Not quite clear about the post metion above.....

Even so, we can argue that sin and flouting of morality has existed throughout the history of Christendom, but never until the "Enlightenment" have elaborate systems of self-justification attempted to argue that this was anything but an aberration.

Moreover, the founding fathers of neoconservatism did not begin as conservative heretics; they began as leftists, adopted some neo-liberal economics and a few traditional positions, and then became accepted by the masses.

As a classical liberal I feel a responsibility to own up to the intellectual and ideological abortions the we whelp from time to time. If you toss names Ward Churchill or Chairman Mao in my face I've little choice except to say - Yes! When deeply unbalanced individuals grasp at small kernals of truth and then pursue them to wildly inappropriate ends bad things can happen.

I'll gladly own up to being part of a stream of thought that occasionally produces these nutcases but I then oppose those forces and nutcases within my own sphere of influence.

Afterall - constant vigilance is the price proudly paid for freedom.

Now on to part of what makes me so uncomfortable about the discussion I see here....

I see none of the same acknowledgement on the part of classical conservatives here. There seems to be no acknowledgement that there are errors and intellectual abortions to which conservative thought is prone and that one of them moves under the name Neoconservatism.

Instead you disclaim and disown it. "This isn't conservative." "This has nothing to do with me." I see people declaim ing ANY connection between authentic conservative thought and neoconservative freakery.

If one doesn't acknowledge that we all whelp monsters and abortions from time to time how do you deal with them in anything other than a terminally destructive manner?

But this time he seems to have lost it. He concludes from the fact of neocons exerting undue influence in academia that the entire system is left wing. How simplistic.

I've worked in academia for a number of years and it is thoroughly left-wing. The only reason neocons have prominent positions in academia is because they are left-wingers themselves, albeit of a different stripe. Leftist administrators would prefer to shadowbox with neocons than to appoint real conservatives.

Re: 31, "flaming pink" is a pretty fair assessment of the modern academy, even in the U.S., actually.

It seems to me he is seeing the facts correctly but not interpreting them correctly. For instance, he is right that we have no business in Iran anymore than Iraq, and that Bush and co. are committing treason and shredding the Constitution. He is right that neo-conservatives and the Israeli lobby are exerting more pressure than they ought. However, it doesn't follow that Iran is good, liberals are good, or that the media isn't red (or pink as the case may be) just because the neo-cons are bad. I've been in and out of academia both as a student and a teacher, and I can guarantee you that it is a liberal institution, dominated by leftist talking points, in the anti-family pro-socialist mold. I'm at the point where I have to say unless one is entering the applied sciences college is a waste of time.
Most of the media votes democrat, and it is obvious when papers claiming to be unbiased endorse democratic candidates. The media promotes the destruction of the family, unrestrained atheistic capitalism and the consumerist society that is rotting our soul as a "nation". I'd say culture but we do not really have that. Methinks Dr. Roberts needs to not go off the deep end when rightly criticizing today's evils.

Right. "Movements". "To belong" crap. Herds.

To my way of thinking, the Republican Party is getting taken for a ride by the Neo-cons in much the same way as the Democratic Party got hijacked by a loose coalition of extremists and then became Clintonized.

I think what we will see is a resurgence of people in both parties who increasingly disagree with the big names in their own parties, and who find that they actually have more in common with some of those who are "across the aisle" than with radicals and criminals who claim to be on the same side of the aisle.

I think it will boil down to honesty and integrity from both sides against corruption, hypocrisy and opportunism on both sides.

"A country that has no voices independent of powerful interests is a country in which freedom is dead."

True, but we're not there yet.

Great article!