RoR: Forum

Have fun with this one, y'all.

(Ramble ramble ramble... eh, its been a slow week here.)

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 9/17, 2:06pm)

Post 1

Friday, September 17, 2010 - 4:43pm

The article says that Neocons go back to President Reagan in 1980. Actually they go back to the early 70's. And Reagan wasn't a Neocon. I often see misunderstandings of what the different conservative terms mean. I knew little about any of this myself until a few years ago (being an Objectivist since the late seventies left me uninterested in the different forms of conservatism). I wrote a brief history of conservatism and posted it as a new thread.
----------

As to the bulk of the article...

I didn't care for it because of the article's form - it doesn't take the positions of ARI that it wants to disagree with and argue against them. Instead, it attacks other people that aren't part of ARI and then damns ARI for associating with them to one degree or another. The whole approach left a bad taste in my mouth.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 9/17, 5:20pm)

Post 2

Friday, September 17, 2010 - 5:16pm

I didn't care for it because of the article's form - it doesn't take the positions of ARI that it wants to disagree with and argue against them. Instead, it attacks other people that aren't part of ARI and then damns ARI for associating with them to one degerr or another.

Exaaaaaaaactly, Steve.

Post 3

Friday, September 17, 2010 - 5:32pm

The haziness of the term "neoconservative" makes determining that anyone is a neoconservative difficult unless they themselves call themselves one. A case could be made that Reagan was a neoconservative because he allied himself with so many of them. But whatever sort of conservative Reagan was he was a very bad one -- he re-instituted conscription [*], the federal budget ballooned, HEW remained, he invaded Panama [**] and Grenada, Iran-Contra, etc. Looks a lot like a neocon to me.
------------------------
ADDED:
* This is incorrect. As Steve Wolfer notes in his post #5 below it was Carter who reinstated conscription. Reagan promised during his 1980 campaign to abolish it but then reneged on his promise.
** Actually was Bush Sr. who invaded Panama.
------------------------

As for the year of the neocons' birth that is as hazy as their definition (not to mention that labels come after the fact). In any case having the year earlier only makes ARI's delay longer.

This is small beer. More substantive is the claim that instead of arguing against ARI's positions, "Birds of a Feather":
> ... attacks other people that aren't part of ARI and
> then damns ARI for associating with them ...

The article states at the outset that this is exaaaaaaaactly what it will do. Note that the association is a substantial one. See the first paragraph of the "Conclusion" section:
Conclusion
And note that the other articles on ARI Watch provide the evidence of the neoconservatism of ARI writers. This particular article focuses on people, and it does not stand alone.

> The whole approach left a bad taste in my mouth.

This invites the obvious retort: Maybe you have poor taste.

(Edited by Mark on 9/17, 10:00pm)

(Edited by Mark on 9/17, 10:31pm)

Post 4

Friday, September 17, 2010 - 9:19pm

It's a smear campaign, Mark. A pretty bad one at that.

"As for ARI and the neoconservatives, most of the neoconservative positions are harmful to America and ARI agrees with practically all of them. When it comes to foreign policy and related domestic policy, ARI only agrees with neoconservatives. You find Daniel Pipes and other neocons lauded again and again, you never find James Bovard even mentioned. (See this website�s Links page for why James Bovard is out.)"

No one's going to chase links around to be convinced of a claim like this. If you have an argument to make, make it, and be convincing. Don't expect your readers to do any work for you.

Another example:

ARI writers are no different from the neocons in this regard. Peter Schwartz, for example, was advertised in the last panel discussion above as the author of the book The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest: A Moral Ideal for America, and ARI�s ideal of �self-interest� is to sacrifice you to Israel � see This is Our Ally? on this website. Another example is ARI�s Op-Ed �Allowing Israel to Destroy the PLO Helps Defend the U.S.� (by Andrew Bernstein, November 8, 2001).

You don't say why, or how, Schwartz supports "sacrifice" to Israel. The claim is merely made, and then the readers are expected to chase the evidence down. I'm not interested, especially when a writer isn't even courteous enough to provide a link. I have a hunch that even if I took the time to chase it down, my time would be wasted on more of the same claim heavy nonsense.

Mr. Pipes founded Campus Watch, which he also directs. Campus Watch encourages college students to report professors whose comments the students consider hostile to Israel � heretics in a word. The Campus Watch website puts it differently: it seeks to �monitor and gather information on professors who fan the flames of disinformation, incitement, and ignorance.� This while it and MEF spread disinformation � lies � promoting Israel.

Campus Watch helped destroy Norman Finkelstein�s academic career while being quite happy with Alan Dershowitz � the Harvard professor infamous for the idea of �torture warrants� (not to mention plagiarism in his book The Case for Israel) � and reprinting his articles. Ironically considering that Campus Watch is part of it, Campus Watch says any existence of an unorganized Israel lobby is a contradiction in terms and �paranoia.�

Claims, claims, and more claims. This whole thing is begging to be torn apart bit by fallacious bit.

But its so boring, I don't have the interest.

You're fine with calling out the phantom errors of ARI and its patrons, but awful defensive when it comes to this mountain of disingenuous, disparaging innuendo. In fact, I'm tempted to think you're an anti-Semite, there's so much venom against Israel in this garbage piece.

Post 5

Friday, September 17, 2010 - 9:33pm

Mark,

I would say that the term Neocon was more academic than real until somewhere near the end of Reagan's term. The distinctions between types of conservatives weren't clear back then. There were the very far right of the time - like the John Birch society members, and there were organized racists who associated with conservative politics - mostly in Southern politics - as Democrats, and there were conspiracy theory nuts as well. But these weren't seen as factions in the same way as the Paleo/Neo factions are.

Understanding Reagan is more easily done by what he attempted than what resulted. The only exception being spending. Under his administration spending was heavy on building the military up after years of neglect. As to the social spending, he has called that his only real regret - the one thing he feels badly about.

Going into Panama to snatch the dictator who was threatening the stability of the canal and doing it because he was running drugs is NOT something I agree with, but it does not measure up to Iraq or Afghanistan. It isn't imposition of a democratic government through warfare. In Grenada he used a valid excuse of the American med students to stop Castro from taking over Grenada. I applaud that and don't see it as war-mongering. Castro was initiating violence and would have turned Grenada into the hell he made of Cuba.

The president has a critical job that is beyond what is done with budget or military or laws... He is the leader for individual rights, for free enterprise. He is the chief cheerleader for freedom and we have not had anyone that did so well in that area since.... I don't even know when. Look at what he did in the areas of deregulation - that is certainly not Neocon.

Mark, you said that Reagan re-instituted the draft. That's wrong. Carter did that. From Wikipedia, "On July 2, 1980, President Carter signed Proclamation 4771, Registration Under the Military Selective Service Act, retroactively re-establishing the Selective Service registration requirement for all 18�26 year old male citizens born on or after January 1, 1960." Reagan's sin was not killing the draft once again. He didn't believe in the draft, "Reagan argued that the draft sign-up not only would 'do little to enhance our military preparedness' but could 'actually decrease our military preparedness, by making people think we have solved our defense problems.' An even more 'fundamental objection,' said Reagan, was moral: 'draft registration destroys the very values that our society is committed to defending.'" (from CATO) He didn't follow through and kill registration for the draft, but he wasn't the one to start it up or to draft anyone.

The accusations regarding Iran-Contra, even after a study conducted by a committee of liberal senators, never contradicted Reagan who said he wasn't aware of what was being done.

Reagan was far from perfect - he based his belief in freedom on religious views, he opposed women's choices in abortion, and he bought into the Laffer curve too deeply (part of the reason for the deficit spending).

Yes, the article states at the outset that it is going to attack ARI by association. I read that. So, what? If I announce ahead of time I'm going to piss on your leg, does that make it any less odious an act?

The bad taste in my mouth is directly related to my taste in logic. I've never liked syllogisms with undistributed middles. ARI is very vocal and very clear about their beliefs. Attack the beliefs, show up the faulty logic, and forget the guilt by association.

Post 6

Friday, September 17, 2010 - 9:48pm

I notice that ARI-Watch doesn't list any names of the people who support their site, or that write their articles. And, Mark didn't use a last name with his ROR registration or his post either.

Maybe it's just me, but I find that I have more respect for people when they sign their posts and their articles. This is especially so when this article, and ARI-Watch are so big on tracking the names of the writers they dislike and when it seems to make up so much of the argument in this article.

Post 7

Friday, September 17, 2010 - 10:44pm

Teresa,

> Claims, claims, and more claims. This whole thing is begging
> to be torn apart bit by fallacious bit.
> But it's so boring, I don't have the interest.

Which last is rather convenient.

Of course the article makes many claims. You object in particular to the claim that Schwartz wants to sacrifice America to Israel. ARI Watch has a whole article on the subject: "This Is Our Ally?"

Steve,

Thanks for the correction about the draft, I added a note to my earlier post. And another about Panama, which was invaded after Reagan by his former vice president.

I don't want to get side-tracked on Reagan and will just say a few more words. He couldn't have been that dumb. The real reason Bush Sr. invaded Panama was that Noriega (supported by the CIA) began competing with the CIA in drug-running. And yes, that invasion and (more relevant to Reagan) that of Grenada was the same in kind if not in extent as invading Iraq.

To return to the main point: "Birds of a Feather" does show that ARI associates intellectually with some hard-core neocons. I think this is worth pointing out. ARI writers are hypocrites to denounce neocons in the abstract when they promote the website of Daniel Pipes over and over again, and ... well, read the article.

For what you call the middle, there is plenty of middle on the rest of ARI Watch. (ADDED: For example "This Is Our Ally?" -- not that I want to encourage Teresa or anything like that.)

(Edited by Mark on 9/18, 7:58am)

Post 8

Saturday, September 18, 2010 - 5:57am

Of course the article makes many claims. You object in particular to the claim that Schwartz wants to sacrifice America to Israel. ARI Watch has a whole article on the subject: "This Is Our Ally?"

Why would anyone care about that, Mark, when there's nothing to encourage readers to seek it out? Leaving out links to a source is really discouraging to verifying efforts.

This article is so badly written, why should I think prior writings would be any better, and worth my effort to find them?

There are no quotes, points, or links to or from the article. Nothing that would pique my interest to clear up one writing with verifiable facts from a prior writing.

If you want readers to take you seriously, then be serious, and honest in your approach. Stay away from this horrible tabloid style.

Post 9

Saturday, September 18, 2010 - 3:17pm

Teresa,

While I harbor extreme doubts about ARI, I can safely say that "Mark" above is a troll and should not be fed :-) Beware!

Post 10

Saturday, September 18, 2010 - 6:31pm