Why is Jonah Goldberg defending neoconservatism? The author devoted his Wednesday NRO piece http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjJlZmZlNzBiMmViOTU1OTRmNzAyNDQ2ODNlNTNkMTk=#more, to at least what his opinion of that bankrupt philosophy is. Goldberg is already known for skewering those who disagree with him as the title of his best-selling book, "Liberal Fascism," suggests. Interestingly, however, Mr. Goldberg doesn’t seem to leave much room for the Trotskyite heritage of neoconservatism’s founding fathers. The principle author Goldberg uses in his defense, it should be noted, is Robert Kagan, a neoconservative veteran.
With as poorly as the American enterprise in Iraq, the personification of militant neoconservatism, has been, why is this still the seemingly most mainstream school of conservative thought? So, we should probably briefly look at what neoconservatives have given us.
We have 5 years in Iraq, more than 4000 dead, well over $1 trillion so far, and the nomination of John McCain for president who promises more wars for starters. The Necons’ candidate has not only promised, "there will be more wars," and famously doesn’t know the difference between Shia and Sunni, but once on "Fox News Sunday" with host Chris Wallace, said that America is a superpower and the burden of responsibility to the world falls to it. So, the candidate also doesn’t understand the disaster of overextension. In light of this, I’d like to ask McCain and his war worshipers how being a superpower ever worked out in the end for Spain, England, and Rome.
All of them fell. In Rome’s case, they brought in immigrants (Germanics) with no sort of restriction and stood by while the empire crumbled more from within more than from without.
While immigration has always been an issue for our country, the Bush administration has been completely derelict in the patrol and enforcement of our borders, the southern border in particular. Because of that policy, the American Southwest is being ceded back to Mexico without any resistance. Do the neocons really think the Middle East is so important that it is worth having the military permanently stationed there, fighting Israel’s wars, while states in our own country are being shaved away?
So, while Goldberg tries to spin neoconservatism as something else, I contend that it has utterly destroyed the actual conservative movement. Not only is the military literally bleeding to death, but the whole Iraqi venture is bleeding the conservative movement of any credibility whatsoever. Conservatives once stood for prudence both domestically and abroad but both are now gone, I can only hope not forever. And Bush, whether with a Democratic or Republican congress, spends like the Great Society was not enough. All these facts notwithstanding, how can Mr. Goldberg’s defense (or spinning) of neoconservatism continue to hold any water? With all that has happened under the Bush administration, the neoconservative ship ought to be at the bottom of the sea by now.