Re: neocons (WAS IRAQ: Weapons of Mass Delusion

From: Steve Davies (steve365@btinternet.com)
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 10:55:31 MDT

  • Next message: Harvey Newstrom: "RE: Distributed Computing Project Popularity"

    > In a message dated 6/2/2003 8:44:26 AM Central Standard Time,
    > steve365@btinternet.com writes: Ron, you keep on saying this. I can only
    say you clearly
    > haven't read any political journalism until recently.
    >
    > Steve,
    > And maybe one day you will listen. I hear enough conservative
    > conversation to know that Neo Con is not a term used very often in
    conservative
    > circles.

    Two points in response to that. Firstly it *is* used in certain conservative
    circles, specifically among those conservatives who disapprove of the
    general thrust of the neoconservatives' arguments (the self-styled
    paleocons). I can clearly recall the last outbreak of internecine arguments
    among American conservatives in the late 1980s where these two terms were
    used by both sides. Secondly and more to the point, the term is used (or was
    until *very* recently) by the very people it's used as a label for eg the
    Kristols, and the contributors to the various books I cited.

     Most times it seems to be a clue that the speaker is from the
    > non-conservative side.

    Not neccesarily (see what I write above). It does mean nowadays that the
    writer may belong to one of the other varieties of 'conservatism' such as
    the paleos. The neoconservatives themselves are using it less than was the
    case five or six years ago, partly because they have been so successful in
    the internal argument among conservatives that their views are coming to be
    seen as the conservative mainstream, so making a specific label redundant.
    (That's what makes the paleos livid of course)

    > I haven't read much Leo Strauss, so far, but it sounds like his
    > critics take his actual ideas and stand them on their head. However I
    have often
    > been made to wonder how many people have actually read him. Only Alfred
    > Korzyski writes a denser style.
    > Ron h.

    You and me both! I find Strauss *very* hard going and I think Straussianism
    is one of those strange cults academics are prone to. There's actually two
    varieties (East Coast and West Coast - a bit like rap) but it's very
    difficult for an outsider to distinguish between them. I don't think there
    is any substantial connection between Strauss and his followers and
    neo-conservatism, there's some overlap of personnel but nothing else. Steve
    D



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 11:09:27 MDT