The problem is, there are more ways to be wrong than there are to be right. The opposite of what a neocon recommends may well be wrong too.

John,
This is a brilliant statement of what we have against the neocons since 1992. A more
comprehensive statement would have to go back to the fall of Adam.

Exactly right, John.  The neocons have always preached failure as a sign of success, especially in the “culture war.” No one is better at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  It is time for every neocon to join the other cold war liberals in the Obama-Biden administration and make it official that they have never been conservative.

A quick word about William Bennett and the 1992 Republican Convention: I watched it live and, like you, was deeply moved by the Buchanan speech.  I don’t recall which station I was watching, but immediately after Pat’s speech ended the anchor turned to Bennett, in the booth doing commentary, and said something like “So, Bill Bennett, what do you think?” And Bennett responded affirmatively, nodding his head: “Good speech!” Minutes later the anchor switched to the floor, where Jack Kemp was holding court before the press and vigorously denying that Buchanan’s speech represented what the Republican Party was all about.  And from there the word went out.  Bennett’s first instinct seemed good, but after Kemp he towed the party line.

“German arms were massively overwhelmed by America’s intervention...”

No, but the fear that this would occur led Germany to launch an offensive before the US forces could build up, which offensive greatly weakened her and enabled subsequent defeat.  Actual US contribution to WW1 in warfighting was only moderate.

A brilliant article. But it falls on deaf ears with blithering idiot sophists like Craig out there.

The article is very sloppy with its facts. Germany *was* betrayed, and she was betrayed by communist Jews. These are facts which can be checked. The betrayal was why Hitler came to hate these two categories more than anything else in the world. Which among other things led to WW2.

Explaining to us that things aren’t what they are is a typical neocon trick. And Zmirak’s been at it since he began writing here.

Responding to John: The theory of the “stab in the back” asserted that Socialists and Jews IN GERMANY conspired to force a surrender when Germany still had the military capacity to win the war--despite escalating U.S. participation. The balance of forces at the war’s end tells a very different story.

Mind you, I speak as someone who devoutly wishes that both Kaisers, the German one and my own, HAD won the war. A German victory would have meant no Hitler, no Stalin, and perhaps no second war. How exactly could things have turned out WORSE than they did after World War I-barring an attack by the Klingons?

The involvement of Jewish Americans and Englishmen is something I haven’t the knowledge to address. But since they weren’t Germans, it seems more like a stab in the front. And this assertion didn’t play a major part in the popular bitterness in Germany after the war.  The feeling that nationalists encouraged was much like that on the American Right after Vietnam: We COULD have won, if the politicians hadn’t betrayed our troops.  When we pull out of Iraq with our mission unaccomplished, look for the neocons to resurrect this narrative. It’s not the only Nazi tactic they like to employ....

“He reveals that Germany was winning the war and Britain and its allies were about to lose. To get the US to intervene on Britain’s behalf Britain promised Jews Palestine in exchange for using there Jewish influence in the US to get them to intervene in WW1 which would later be known as the Balford declaration.”

You know, I’m actually inclined to agree with most of the substance of the post from which I quoted the above excerpt, but if you’re going to take to schoolin’ people on these matters, you should probably be aware of the fact that it was the Balfour declaration, not “Balford.”

John conveniently forgets that the conditions under which Germany agreed to the armistice were substantially different than the ones the Allies actually imposed, once the German forces had laid down their arms. If this is not a stab in the back, then what is?

Excellent column. I remember being moved by Pat’s speech and amused at the MSM disgust that someone so “extreme” could tell the truth on national TV. As Bennett and Kemp they have always been termites - both went to Calf during Prop 187 and called its supporters (59% of Calf) “racists”. They stabbed Wilson in the back for no reason except to curry favor with the liberals. Kemp of course in now a paid shill for foreign governments.

I need to remind people that some of the biggest supporters of the German side were Jews. People such as Haber (who developed chemical warfare) were devastated that his side lost and most certainly did not conspire the downfall of his country.

“Frum’s callous treatment of over-the-top Christian Zionist Sarah Palin should teach the Christian Right a few things about the wisdom of crawling over broken glass to please the Israeli lobby. It earns you a kick in the face.”

And therein lies the problem. Both
the Christian Right and the GOP are congenitally incapable of learning
from experience. Something very serious is wrong with both of these groups.

The Republican party is corrupt and dis-functional. The thieves guild branch is sucking up to the stupid Democrats as are the neo-cons. That only leaves the deluded, ignored, and hated pseudo-Christian Zionist base. Those who aren’t in militias training to herd people into their camp meetings at gun point are printing Plain 2012 posters.

Oh the terrible RINOs stabbed us in the back when we were so close to packing the Supreme Court to overthrow Roe… Then states can bicker on their own and quite rightly, but it won’t make one bit of freaking difference. And in the end the Supremes won’t allow it to happen. It’s a fools errand and has only been a tool of the thieve to get power.

Republicanism is dead and may it rot in Hell. A new generation, reared on Libertarian principles needs to arise. Peopled by those with the courage of their principles and not a pack of self serving amoral evil hypocritical liars that with few notable exceptions,passes for Republican and “conservative” these days.

Moderates blaming conservatives for a Republican defeat is simply S.O.P. - Ford Blamed Reagan for his loss in 1976. Dole was heard to mutter about how he could have won in the “nuts” had not forced him to run on a pro-life platform. The Republicans moderates always follow the same pattern. During the primaries they claim we must nominate a moderate to win. After the nomination the candidate must “Move to the center” to win. After a loss, the problem was the candidate wasn’t Moderate enough.  Their answer to every Republican problem is always the same “Stop being conservative”.

Two great columns in a week…

PaleoFuture wrote: “I need to remind people that some of the biggest supporters of the German side were Jews. People such as Haber (who developed chemical warfare) were devastated that his side lost and most certainly did not conspire the downfall of his country.”

Nevertheless, Jewish self interest in a homeland in Palestine, offered up by the British through the Balfour Declaration and promoted in America by Stephen Wise and Louis Brandeis ( both Zionists and advisors to President Wilson ) did generate Jewish enthusiasm for the war effort, contributing to America’s entry into the war. Also interesting to note, after the war the American Jewish Congress had substantial representation at the Versailles Conference, promoting their vested stake in the proceedings. For Germans, looking for scapegoats, the implications were quite clear, as the Zionists ( a movement established by a German Jew, Theodor Herzl ) were rewarded for their participation in the defeat of Germany, vis a vie the Balfour Declaration.

Even today, the behavior of a small, but very influential, coterie of ‘Israel Firsters’ tends to color the entire Jewish community and not necessarily for the better.

As a Buchanan Brigader in’92 I remember how thrilled I was with the Buchanan speech and how even everyone at work who watched it said, “Yeah, He should probably be President but, he can’t win. He’s too extreme.” What the heck that means I still don’t understand.

Commentary I watched immediately following was more than positive.  I forget what liberal talking heads were saying how brilliant it was.  A few weeks later that “extremism” business was all one heard. It’s a shame how putting America first has become just another form of “extremism” to these opinion makers

1992 was when the Right went wrong. It chose “Internationalism” and Moderate Bush/Fordism over Reagan Conservatism. No one except Pat had the Guts to run against Bush. All the Conservative office holders supported Bush, even though he’d betrayed us on everything from Taxes to Quotas. In retrospect, 1992 showed the Republican party would never shake its Rockefeller/Eisenhower roots and that Reagan had simply been an aberration.

Preceding the GOP’s declining national electoral fortunes was the rapid downward trajectory of its national party leadership stock - e.g., RNC Chairs.  From, say, a Frank Fahrenkopf prior to Buchanan’s first run at the Presidency all the way down to - teehee hee hee - a Ken Mehlman during the Bushling’s first term to a Mel Martinez to God knows whom (or what) today!

@Sharkey

Herzl was actually a Hungarian jew and not a very kosher one at that:

http://www.nkusa.org/Historical_Documents/Herzl_quotes.cfm

Oi vey, zo much trubles mit der chews....

teachem2think wrote: “Herzl was actually a Hungarian jew “

Thanks for the correction and the link. Cheers!

How come my comment where I reference Benjamin Freedman has been removed?

Is it because it debunks the narrative of the article?

The decline of the RNC -absolutely correct. Even worse is the collapse of the Reagan conservatives in the Republican Party. Its inconcivable that a liberal mayor of NYC would even be considered -let alone supported by someone at NR or Pat Robertson - in 1992 or 1996. Not so in 2008.

Great little article.  Bennett (and his M.D. analog Leon Kass) make me want to regrow a mohawk. 

And the problem with “our side” is that an author can’t make a casual WWI analogy without every other commenter railing about Jews and historical minutia.  Pathetic.

Great article.  Let me add a little stat appendix to confirm it.  Men’s median wages are the same as in 1973 as you point out.  See p60-235.pdf graph page 19 for the 2008 release.

Series Id: PRS84006093
Duration: index, 1992 = 100
Measure: Output Per Hour
Sector: Business

PRS84006093,1973,Annual,73.410

PRS84006093,2007,Annual,138.957

Thus output per hour by this measure almost doubled from 1973 to 2007.

So median wages for men are the same while output per hour doubled. That happened by the top getting more and fewer hours of work for most men.  So men in total work fewer hours, which shows up in lower labor force participation rates for men.  Lower hours because of substitution by immigrants. These numbers add up to betrayal.

Old Atlantic:
What the statistic shows, is the inequitable distribution of additional income resulting from productivity gain. This is the result of the influence of capital in the process - most productivity gains are due to more ingenious and more costly machines. And those with access to capital financed these investments and insisted upon being the sole beneficiary of the productivity gains. At the same time, productivity gains leave less work for the actual worker, but the same amount of goods. To keep him thinking that he really participates in the productivity gains and to offload the surplus of goods, he is being offered cheap credit against his posessions - mainly his house - and against his offspring - future taxpayers. The end result is that those who hold the capital and have access to it, hold more of the real assets of this country than ever before and have also title against the future earnings of our offspring, whom we have sold into tax slavery via public debt. Nothing short of a - hopefully peaceful - revolution and an agreement on a more equitable distribution of productivity gains will remedy the situation.

What I forgot to mention is that the NeoCons are primarily financed by those, who disproportionately benefit from the present distribution scheme. Any wonder their policies do not have the interest of the working man in mind

John, this is a little off the mark but have you noticied the post-vote guilt trip of Catholics? Here in NYC, i have run across 2 o 3 of these types whom without naming Obama directly and out of the blue begin to attack some prolife stances. In retrospect, i believe they have guilty consciences and thus, the anger oozes out. A bit surreal, but not unexpected.  Good article John, globalism took a giant leap forward and triumphed after 1992.

Werner Hoermann, you are right. Here is the U shaped income inequality graph for 20th century.

http://www.cbpp.org/7-10-06inc.htm

Top 1 percent get over 20 percent before immigration restriction in 1924, then fall to 10 percent by 1965, then rise to over 20 percent today.

Fertility graph shows bump up during immigration restriction

http://www.elderweb.com/home/node/2919

It has fallen today.  Combined graph is U inverted U as I call it.

I think the neocon Republican elite believes the following:

1- They can control the Republican party

2- They can move the Republican party to the left to make it more amenable to their own views which are almost entirely pro-war and leftist on every issue

3- If the Republican party proves unable to win any more elections because of 1 and 2, they have defeated their real and serious adversary, conservative America and the political old right

They can then move back to the Democratic party (which they are now sort of doing).

It’s a win-win for them.  And very depressing for us.  David Brooks is, David Frum, Bill Kristol are intelligent men, they know exactly what they are doing.  What incredibly machiavellian individuals.  It’s shocking.

Anne S is right.  And young kids out of college think they are the smart ones to imitate.

“The White House in the hands of a 1/3 term senator who promised Americans the moon on a grilled cheese sandwich. “

I have read/heard so many times that Obama has been in the Senate for only two years.  He was
elected in 2004, so he has been in office for four years—he’s a 2/3 term senator.  Do people make
this mistake because he had been in office more or less for two years when he announced that he was
running?

As for the “unproductive war”:  Saddam Hussein is dead.  His sons, who may have kept the Ba’athist
regime in power for decades after their father’s death, are dead.  So no Hussein dynasty.  Thousands of terrorists
who infiltrated Iraq are dead—perhaps a generation of Islamist fighters from around the Middle
East, dead.  Many innocent civilians killed in sectarian strife that has—largely ended.  It was
inevitable that there would be significant civil strife after the Ba’athist regime ended, no matter
how it ended.  It was not inevitable that the nascent government would survive against the odds. 
In 2006, it looked as though there would be an out-right civil war and the country would disintegrate
by year’s end.  2006, 2007, and 2008 have all gone by, and it looks like most of our troops may
leave in a finite amount of time, plus they’ll leave behind an allied democratic government with
a good chance of survival.  We will not be leaving in disgrace.  I’d say that in grand historical
terms, this war may have been quite “productive.”

In short, in order to call this war “spectacularly unproductive” is to fail to appreciate
how truly spectacularly unproductive wars can be.  This war has not been the invasion of Granada, but neither
has it been Napoleon’s March to Moscow.  I’m sure that Napoleon suffered more casualties in one day
for months on end than we’ve suffered in five years.  Plus, he actually lost, we have not (yet)
done.

According to a December 1st AP report (http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=255013), President Bush has accepted the blame for the results of the presidential election as well as for the economic crisis and the war in Iraq.  Also, he has confessed on National Public Radio and Christianity Today (http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2008/12/bush_i_am_a_low.html
) that he is “a lowly sinner seeking redemption.”