5 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
I am not an neo-conservative either. A little too Wilsonian on foreign policy for my taste. However, I admire and respect neo-conservatives as well, and Irving Kristol in particular. Requiescat in pacem. |
“For me, then, “neo-conservatism” was an experience of moral, intellectual, and spiritual liberation. I no longer had to pretend to believe–what in my heart I could no longer believe–that liberals were wrong because they subscribe to this or that erroneous opinion on this or that topic. No–liberals were wrong, liberals are wrong, because they are liberals. What is wrong with liberalism is liberalism–a metaphysics and a mythology that is woefully blind to human and political reality. Becoming a neo-conservative, then, was the high point of my cold war. It is a cold war that, for the last twenty-five years, has engaged my attention and energy, and continues to do so. There is no “after the Cold War” for me. So far from having ended, my cold war has increased in intensity, as sector after sector of American life has been ruthlessly corrupted by the liberal ethos. It is an ethos that aims simultaneously at political and social collectivism on the one hand, and moral anarchy on the other. It cannot win, but it can make us all losers. We have, I do believe, reached a critical turning point in the history of the American democracy. Now that the other “Cold War” is over, the real cold war has begun. We are far less prepared for this cold war, far more vulnerable to our enemy, than was the case with our victorious war against a global communist threat. We are, I sometimes feel, starting from ground zero, and it is a conflict I shall be passing on to my children and grandchildren. But it is a far more interesting cold war–intellectually interesting, spiritually interesting–than the war we have so recently won, and I rather envy those young enough for the opportunities they will have to participate in it.” – Irving Kristol 1993 |
Whether one is liberal or conservative (or a non-neocon conservative), I think it’s undeniable that Kristol was a titan in the development of an intellectually-based conservatism. May he rest in peace. |
Too bad all he left us with is Limbaugh and Beck. Now we know conservativism is, in the words of Sam Tanenhaus, dead. Too bad, as well, that his son is such a dork. |
“Too bad, as well, that his son is such a dork.” Are you over the age of 12? In my younger days I was a hardcore movement conservative. As I lost interest in the activist side of conservatism and talk radio, I turned to neoconservatism for a time and read a lot of Kristol and The Public Interest. I think that I liked the fact that many on the neocons were intellectuals and academics. I eventually abandoned conservatism all together, but I still have a deep respect for the neoconservatives and Kristol in particular. I am often telling my friends on the left that they are using the term neocon incorrectly. |