Not so fast.
It's interesting that you cite Nathan Glazer as one of "your" neocons, considering his opposition to affirmative action, which King would certainly have supported (his wife, children, and closest allies in the Civil Rights Movement certainly did and do). Also considering that he hates the term neoconservative...
I'm not completely familiar with all of the others you mentioned (aside from Moynihan). But from what I know of the genesis of neoconservative philosophy, Irving Kristol is widely regarded as one of its prime movers. Kristol (father of superhawk Bill Kristol) was a strong proponent of flaunting America's military power in foreign affairs. (Like father like son.) Geopolitical militarism is a dominant element in Irving Kristol’s writings, as well as in that of his other fellow neocons who contributed to Commentary.
Other neocons I know something about:
Norman Podhoretz – His best known work is Breaking ranks, which argues that an independent Israel is essential for America to have a successful military strategy.
Paul Wolfowitz – Key architect of the Iraq War
Richard Perle – former member of the Pentagon Defense Policy Board and proponent of the “creative destruction” of the Middle East.
Scooter Libby – who, in addition to his recent exploits worked with Kristol and Wolfowitz on a 2000 report used to restructure the US military, and is a fervently hawkish supporter of the war.
Robert Kagan – who was urging regime change in Iraq when Clinton was president.
It's not enough to say that neocons were against communism. I understand context, but the neocons were militant anticommunists. You seem to want to define neoconservatism strictly on terms of domestic policy. That's just not intellectually honest. And it's no good cherry picking a few neocons who primarily concern themselves with domestic issues. Neoconservatives in the broader scope have been consistently aggressive in foreign policy, favoring unilateral action to traditional diplomacy. In this particular arena, they owe a lot to Theodore Roosevelt.
As you said yourself, the neocons weren't fans of the Great Society program. King was a huge fan of the Great Society programs, and even though he and Johnson didn't always see eye to eye on things (especially Vietnam), he was an admirer of Johnson's attempts to enlarge government in the cause of giving the poor.
Here's King on special programs to help level the playing field for minorities in 1965:
"Reporter: Do you feel it's fair to request a multi-billion dollar program of preferential treatment for the Negro, or any other minority?
King: I do indeed...Within common law, we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs. ... America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans...They could negotiate loans from banks to launch businesses. They could receive special points to place them ahead in competition for civil service jobs...There was no appreciable resentment of the preferential treatment being given to the special group."
From 1966:
"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro..."
"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom. "
And my favorite:
"One of the greatest casualties of the war in Vietnam is the Great Society... shot down on the battlefield of Vietnam."
MLK Day
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
Noise, I feel like Al Pacino in the Godfather Part II (I believe that El Vez cast me as his dad, so I'm kind of torn): the more I pull out the more they bring me back in!!
Let's see, we start with Nathan Glazer. First, he was a neocon, and yes, lots of neocons did not like labels. Lots of people don't like labels. I've been familiar with neo cons since 1975. He's a neocon.
Now, he and lots of others (including non-neo cons) were and are opposed to affirmative action (I am not, by the way). You again make the mistake of assuming that MLK's views in the mid-1960s would be his views today. His views may very well be the same, but it is wrong to assume they have to be. What I have repeatedly said in my posts applies here: I am not ready to assume that MLK would today, over 40 years after affirmative action began during the Kennedy administration as a "temporary" form of redress, automatically be a supporter. Just as he would not automatically have to be as supporter of current liberal social and economic policies. This is my central point. Repeatedly pointing out to me what MLK's views were in the mid 1960s and assuming that I would therefore HAVE to agree that they could be no different today is not enlightening me. We are talking at cross purposes.
Your next step is to cherry pick "your" neo cons and label them in a simplistic fashion, again focussing on what you view as war like policies. Of your neo cons the only ones I have studied are Kristol and Podhoretz both of whose views are grossly distorted if they are viewed as wanting to "flaunt US power worldwide". That's just simplistic talk not worth going into. I agree that in foreign policy both these very old men were strident anti-communists (nothing warmongering about that, in my book) and allies of Israel (nothing warlike about that either). I don't agree with them on everything, which is why they are not on my list. Kid Kristol, Wolfie, Perle, Libby are bushies whose views I do not respect. Kagan I don't know. Nevertheless, I don't see why it is warlike to consider an independent Israel as essential to a successful american military strategy.
Now, let's continue addressing your last post. The neo cons were militant anticommunits. That is not being bellicose, or warlike. They were on the right side of the Cold War, and their militancy was not based on some Dr. Strangelovian desire to annihiliate the world. It was foreign policy and it helped to end the Cold War. A good thing.
Next, you say that it's intellectually dishonest for me to concentrate on the domestic side of neo cons. This is where we really disagree. My whole intent in my post (I am now saying this for the third time) was to focus on the domestic neo con policies, not on the foreign policy. That is not intellectually dishonest. You continue to focus on the foreign policy side, for your own reasons. That was not my intent. I don't think you can label me intellectually dishonest simply because my original point was different than yours. Foreign policy, as I'm sure you know, is different than domestic policy. Johnson was, using your characterization, a hawk in foreign policy and MLK-like in domestic policy. Would MLK not have supported Johnson's domestic policies because of his disagreement on the foreign policy?
Next, again I have to point out to you that in my view MLK's views on issues, such as the Great Society program, cannot be frozen in time (at least in this hypothetical discussion of what would MLK do). Of course he was a fan of the Great Society programs. But would he still be a fan of Great Society type social policy 40 years later. That is the question. And my view, different than yours, is that he might very well not be, especially in light of the state of African american society forty years later.
Let's see, we start with Nathan Glazer. First, he was a neocon, and yes, lots of neocons did not like labels. Lots of people don't like labels. I've been familiar with neo cons since 1975. He's a neocon.
Now, he and lots of others (including non-neo cons) were and are opposed to affirmative action (I am not, by the way). You again make the mistake of assuming that MLK's views in the mid-1960s would be his views today. His views may very well be the same, but it is wrong to assume they have to be. What I have repeatedly said in my posts applies here: I am not ready to assume that MLK would today, over 40 years after affirmative action began during the Kennedy administration as a "temporary" form of redress, automatically be a supporter. Just as he would not automatically have to be as supporter of current liberal social and economic policies. This is my central point. Repeatedly pointing out to me what MLK's views were in the mid 1960s and assuming that I would therefore HAVE to agree that they could be no different today is not enlightening me. We are talking at cross purposes.
Your next step is to cherry pick "your" neo cons and label them in a simplistic fashion, again focussing on what you view as war like policies. Of your neo cons the only ones I have studied are Kristol and Podhoretz both of whose views are grossly distorted if they are viewed as wanting to "flaunt US power worldwide". That's just simplistic talk not worth going into. I agree that in foreign policy both these very old men were strident anti-communists (nothing warmongering about that, in my book) and allies of Israel (nothing warlike about that either). I don't agree with them on everything, which is why they are not on my list. Kid Kristol, Wolfie, Perle, Libby are bushies whose views I do not respect. Kagan I don't know. Nevertheless, I don't see why it is warlike to consider an independent Israel as essential to a successful american military strategy.
Now, let's continue addressing your last post. The neo cons were militant anticommunits. That is not being bellicose, or warlike. They were on the right side of the Cold War, and their militancy was not based on some Dr. Strangelovian desire to annihiliate the world. It was foreign policy and it helped to end the Cold War. A good thing.
Next, you say that it's intellectually dishonest for me to concentrate on the domestic side of neo cons. This is where we really disagree. My whole intent in my post (I am now saying this for the third time) was to focus on the domestic neo con policies, not on the foreign policy. That is not intellectually dishonest. You continue to focus on the foreign policy side, for your own reasons. That was not my intent. I don't think you can label me intellectually dishonest simply because my original point was different than yours. Foreign policy, as I'm sure you know, is different than domestic policy. Johnson was, using your characterization, a hawk in foreign policy and MLK-like in domestic policy. Would MLK not have supported Johnson's domestic policies because of his disagreement on the foreign policy?
Next, again I have to point out to you that in my view MLK's views on issues, such as the Great Society program, cannot be frozen in time (at least in this hypothetical discussion of what would MLK do). Of course he was a fan of the Great Society programs. But would he still be a fan of Great Society type social policy 40 years later. That is the question. And my view, different than yours, is that he might very well not be, especially in light of the state of African american society forty years later.
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
Well, there's strident anticommunism, and then there's McCarthyism. I'm not calling neocoons McCarthyists. I'm just saying there's a line, and I think the majority of neoconservative writing I've read on foreign policy is unreasonably bellicose, arrogant, and short-sighted. Irving Kristol isn't as bad as his son, but King would have had issues with him nonetheless.
I cherry picked differnt neocons to make a point. You want to characterize the neoconservative philosophy on the merits of the neocons you admire. You have to look at the whole hog. And I don't think you have. I'm willing to admit that there are neocons who aren't hawks. Why can't you admit that most prominent neocons historically have been? I never said anticommunism or pro-Israeli policies were inherently bad. But you suggested that neoconservatism had no preference for war, and I'm saying there's plenty of evidence to the contrary in the words of people who are identified and who identify themselves as neocons.
Calling Bill Kristol, Libby, Wolfowitz, et al Bushies is laughable. If anything Bush is a Kristolite. They came first, wrote first, formulated the modern neocon philosophy and have shaped the current neocon foreign AND domestic policy. Bush is a Johnny come lately. He's playing by the rules they made. It's fine that you don't like respect them, and you're welcome to define necons by the writings of people who no longer effectively affect policy. Maybe these guys have dismantled the former definition of what a neocon is. But they're the neocons now. Maybe they're the neoneocons. Whatever. Your original post was about how MLK would gel with the neocons. No way I could have known from that that you don't count Kristol (the godfather of the movement) or his son among the ranks of "real neocons."
Which brings me this point. You're basically saying that MLK used to disagree with the neocons, but he might have changed his mind over the course of 40 years. That's a fascinating argument. George Washington was adamantly opposed to party politics. Maybe if he were still alive he'd be chairman of the RNC? Maybe King would have thrown in with the Black Panthers over the course of 40 years? Maybe he would sell out to corporate interests and renounce nonviolence? Anything's possible. But the only way we can possibly predict what he might have done and not look foolish in our predictions is to base them on what he actually said and taught. Not what we wish he might have said and taught.
It's also not fair to suggest that the Great Society programs have overstayed their effectiveness based on the last 40 years. The heart was cut out of pretty much every Great Society program when Nixon slashed their budgets. If what Johnson had put in place had been allowed to take root and grow, I believe that the US would be a MUCH different place than it is now, and better for it. And based on what King actually said in real life, I firmly believe he'd agree.
I cherry picked differnt neocons to make a point. You want to characterize the neoconservative philosophy on the merits of the neocons you admire. You have to look at the whole hog. And I don't think you have. I'm willing to admit that there are neocons who aren't hawks. Why can't you admit that most prominent neocons historically have been? I never said anticommunism or pro-Israeli policies were inherently bad. But you suggested that neoconservatism had no preference for war, and I'm saying there's plenty of evidence to the contrary in the words of people who are identified and who identify themselves as neocons.
Calling Bill Kristol, Libby, Wolfowitz, et al Bushies is laughable. If anything Bush is a Kristolite. They came first, wrote first, formulated the modern neocon philosophy and have shaped the current neocon foreign AND domestic policy. Bush is a Johnny come lately. He's playing by the rules they made. It's fine that you don't like respect them, and you're welcome to define necons by the writings of people who no longer effectively affect policy. Maybe these guys have dismantled the former definition of what a neocon is. But they're the neocons now. Maybe they're the neoneocons. Whatever. Your original post was about how MLK would gel with the neocons. No way I could have known from that that you don't count Kristol (the godfather of the movement) or his son among the ranks of "real neocons."
Which brings me this point. You're basically saying that MLK used to disagree with the neocons, but he might have changed his mind over the course of 40 years. That's a fascinating argument. George Washington was adamantly opposed to party politics. Maybe if he were still alive he'd be chairman of the RNC? Maybe King would have thrown in with the Black Panthers over the course of 40 years? Maybe he would sell out to corporate interests and renounce nonviolence? Anything's possible. But the only way we can possibly predict what he might have done and not look foolish in our predictions is to base them on what he actually said and taught. Not what we wish he might have said and taught.
It's also not fair to suggest that the Great Society programs have overstayed their effectiveness based on the last 40 years. The heart was cut out of pretty much every Great Society program when Nixon slashed their budgets. If what Johnson had put in place had been allowed to take root and grow, I believe that the US would be a MUCH different place than it is now, and better for it. And based on what King actually said in real life, I firmly believe he'd agree.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--William Shakespeare
--William Shakespeare
You are not calling them McCarthyists but bring up McCarthyism? Nice. Just because the majority of neoconservative stuff you've read is considered by you to be bellicose etc. does not make it so. We disagree. Is that acceptable? It is certainly to me. I have read them too, and I don't draw the same conclusion you do, probably because our defintion of "bellicose" is different.
On your view of why I picked my neo cons. My interest in this discussion is on neo conservative domestic polices vis a vis MLK, not foreign policy. I only addressed foreign policy because you characterized neo cons as militants and war like. You expect me to admit that they are all hawks. I will not, because they have not all been. When you say that "neo cons have a preference for war" you make it impossible for me to even consider being in the same universe as you on this issue. Which is fine.
What i meant by calling them bushies (the group you referenced) is not that they follow Bush. That's ridiculous. They are the group that has formulated the Bush policy. That does not make them the fathers of neoconservatism. The reason I ignore these clowns is that they are offering a bastardized version of neo conservatism. The fathers that I look to are Bell, Moynhihan et. al. Not the ones you mention, which is why I dismissed them as bushies. You are right to say there was no way for you to know that these are the neocons I was talking about. But for about 3 posts now, Noise, I've been pointing out who my neo cons are. I quickly figured out I had to since I accept that most people when they talk about neo cons these days have only the modern day media version of neoconservatism.
On your next to last point, where you finally get what I've been telling you for a while. I am glad you find it a fascinating argument. I do too.
On your last point, all during the Nixon years, and until Reagan the Congress was controlled by the Democrats. The republican presidents did not and could not slash the Great Society programs. In any case, here, we also disagree, you believe that if war mongering Johnson would have been "allowed" to grow the Great Society we would all be better off. That's a fascinating argument. I disagree. But we'll never know.
On your view of why I picked my neo cons. My interest in this discussion is on neo conservative domestic polices vis a vis MLK, not foreign policy. I only addressed foreign policy because you characterized neo cons as militants and war like. You expect me to admit that they are all hawks. I will not, because they have not all been. When you say that "neo cons have a preference for war" you make it impossible for me to even consider being in the same universe as you on this issue. Which is fine.
What i meant by calling them bushies (the group you referenced) is not that they follow Bush. That's ridiculous. They are the group that has formulated the Bush policy. That does not make them the fathers of neoconservatism. The reason I ignore these clowns is that they are offering a bastardized version of neo conservatism. The fathers that I look to are Bell, Moynhihan et. al. Not the ones you mention, which is why I dismissed them as bushies. You are right to say there was no way for you to know that these are the neocons I was talking about. But for about 3 posts now, Noise, I've been pointing out who my neo cons are. I quickly figured out I had to since I accept that most people when they talk about neo cons these days have only the modern day media version of neoconservatism.
On your next to last point, where you finally get what I've been telling you for a while. I am glad you find it a fascinating argument. I do too.
On your last point, all during the Nixon years, and until Reagan the Congress was controlled by the Democrats. The republican presidents did not and could not slash the Great Society programs. In any case, here, we also disagree, you believe that if war mongering Johnson would have been "allowed" to grow the Great Society we would all be better off. That's a fascinating argument. I disagree. But we'll never know.
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
Sorry. I was being sarcastic when I said it was a fascinating argument. Let me rephrase. It's a ridiculous argument that anyone could make about any long-dead historical figure. Using that logic, I will now argue that if only Stalin had lived 40 more years, he might well have become a peace loving boy scout troop leader. We'll never know.alexv wrote:
On your next to last point, where you finally get what I've been telling you for a while. I am glad you find it a fascinating argument. I do too.
And I will stipulate that the tiny few neocons you define as "your" neocons are golden gods, whose every word created harmony and goodness whenever uttered. The rest of them have their heads up their asses.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--William Shakespeare
--William Shakespeare
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
Yeah, I was being sarcastic about that too. Moynihan is the only person on your list I have a modicum of respect for.
You know, reading back over all this, even without regard to foreign policy, I just don't think you ever made a case that sticks for why King would have appreciated even your neocons. And to say that he might one day have changed his mind doesn't do it. But whatever.
You know, reading back over all this, even without regard to foreign policy, I just don't think you ever made a case that sticks for why King would have appreciated even your neocons. And to say that he might one day have changed his mind doesn't do it. But whatever.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--William Shakespeare
--William Shakespeare
-
mood swung
- Posts: 6908
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 3:59 pm
- Location: out looking for my tribe
- Contact:
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
