This is a review I wrote awhile back of an Irving Kristol book that I’ll be discussing on the show today…
Neo-Conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea
By Irving Kristol
A review…
Several times on the show, I have made mention of the book Neo-Conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, Selected Essays 1949-1995, by Irving Kristol. If his name sounds familiar, it’s because it is. Kristol was a popluar and influential writer and political commentator for over fifty years; he was a father of the neo-conservative movement (neo meaning “new”) and the father of Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard who carries on his father’s tradition and, with his own compatriots, profoundly influences the Republican party to this day.
Neo-Conservatism lays out the decades-long journey Irving Kristol made from self-described neo-Trotskyist and neo-Marxist to one of the founders of the neo-conservative movement. The book is beautifully written with a truly elegant style, and Kristol brings to the subject levels of sociological analysis that one rarely finds on the right.
As a matter of fact, it’s the kind of sociological analysis that one never finds on the right – the traditional right, that is – because it is a fundamentally leftist view which starts with the assumption that the basic unit of society is society itself instead of the individuals who comprise it. As beautiful and interesting as the book is, it’s also an offense to sincere Americans, from its total lack of recognition of objective individual rights to its Machiavellian prescriptions for the Republican party. <continue reading>
For years I watched Bill Kristol push war, on Fox News! I asked myself,who is this military industrial complex, mouthpiece. By way of the internet, I discovered his father was Irving Kristol founder of Neo-Conservatism, who claimed to have been a neo-Marxist,a neo-Trotskyist,a neo-socialist,a neoliberal and a neoconservative.They are all wolves in sheeps clothing. ALL take from the many to give to a few. The term New World Communist, is what I think he was.That is what Senator Joe McCarthy was trying to expose in the 1950s. I consider myself a Goldwater Republican, a Tea Party Conservative and an American. This country needs about 10,000 Monica Perez University graduates.The Red Pill takers with your guidance , could help this country stabilize, then flourish. I may be wrong but I think Libertarians and Tea Party conservatives are close in beliefs.
charles from duluth,
One huge AMEN to your comment! I agree wholeheartedly with just about everything you wrote! And I’m so glad you mentioned Senator Joe McCarthy as good people who mean well often throw him in with the evil guys. McCarthy was a real hero in my book!
I will use Monica’s book review to try to open up some minds. I know good ‘Republican types’ who haven’t figured out yet that their party is no longer conservative, but neo-conservative. And may I suggest the difference is similar to that between day and night?! Monica’s review is a very, very valuable tool we should put to good use!
ps. There is one major flaw in the libertarian philosophy that I see, and that would be their position on “immigration” and related issues. The libertarian philosophy is fatal to any nation, in that regard, so one must strongly oppose and expose that aspect of their philosophy. And that thought hopefully won’t rile Monica too much.
Hugh, I am not of the Ron Paul / Murray Rothbard school of taking our freedoms where we can get them (see Libertarians Beware! It’s a set-up!) because I have discovered that the power elite pick and choose freedoms for us with the intention of discrediting liberty (see More on the Set-up). I advocate for economic and personal liberty and strict adherence to the doctrine of just war. In that environment, immigration would per force be limited to those who willingly embrace their adopted culture and can assimilate to it. Yes, they would influence it, but the organic nature of the right to work and the right to travel in a free society – that includes no hand-outs primarily because forcing newcomers to thrive economically is what gets them to conform to the culture – would mean more of an enrichment than anything else as only the cultural qualities that promoted the newcomer’s success would be retained. A bit Darwinian? Maybe, except the immigrant always has the choice not to come, and many would make that choice especially when their own countries compete to keep them there with economic freedoms of their own.
Monica,
I agree with much, if not most of what you write here, and in the two prior writings you provided embedded links to. But what I would add is that this is our nation, and as such, we should have the ability to welcome in who we wish. It should not be the choice of the immigrant, but ours. I made that comment to Brad in an earlier thread, and additionally in your more recent SOTU thread. Would that not seem appropriate for us to establish the entrance criteria for our own home (nation) if we are supposed to be a sovereign nation? It does appear you are effectively establishing some criteria (and more so in the SOTU thread (Christopher Dawson comments)), but leaving the decision to the immigrant, which I don’t agree with.
I am an anarcho-capitalist – I don’t believe in any form of collectivism…if I own a farm and the road that leads to it, i can invite anyone in the world who I want to live there with me and work on it. This I think is the point at which you and I must agree to disagree 🙂
I hear forty per cent of the illegal immigrants come here on visas and don’t leave. I was joking with my wife earlier tonight by telling her I.C.E. stands for immigration customs and emigration . She corrected me and told me emigration is spelled with an i. I explained to her in……..is incoming and em…….is outgoing. I.C.E. stands for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. What per cent of their time and treasure is spent on emigration enforcement, BYE! BYE!