| | That post is a package deal. There is much to this to be taken apart. At root, neoconservatives were, indeed, New Deal liberals who advocated a strong U.S. foreign policy. Perhaps the paradigmatic person was the late Jean J. Kirkpatrick. "Though she was to be ultimately known as a figure of conservatism, as a college freshman in 1945 she joined the Young People's Socialist League of the Socialist Party of America ..." (Wikipedia).
So, there is that.
There is no doubt that neocons are pro-Israel and that is problematic. For myself, I note that the Israeli Knesset has an anti-Zionist pro-Arab communist party whose representatives have included ethnic Arabs, including an ethnically Arab woman. Now, show me the analog from Syria... See? So, what is problematic? Well, the problem revolves around who God gave this land to. God? Land? Is this rational capitalism or something else?
Parse that as best you can... then we have this particular link to this particular blogger who cites other bloggers as if we should care about their opinions. I always thought that one of the aspects of "objectivism" (in the strict philosophical sense without the capital-O) is that what is true or false is independent of who says it. So, why should I care that Mr This Blogger or Ms. That Blogger is on this side or that side of this or that? What matters to me is just (and only) this or that.
Then, there is the problem of Neoconservatives among Objectivist. You wave a flag and some Objectivist will wrap himself in it. Guaranteed. Iraq? Iran? Hell's bells, man, be prepared to send Americn troops to the Antarctic! America is the greatest and freest nation in the history of the world, so therefore, anything that advances the range of the moment interests of whoever occupies the White House today must ipso facto be worth (someone else) dying for.
|
|
