Home » RIP Irving Kristol: founder of neoconservatism

Comments

RIP Irving Kristol: founder of neoconservatism — 16 Comments

  1. Kristol had a tremendous impact on me in the late ’70s. Things were dire and seemed hopeless, and suddenly I found a writer who made sense. You always got the impression that Kristol was in touch with the deep structures that caused the news, and I always admired that. He started bringing me over from the liberal side, though I didn’t complete the change until 1982.

    I know nothing of his family life, though I am sure his family must be grieving. On the basis of his public contribution, he was a Great Man.

  2. I once read that The Public Interest was one of the publications that Ronald Reagon read. Irving was the editor of that magazine. That was what got me interested in The Weekly Standard, his son’s magazine.

    RIP Mr. Kristrol. My condolences to the family.

  3. Well there was no reason for him to break with Liberalism — it was Socialism and the New Left that broke with Liberalism.

  4. There’s a good Belmont Club thread about Kristol, and about the Left’s vitriolic reaction to his death.

    (Belmont Club has been one of my favorite blogs for years. There are many good commenters there, but I’d like to take a moment to highlight one in particular, Walt. Within hours after a new thread is posted, he usually shows up with a poem that is always on topic, and often quite funny. He’s #17 in this thread.)

  5. I have always admired the Neoconservatives, as that term was originally used. Nowadays, the term “neocon” has been tossed around by both left and right to mean all sorts of things. But the original use of the term “neoconservative” was in reference to a large number of intellectuals who had previously thought of themselves as liberal, but who moved to the right when “liberalism” was taken over by the leftists and socialists. Neoconservatives were a varied bunch… many actually didn’t even renounce all of their prior views… but found that “liberalism” as they had known it had ceased to exist. Often, their analyses were well honed toward critiquing certain excessive elements of liberalism (especially post 60s neo-leftist liberalism) rather than toward tearing apart the entire effort of 20th century progressivism.

    Although I came to understand politics at a point in time after the Neoconservatives made their shift “to the right” (I was born in 1970, and reached voting age in 1988), I often felt close to where the “neocons” stood. I often think that I, too, would have voted for, say, Harry S. Truman in 1948, or would have supported much of the goals of the civil rights movement of the 60s, or would have supported many of the labor reforms of the early 20th century… but would have found myself also moving right after the late 60s, when liberals lost sight of how truly evil Communism really was, or how precious American freedom was, or how important it was to make sure efforts at “helping” people actually have that practical effect and are not just simply “feel good” measures, or how practicality was more important than ideological rigidity.

    Thank you, Irving Kristol, for your courage in making the break with liberalism, and for the gift of insight which youve given to conservatism.

    R.I.P., Irving Kristol

  6. Neo, baby, we’re all neocons now!

    Given that a good number of us here made the change, came home out of the darkness, all I can say is “thank-you”, to the real trail blazers, such as Irving, Podhoretz, Horowitz, etc., etc.

  7. I remember once, new to the military I argued that North Korea did indeed have the right to transport missile technology to Iran. I was young, idealistic, somewhat liberal – I was intellectually lazy, intellectually dishonest. I was an ass.

    I’ve never read anything from Mr. Kristol, but over the last decade I saw his influence. I saw the U.S. lean forward as it had never done before. I saw the success and I saw the failure. But, I always saw that the neoconservatives were quite unlike their liberal and protoconservative countrymen. They were neither intellectually lazy nor dishonest.

    The failure to discover WMD in Iran, I believe, struck a deep chord of shame within neoconservatives. They didn’t make up excuses, or revise history. They realized that at some level Saddam had fooled them and they were ashamed.

    Ask a liberal about Keynesian economics, or a traditional conservative about isolationism and you’ll get nonsense, revised warmed over baloney. Ask a true neoconservative about WMD in Iraq and they’ll look you straight in the eye and utter the quantum foundation of intellectual growth itself, “we were wrong”.

    I truly believe that neoconservativism is the only political philosophy that is shaped by reality rather than the other way around. It is pragmatic, not idealistic. It’s practitioners do their homework, apply logic and review metrics. They are intellectually hard working and intellectually honest. Perhaps this can be attributed to the person of the late Irving Kristol himself.

  8. logern,

    Wow! That was a NASTY piece of work by Sullivan. Sheesh. But I guess that is what we have come to expect from a used up, petty, vindictive, and general POS like Andrew. Nothing but angry words. No facts. No examples. No nothing except anger and frustration . . .

    . . . until the very end where he tries to summon some kind words. Is he insane? And you agree with him?

  9. I read Kristol only after I had made the journey from Left to Right, belatedly in 1988-1990. I read him voraciously for a time, because he expressed my thinking so clearly. I continue to identify myself as a Neo-con, because it’s the closest shorthand for how I got to where I am politically. R.I.P, Irving Kristol.

  10. Aw geesh… I just read the post from Andrew Sullivan on his blog, linked to above.

    This is an example for how Neoconservatism has become a term loaded with various meanings it didn’t originally have. Sullivan is using it the same way most of the left now use it… as shorthand for “all those Republican meanies.”

    The most annoying thing about Sullivan is that he is now bashing the exact same policies which he fervently supported duing, say, 2003-2004. Then came that gay marriage debate and suddenly all conservatives and the Bush administration were the bad guys. And now he’s with Obama. I’m almost willing to place a bet as to when his new found hero betrays him and earns his rejection.

    I really used to respect Sullivans individualism, but it wears thin now that he’s chosen to be “an individual” on all sides of every argument. (I’m exaggerating a bit, but not much.)

  11. J.L.: It’s not just the “annoying” thing about Sullivan. It’s the intellectually dishonest thing; he knows exactly who neocons are and what they actually advocate, and he chooses to speak to the lowest common denominator, people who don’t know what a neocon is and who throw the word around as though it meant “demon.”

    But one of the things that is motivating Sullivan to a great extent is exactly the fact that he once aligned himself with neocons. He is desperate to expunge that “stain” from his soul, and to curry favor with those who disapprove of neocons. That’s part of what motivates his vitriol against neocons; he must make sure liberals and the Left know he’s back on their side, which in his and their eyes makes him a good guy.

  12. Sullivan’s piece is as confusing as Sullivan is confused. Sullivan sees a linear tract from the neoconservativism of Irving Kristol to the libertarianism of Glenn Beck. In reality they’ve both coexisted within the Replublican Party all along.

    He refers to the “populist bile” of Beck as though it somehow sprung from the head of Irving Kristol himself. Far from it, Beck’s angst comes most deeply from a social outrage of liberal politics that is completely alien to neoconservatives.

    Sullivan’s was a weird piece, either intentionally dishonest or just indigenously devoid of thoughtfulness.

    How do people like Sullivan make a living? Is being gay, British, and well educated really so marketable that you need nothing else?

  13. Vieux Charles: How does Sullivan make a living? He actually used to be a pretty good writer, at least on occasion. When I was first reading around in the blogosphere, his blog was one of my go to blogs. Then he went off the deep end.

  14. Neo said:
    He actually used to be a pretty good writer, at least on occasion. When I was first reading around in the blogosphere, his blog was one of my go to blogs. Then he went off the deep end.

    That’s exactly my feeling. I actually said something very similar in a previous comment . (One correction on the prior comment… i meant “early ’00s” not ‘early ’90s”.)

    Being as libertarian as he is, I wonder how long he’s going to stay with this political alignment before he goes completely wacko.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>