|
Why the left attacks the neocons
Liberal journalists of late have not only discovered neoconservatives for the first time, but, oddly enough, have been treating them as though they constituted conservatism per se. At the same time, the liberal journalists continue to ignore the paleoconservatives. Samuel Francis explains why:
This silence about the paleos was the result, in part, of the abysmal ignorance of the writers of most such articles but also of the hidden purpose that lurked beneath much of what they wrote. That purpose was not so much to “deconstruct” and “expose” the neocons as to define them as the real conservative opposition, the legitimate (though deplorable and vicious) “right” against which the polemics and political struggle of the left should be directed. The reason the left prefers the neocon “right” to a paleo alternative is, quite simply, that the neocons are essentially of the left themselves and, thus, provide a fake opposition against which the rest of the left can shadowbox and thereby perpetuate its own political and cultural hegemony unchallenged by any authentic right.Thus the left creates an atmosphere of political hysteria concerning some imminent “extreme right-wing” takeover of America, and they direct all this denunciation against … neocons and mainstream Republicans! Now, if neocons and mainstream Republicans are, as the left would have it, the “extreme right wing,” then it follows that (1) the left is the “center”; (2) mainstream Republicans are placed under continual pressure to show they are not “extremists,” and so keep moving to the “center” (i.e., to the left); and (3) any actual conservatives, being beyond the “extreme right wing” (than which there is no extremer) become invisible, not part of the known world. They don’t even have to be denounced any more. They simply don’t exist. Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 28, 2003 09:04 PM | Send Comments
Eureka, Mr. Auster! And the Left - hard as in Democrat, soft as in Republican - has succeeded beyond its fondest imaginings. Just try to discuss such pressing topics as immigration (to say nothing of the lightning-rod of abortion) on a realistic basis with socially acceptable Republicans - especially in the Northeast. There is no quicker way to ostracize oneself. The Left’s triumph has been to transform a point of view informed by seeing the world and people as they are, one common among Americans as recently as 40 years ago, into a perceived manifestation of a demonic, even inhuman hatred. Thus branded and ostracized, true conservatism is easily ignored and handily suppressed. That is why, in practical terms, the Bush/Rove Republican Party is as surely our enemy as the Democratic Party. In this neoconservatives are not in opposition to the declared liberals, they are their accomplices. The twin legacies of slavery and the Holocaust (the first not uniquely American, the second not American at all) are guilt-inducing weapons in the hands of the social transformers, Democrat and Republican alike. They target any attachment Americans still have to their particular heritage, anything that stands in the way of liberalism’s transformative projects. The goals of the neoconservatives’ and overt liberals’ respective transformations might differ in some respects; what they share is their determination to sweep away the annoying particularities that impede their march of progress. HRS Posted by: Howard Sutherland on September 29, 2003 10:57 AMAnd of course, the neoconservatives and mainstream Republicans are taking a beating right now in precisely the realm of their greatest strength: foreign policy. One is tempted to think that the Left has us right where it wants us. Posted by: Paul Cella on September 30, 2003 10:13 AM |