I liked this bit of unintentional comedy from Kristol’s New Criterion obituary…

For now, we wish to record our sorrow at his passing and express our condolences to his widow, the distinguished historian Gertrude Himmelfarb, and his children (among whom is the distinguished commentator William Kristol—“distinguished” seems to be a Kristol birthright).

Funny.

But “conservative”? Give me a break. The Kennedy family, anyone?

@3

Whilst some of them may be guilty of nepotism, as far as I know, the Kennedys don’t rally against affirmative action.

Ah, market competition for thee and thine, but not for me and mine – as nice a summary as you can get.

The Kennedy family, anyone?

Sure, nepotism up the wazoo, but then giving our Commie brothers a leg-up in order to enrage the furious, persecuted white male has always been central to our tyrannical, socialist ideology. I thought everyone knew that?

And as Mr. Slayer notes, the Kennedys were preaching the message that black people deserve the same rights as whites at a time when Kristol’s magazine was talking about a violent negro conspiracy in strident tones. In fact, it treated the stunning idea of equality in general as a radical, Marxist plot against America.

Tangential to the issue, but on the major issue that the Kennedys got disastrously wrong – VIetnam – they were actually considerably less belligerent than Kristol and his pals. I think it’s also handy to remember that this colossus of American conservatism spent most of the sixties publishing gently Sharia articles about the role of women as wives and mothers, attacking social security as Stalinism and shitting bricks over the idea that consensual sex was not, in itself, a bad thing.

I think it’s entirely fair to remind everyone that the great Republican crusade for Freedom for Americans actually arose from its forefathers’ struggle to free wealthy white men from the oppression of showing basic respect to people with different skin tones and having to sit there and take it when their wives popped off smart at the mouth. Sure, they pushed the Boo hoo, taxes are teh fascism bullshit back then too, and possibly a little more honestly than the modern conservative liar does now. It’s just worth remembering that their social programme had a distinctly Tehran circa 1979 feel to it, and to discount their descendents’ claims about personal freedom accordingly.

Well it happens here look at the Kinnocks look at the Blairs power base look at the way our New labour keeps it in the family selection of MP’s . Gould, Booths, keep it all in the family or money.

Surely Republican would have been better? Cheeky.

Hmm, Bill Kristol.

Related matters worth googling: Project for a New American Century. Straussians. Paul Wolfowitz. Iraq War.

“Conservative” needs a big, fat “neo” in front of it here.

@ 7: Really? We cannot use the term ‘conservative’ (small ‘c’) now, in case it is seen as a smear on the Tories? I take it that this objection comes from the same paranoid place that made so many Conservatives insist that the BNP must be rebranded as on the left, to spare the blushes of the right. Honestly, for the Tories, brand detoxification is a job that’s never done, huh?

Thanks to all for comments – sorry if you don’t like the term ‘conservative’. If so, take it up with Tim Montgomerie at Conservative Home, who spends an inordinate amount of time writing about the ‘conservative movement’, by which he means people like Irving and Bill Kristol.

“We cannot use the term ‘conservative’ (small ‘c’) now, in case it is seen as a smear on the Tories?”

It’s (right-wing) political correctness gone mad!

In reference to Don at comment 10, I was always under the impression that the conservative movement was the waste matter found at the bottom of a Westminster toilet bowl.

Thanks for clearing that up.

“I think it’s entirely fair to remind everyone that the great Republican crusade for Freedom for Americans actually arose from its forefathers’ struggle to free wealthy white men from the oppression of showing basic respect to people with different skin tones”

Not entirely sure about that you know. Lincoln was, after all, a Republican and that’s why just about no Republican could get elected south of the Mason Dixon Line until the late 1960s. Jim Crow was all solidly Democrat.

That Kristol wasn’t on the side of the angels over race is also true too….but “Republicans and race” is rather more complex than just that the Republicans were all racists.

As an example, the voting records for the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the House.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

(Southern means the Old Confederacy here.)

As you can see, there just weren’t that many Southern Republicans.

Well, thanks for the potted American history, Tim. Allow me to clarify that I’m talking about modern conservatism’s Nixon/Reagan psychoses, rather than the last century and a half… People who have no problem penning elegiac hymns to FREEDOMtm from one side of their mouths while waxing Wahabbist at pregnant teenagers from the other.

Kristol wasn’t on the side of the angels over race…

This is something of an understatement – his views were repellent. Speaking ill of the dead is neither big nor clever, but it’s a simple fact that Kristol was a nasty, small-minded, jumped-up little arse in the sixties, and he didn’t get any nicer once he started cloaking his various prejudices in rah-rah Reaganaut bullshit. US politics is far easier to understand if we acknowledge that one of the main intellectual progenitors of modern American conservatism was ideologically committed to being an insufferable prick about absolutely everything.

“Republicans and race” is rather more complex than just that the Republicans were all racists.

I believe you are correct – it’s more like “the Republicans realised there’s a lot of votes in that thar racism” and then launched a forty-year campaign of arsehole race-baiting. Nixon’s campaign coined a name for it, so open were they about their prejudice-fluffing politics – it’s not like they were embarrassed, or subtle. They were really rather in-your-face with it.

“Nixon’s campaign coined a name for it”

Absolutely: The Southern Strategy.

“Speaking ill of the dead is neither big nor clever”

I only worry about it in that gap between death and burial: and I’ve not even managed to keep that all the time.

Will admit though that the two bits about American conservatism (and neo-c) that I can never quite get to grips with are their attitudes to race and religion. A lot of pandering to the bigots of both persuasions there for electoral gain (precisely that Southern Strategy). I tend not to like self-describing in the UK as a libertarian but would (and sometimes do) over there on precisely this point.

Let’s not forget George W. Bush- what exactly did he do to earn his Yale place, again?

“Let’s not forget George W. Bush- what exactly did he do to earn his Yale place, again?”

About the same that Al Gore did to get into Harvard. Be a member of the lucky sperm club. I seem to recall that GWB’s grades were better as well. But at least neither of them did a Teddy Kennedy: being thrown out for cheating.

Best comment though goes to Tip O’ Neill: when he was asked to give the commencement address he (as told in PJ O’R) said that he remembered Harvard Yard: from his time as the lawn boy mowing the place.

Yes, I don’t defend Al Gore. Most likely in a genuine meritocracy he wouldn’t have got to the top, for all I care, which isn’t much.

What pisses me off is when the right glibly talk about “equality of opportunity, not of outcome” when they know it doesn’t exist & they don’t in fact want it to.

Conservative Affirmative Action – hmm, didn’t that used to go by the name of “Tech Central Station”?

@5

BTW, it’s Miss Slayer not Mr.

“didn’t that used to go by the name of “Tech Central Station”?”

Dunno what you call it. I called it paying the rent.