WHO ARE NEO-CONSERVATIVES?

Think About It
True conservatives, arise and be wary. The neo-conservatives (neocons) are not really your friends and your brothers. Yet they are effectively taking control of the National Republican Party; which was revived in the 1960’s, when Barry Goldwater first cracked the wall the Democratic Party had built around the “solid south”.
The neocon’s “self confessed” godfather is Irving Kristol, father of William Kristol, Fox TV contributor and Editor of “The Weekly Standard”. Their origin was in the 1970’s among elite liberal intellectuals who grew disillusioned with the Democratic Party’s growing desire to focus the Federal government on social policies, and reluctance to spend adequately for defense. They decided to infiltrate the GOP.
According to Kristol senior, “their historical task and political purpose is to convert the Republican Party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.” Their heroes include TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan (the last, without adequate justification, in my opinion). They ignore Hoover, Eisenhower and Goldwater. They assert that the large majority of the present Party knows nothing, and could not care less, about neo-conservatism. Unfortunately, they are probably exactly right.
They agree to cutting tax rates in order to spur economic growth, but their attitude toward burgeoning Federal debt is far less risk adverse than most conservatives. They aver that budgetary deficits are the cost (temporary, they hope) of pursuing economic growth. They feel no alarm at government growth in the past century, seeing it as inevitable. They feel that most people prefer strong central government to weak central government. They espouse sympathy toward restricting social evils, in an attempt to hold the “religious right” in their camp.
But they are most easily defined by their foreign policy. They do not want one world government, but they want the U. S. to be an empire which dominates and controls the world. While calling themselves Patriots, they think it provincial to believe that our national interests begin and end at our borders. We are, rather, to enforce our ideological interests around the world. Unlike most conservatives, they have no reservation against military intervention and nation building. They see our military might as the result of the “bad luck” we had in having to fight wars in Korea, Viet Nam, the Gulf, Kosovo and Afghanistan. “The result,” they believe, “is that our military spending expanded more or less in line with our economic growth.” They believe that if you have such power, you have the responsibility to use it. Either you find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you. They fear no danger in creating enemies around the world in the name of democracy and capitalism. This, in my opinion, is a misguided philosophy.
I have come to believe that you cannot “bestow” democracy upon any nation. Those who are not willing to pledge their own lives, fortunes and sacred honor to achieve such independence, can not hold it if given to them. Iraq, I offer, as my proof.
We should heed the admonition of “Ike” in his farewell address 40 years ago: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” Well said, Ike