Mr. London is surprised and dismayed that soi-disant conservatives are not fighting the culture war. He is right to be dismayed. His analysis is flawed because he starts from a false premise. He assumes that those who call themselves conservative in fact are. Those he criticizes are actually liberals, of the soft or Republican variety. They only appear conservative because the hard liberalism exemplified by Democrats is alive and well to their right. HRS

First, I assume Mr. Sutherland meant “well to their left”.

Second, it seems that there will always be political movements and political parties, with differing objectives. Within a movement, you articulate principles and don’t really care if you are electable on those principles, because you are not running for office. You recognize that the members of a political party ARE running for office, and you expect to see some compromising on their part, even if they agree with your principles. They have to position themselves from time to time on the political spectrum in order to get elected.

The odd thing in recent years is that many “conservatives” and “neo-conservatives” who are not running for any office, who are presumably in occupations in which the main goal is to express principles and influence others, are behaving like politicians. That is, they are more concerned with positioning themselves somewhere near the middle of the political spectrum than they are interested in articulating principles.

As Mr. Sutherland pointed out, a politician need only position himself to the left or right of someone else in order to carve out a certain electoral territory to his advantage. But why would commentators, publishers, etc., be so concerned with this kind of positioning? I can only think they are either (A) trying to curry favor with the media and the corrupt culture as a whole, or (B) they are trying to be influential among the politicians, thus are behaving like politicians, rather than trying to change opinions and educate readers around the country. Or both.

“But why would commentators, publishers, etc., be so concerned with this kind of positioning? I can only think they are either (A) trying to curry favor with the media and the corrupt culture as a whole, or (B) they are trying to be influential among the politicians, thus are behaving like politicians, rather than trying to change opinions and educate readers around the country. Or both.” Posted by: Clark Coleman on September 11, 2003 05:10 PM

i’ll take number (c) please, as in they’re leftists pretending to be something they are not. just like virtually all establishment types are.

as to politicians carving out niches, i’ve long since quit giving them any benefit of the doubt. since they walk like leftist ducks, lets call them what they are.

To their left, yes, but there is less and less room between them. (I meant to write “alive and well, to their left” to make clear that overt liberals aren’t all that far to the faux-conservatives’ left, at least on social issues.) As for what the new neocon punditry are, I’ll take Mr. Coleman’s both, and I’ll agree with abby that they are really liberals.

The game is about power, not principles. People like William Kristol, Jonah Goldberg, Ramesh Ponnuru, David Frum, Max Boot, et al., are unelectable. Still, they are not detached observers but want a share of political power themselves. It is perfectly understandable. As they do not have a strong set of principles about social issues (as far as I can tell), they adapt. They support what will sell, curry favor with those they believe are electable and hope either to win influence with a presidential administration or the plum of an appointed job advising an elected pol. That was William Kristol’s game with Dan Quayle. It is what overt liberal intellectuals have been doing since before the New Deal.

Mr. Auster may dislike my saying so, but the style of infiltration of government, rather than fighting out the issues openly in electoral politics, is on display in the neocon takeover of Bush policy vis-a-vis the Middle East. As he notes elsewhere, neocons may be losing their grip on Middle East policy, as Bush starts to pay a political price for the bloody frustrations of occupying Iraq, but I think the point stands.

We should rue the day one of these types is elected to high office. In the presidency it has happened once before: Woodrow Wilson. Neocons, Boot in particular, may find the Wilson presidency attractive. I do not. HRS

Mr. Sutherland writes:

“Mr. Auster may dislike my saying so, but the style of infiltration of government, rather than fighting out the issues openly in electoral politics, is on display in the neocon takeover of Bush policy vis-a-vis the Middle East.”

I certainly do disagree with Mr. Sutherland’s point about the neoconservatives. One does not need to be a friend of the neoconservatives (as everyone knows, I strongly oppose them in most respects) to reject the notion that they have exercised some underhanded or improper influence vis a vis the Iraq war. The country engaged in a public debate that went on for a year, probably the longest and most repetitive debate on a single policy issue in the country’s history. Neocons were very openly on one side of that debate, along with a strong majority of the public and President Bush. To speak of some illegitimate “infiltration” of government evinces, frankly, a paranoid style of thinking that is completely unhelpful and that has marginalized the paleoconservative movement. (Having just finished reading Joseph Ellis’s Founding Brothers about the politics of the 1790s, I must point out that this paranoid style goes back to the beginning of our country. Yet that doesn’t make it right.)

Furthermore, Mr. Sutherland fails to draw the rational conclusion of his own concession that Bush is no longer following the neocon policy. The point is that Bush was never under the thumb of the “neocon infiltration” that Mr. Sutherland and other paleocons so devoutly believe in. Bush has drawn on a variety of opinions and influences, often veering contradictorily between them. But the point is, HE is the man in charge, he is the one making the decisions. And Mr. Sutherland’s charges of illegitimate “infiltration” are as silly and destructive as the Jeffersonians’ charges the President Washington was a senile dunce who had fallen under the secret influence of a clique of monarchists.

We have so many terrible crises facing us. I wish that intelligent paleoconservatives like Mr. Sutherland would focus on the real problems, including his _substantive_ disagreement with the neocons, and leave aside these useless (if emotionally satisfying) charges of “infiltration.”

I thought Mr. Auster wouldn’t like my jibe at neoconnery in foreign policy. I agree that the second stage of the Iraq war debate was fought out publicly. I also believe, and the evidence seems increasingly to show, that the proponents of invasion made their case largely under false pretences - both in making that case to Bush, and in his making it to Americans and the world generally. Iraq was never the threat to the United States that the administration and the Blair government claimed, and despite all the hints and attempts to link them, Hussein and Bin-Laden (I have no time for either, by the way) are very different varieties of Arab and Hussein seems to have had nothing to do with the attacks on us.

I do not think it is paranoid to regret that appointed advisers have influence far above their station in areas of critical importance to the United States. In the matter of invading Iraq, Bush certainly was led around by the neocons (he ran on a platform of reducing American entanglements abroad). That he may now regret it, and perhaps even repudiate some of them, does not make it untrue. Equally, that is not to say that absent September 11th and neocon influence, his own Middle East policy would be much better - most likely a combination of appeasing Saudis for oil concessions and Clintonian pursuit of illusory “peace processes” for Israel.

I fear there will be a political price to pay for our ill-calculated invasion and occupation of Iraq. Unelected neocon advisers, those who calculated this policy and sold it to their political masters, will not pay the price. They will return to their think tanks, their academic sinecures and their journalism, while the hapless GW Bush may well be returning early to Crawford, there to ruminate uncomprehendingly about what happened to him. Maybe Vicente Fox will commiserate with him, but I doubt it. HRS

I’m not going to respond to the substance of Mr. Sutherland’s complaints, since this is ground we have gone over many times before. I just want to give some examples of the kind of charged and frankly silly language he uses in discussing this issue—the sort of language that continues to make the anti-war paleocons who employ it seem unserious because it is so obviously redolent of personal resentment:

“appointed advisers have influence far above their station in areas of critical importance to the United States.”

“Bush certainly was led around by the neocons (he ran on a platform of reducing American entanglements abroad).”

“Unelected neocon advisers, those who calculated this policy and sold it to their political masters, will not pay the price.”

Reading phrases like “far above their station,” “led around,” “unelected neocons advisors,” “their political masters,” I ask, what kind of language is this? All presidents have unelected advisors. If Mr. Sutherland supported a particular administration, would he refer to it as “their political masters”? Of course, not. In that case, he would refer to it as “the administration.”

This is what I mean by ad hominem comments that convey no ideas or information, but only the dislike of the person who is speaking. It is beneath a man of Mr. Sutherland’s intelligence to resort to this kind of juvenile rhetoric.

It is the language of robust political discourse, of course. Actually, I would refer to appointees’ “political masters” in that context whether or not I supported the administration in question because that is what elected officials should be. It is not meant to be derogatory; perhaps it is a Britishism creeping into my prose. If you think I am caustic about neocons, you should have heard some of the things I said about Clinton appointees!

As for the other phrases, I believe they are accurate characterizations. Surely Mr. Auster is not asking us to comment in an utterly bloodless fashion. Forthright comment is one of VFR’s attractions. My occasional posts are actually rather moderate.

The issue of the truthfulness of the Iraq invasion’s proponents with respect to the extent of an Iraqi threat is one that will have to be investigated. That is already happening in Great Britain, and it soon will here. HRS

“As for the other phrases, I believe they are accurate characterizations.”

Really? If Mr. Sutherland agreed with an adminstration, would he refer suspiciously to its “unelected advisors” (even though _all_ advisors are unelected)? Would he refer to “appointed advisers [who] have influence far above their station” (even though the same could be said for any advisors)?

It’s true that Mr. Sutherland’s language is very moderate compared to some other paleocons. Nevertheless, this kind of ad hominem language, especially when it comes to discussing the neocons, remains a “tic” that all paleocons seem to acquire by virtue of being paleocons. It is second nature to them, and they can’t imagine expressing themselves without it. But the fact remains that it cheapens discourse, and, as I’ve said over and over, marginalizes them.

Mr. Sutherland notes that “Forthright comment is one of VFR’s attractions.” But I have always discouraged use of ad hominems at this site. The forthrightness that is to be valued, and which I’m sure Mr. Sutherland values, is that which relates to facts, ideas, and principles, not to mere ad hominem comments, which one can find in abundance at any number of web sites.

This obviously doesn’t mean that one should not use strong language to condemn persons who deserve to be condemned.

There is no ad hominem in my comments. I am speaking about people I disagree with, not insulting them. Noting that advisors are unelected is a reminder that, unlike elected officials, they and their ideas have not been subjected to the test of an election. They are not accountable in the way that their political masters are. I fault President Bush for putting himself to the electoral test on one foreign policy (reduction of American commitments abroad), then conferring too much power on people whom we did not elect and adopting their policy of interventionism in lieu of the one he ran on, to a far greater degree than even retaliating for September 11th required. He will face trial-by-election for it. Those who advised him won’t.

In the case of some of the administration’s advisors, I do believe they exercise influence far above their station. Rove and Wolfowitz come to mind. That is an observation, and I believe it is accurate. It is also an observation mainly about the president. Nothing ad hominem about it, unless one wants to say I am attacking the president for listening to them. HRS