National Review Institute Fundraises Against Neoconservatives, Lincoln

The bitter nostalgia camp lashes out

Two volumes by Irving Kristol, who backed Bill Bennett over M.E. Bradford to lead the National Endowment for the Humanities during the Reagan administration.

An unfortunate recent trend by right-of-center writers and institutions is a tendency to fling around the word “neoconservative” as a kind of vague insult.

An online operative of the Daily Caller, the former Tucker Carlson vehicle, tweeted a picture of Vice President Vance introducing Elbridge Colby at Colby’s Senate confirmation hearing with the words, “Neocons hate this.” I asked, “What do you mean exactly here by “Neocons”? Can you name some individuals, organizations, publications? Thank you.” I got no response.

The editor of the New Criterion, Roger Kimball, posted, “don’t miss RaheemKassam excellent piece on the Trump-Vance doctrine at NationalPulse.” The piece, which is not actually excellent, contends that “The neoconservatives, neoliberals, and globalists” are “not cheering Trump and Vance’s efforts because, quite simply, they were always more interested in war than peace, conflict over resolution, and cash piles from their lobbyists in Arlington, McClean [sic], and Chantilly, Virginia….The elites want war. …fearing an end to a decades-long gravy train, the defense industry is now jerking its knees, triggered by the only horror that could ever force them to wince: peace.” This is an example of the horseshoe phenomenon in which the far right sounds like the far left, denouncing the defense industry and offering a crude Marxist analysis.

Also joining the bashing of neoconservatives, alas, is the National Review Institute.