LaRouche, Right?
This broadstand attack from the halls of a new convert to neo-conservatism from the grips of old paleo-conservativism (I’d like to say that he’s a neo-neo conservative, but I think that term should be reserved for Christopher Hitchens). His beef comes through here:
What’s more, these “unpatriotic conservatives” aren‘t particularly conservative – in a post 9/11 sense – at all.
‘Cause, you see, 9/11 changed the very definition of the word “Conservative”. (Not that I really care… I suppose the strain of conservativism he’s a part of can very easily tap into the root foundation of Post WWII American Conservatism, rabid anti-communism, as the historical model tying him to “Post 9/11 Conservatism”. It’s a pretty logical and coherent string, and thus I don’t know if I understand Pat Buchannan’s claim of a “high-jacking” of his precious “conservatism”.)
But what seems to have caught the ire of the current writers at Lew Rockwell of this editorial from a former Lew Rockwell writer?
The mention of the name “Lyndon LaRouche”.
The paleo-conservative response:
Gancarski’s claim doesn’t really mean anything. If I were going to a foreign policy forum, you’d better believe I’d rather see a panel of speakers from the Old Right and the New Left, than hang out with the New Right and Old Left that the neocons represent. So what? Just because Chomsky and Cockburn understand it is wrong to bomb civilians and falsify intelligence doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Likewise, even Lyndon LaRouche is right once in a while, about half as often as a broken clock. So what that his outfit is a cult-of-personality pyramid scheme with 1930s corporate socialist ideology? Does that mean I can’t believe that the ban on DDT has been a humanitarian catastrophe — something LaRouche has said — without being considered a LaRouchie? Insanity.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Just to distance themselves from the spector of Lyndon LaRouche, well…
In the end, I read the half-mea culpas from the Establishment Liberal Editorial Pages of the NY Times and Washington Post and New Republic — frequently saying “We just trusted Bush too much, and thought he wouldn’t screw this up”, I stare at the and I wonder whether the modern day equivalents of the Vietnam War Protesters aren’t just electing the modern day equivalent of LBJ…