Lash wrote:blatham wrote:goodfielder wrote:Lash wrote:I honestly can't understand it, either GF.
It's just getting worse, IMO.
Has anyone heard--or I should say--is there anything to a recent contention that "neo-con" is becomoing some sort of euphemism for Jews controlling US government?
Yes I have read that assertion. It's a very messy - which is to say confused - debate and it involves Leo Strauss and his followers - both academic and political. I don't know enough about any of the topics to make an informed comment but it seems there is a suggested link between former Democrats who happened to be Jews either educated by or influenced by, Leo Strauss and new form of conservatism. Some of the names I've read have been Kristol, Wolfowitz and Horowitz.
Take it as you will, it's put here to hopefully further debate and investigation.
I'm afraid that the wikipedia piece isn't very dependable.
Please give concrete examples.
Just off the top, the 'neoconservative' label was happily assumed by Irving Kristol and the circle of folks who studied under, or came to be followers of, Strauss.
Yes. Wiki says that.
That the term has come to have derogative connotations follows as a consequence of, most particularly, the Iraq war and the policy/ideology of pre-emptive warfare which was promoted by this same circle.
Yes. Wiki says that, among other reasons. You've really criticised it without reading it, eh?
Various political philosophy critics of Strauss also cite a certain tendency they find in Strauss to elitism - Platonic-style paternalism where the relatively stupid and backward masses are helped along by the controlling few up top.
Various political philosophy critics find something wrong with everyone, don't they? I think he had some very good instincts. But, none of us approve anyone completely, do we? What specifically did you disapprove, written by Strauss?
The Jewish element isn't particularly relevant except insofar as one can find significant connections between central members of the neoconservative camp within the present administration and Pentagon and the Likud party of Israel.
It is relevent to me, though. What is being alleged is serious, and I believe should be taken seriously. The Wiki write up is interesting on this point. Maybe if you actually read it...
There are, on the other hand, lots of Jewish political voices who are deeply opposed to neoconservative thought (and of course to Likud policies).
Don't I know it! They'll come to their senses.
I did read it, Lash. I've been reading from and about neoconservative thinkers for four years. This entry (wikipedia entries are comprised of voluntary submissions) was submitted by someone who is clearly and unambiguously supportive of neoconservative ideas as they are understood within this present administration. There are numerous quotes from such administration (or supporter) figures and almost nothing quoted from scholars opposed. For example:
Quote:Critics have charged that, while paying lip service to such American values, neoconservatives have supported undemocratic regimes for realpolitik reasons.
But the newly aggressive support for democracies is founded on a new recognition that, over the long term, it will reduce the extremism that is a breeding ground for Islamic terrorism.
Note that the 'critics' are not quoted here either. Note more specifically the use of "recognition" and "will reduce" in the second paragraph. The writer here is a believer, forwarding as true that which is merely theoretical or hopeful (sentence should read "...is founded on a controversial doctrine that, over the long term, it is likely to reduce the extremism..."). Pretty clearly, from the viewpoint of the present, the opposite consequence - increased extremism - may well be the consequence.
The notion that criticism of neoconservatism is merely masked anti-Semitism has been forwarded by two individuals in cases I have personally bumped into, Bill Kristol and Richard Perle. Neither of these two chaps meets the definition of objective scholar. Both are not merely tied to this admininstration or employed by it but both are also skilled rhetoricians and political agents seeking to forward/defend not only neoconservative ideas but also unfaltering support for Likud policy. We'll recall that Perle, for example, in response to Seymour Hersch's essay showing how Perle himself would profit financially from administration policies, referred to Hersch as a "terrorist".
