don't like the word "neocon" because it is usually used by squirrel-turd nutty conspiracy theorists (both liberal and libertarian) and is usually followed by either the term: "Zionist Conspiracy" the term: "Chickenhawk" or the term: "Military Industrial Complex." It's a learned aversion brought about by negative conditioning. When talking to a conservative in an attempt to persuade, it's probably a bad idea to use it. 2.) I'm not sure if it's your intention to imply such, but conservatives are not interchangeable with libertarians. 3.) The above notwithstanding, you're right.


As a conservative blogger (with a sometimes libertarian lean) I am more than happy to bash liberals. There are a couple of reasons for this: A) Liberalism is a target rich environment. Their hypocrisy and inconsistencies make it impossible to resist slamming them. B) they're just so deserving of ridicule. That being said, the so called "conservatives" are gradually working their way to the left. And, you're right...unless there is a "civil war" of sorts the true conservatives are going to lose out all together.

Please help Louisiana Conservative Dot Com. Please donate $5, $10, or whatever you can afford to help our cause today!

Like Box