October, 2003

Dear Friend of Radio Liberty,

"He specifically praises: 'Creative destruction . . . both within our own society and abroad . . . (foreigners) seeing America undo traditional societies may fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. . . . They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission. . . . Leeden quotes Machiavelli approvingly on what makes a great leader: 'A prince must have no other objectives or other thoughts or take anything for his craft, except war . . . the virtue of the warrior are those of great leaders of any success- ful organization' . . . war is not coincidental to neocon philosophy, but an integral part." [1]

"Peace increases our peril by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts, in depriving us of some of our best leaders.' Peace . . . is a dream . . . and would undermine the power of the state." [2]

"Neocons . . . claim that war is in man's nature and that we can't do much about it, so let's use it to our advantage by promoting our goodness around the world through force of arms. . . . . Ledeen believes man is basically evil and cannot be left to his own desires. Therefore, he must have proper and strong leadership, just as Machiavelli argued. Only then can man achieve good. . . . 'In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to "enter into evil."' [3]

"Lying is central to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously increased." Neoconservative leader Michael Ledeen [4]

"Preserving the state is their goal, even if the personal liberty of all individuals has to be suspended or canceled." Congressman Ron Paul, July 2003 [5]

"The Sting" was an award-winning motion picture about a group of "confidence men" who "conned" a criminal. I believe a similar group is "conning" the conservative movement today. Why did the United States attack Iraq? Did we go to war for oil, to defend our currency, to protect Israel?

On March 5, 2003, ABC aired Ted Koppel's interview with William Kristol, chairman of Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and leader of the neoconservative movement. During that interview, William Kristol discussed their program for world domination. Shortly after that several CFR-controlled media outlets published articles about PNAC and the "neocons." Why did the CFR expose their "front organization?" Why did Project for the New American Century reveal their imperialist plan on their Web site? [6] Those questions haunted me until I read a recent article in Commentary magazine, and realized the conservative movement has been "conned"; we're fighting the wrong enemy.

Last month I suggested everyone read Congressman Ron Paul's article, Neo-conned: A Call to Arms. I respect Ron Paul because he supports the Constitution, and he won't compromise his principles. Everything Ron Paul wrote about the neoconservative movement is accurate, but there is more to the story. This month's Radio Liberty letter summarizes Congressman Paul's article. Next month I will explain why the CFR exposed the neoconservatives, and what we must do to counter them.

* * * * *

Neo-conned: A Call To Arms
July 10, 2003

The modern-day limited-government movement has been co-opted . . . conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. . . . Political party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. . . .

If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and the pervasive invasion of our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before?

Someone is responsible, and it's important that those of us who love liberty, and resent big-brother government, identify the philosophic supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is going. If they're wrong - and I believe they are - we need to show it, alert the American people, and offer a more positive approach to government. . . .

One thing is certain: conservatives who worked and voted for less government in the Reagan years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the presidency in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived. Soon they will realize that the goal of limited government has been dashed and that their views no longer matter.

The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion dollars per year. . . .

Both Presidents Reagan and the elder George Bush raised taxes directly. With this administration, so far, direct taxes have been reduced . . . but it means little if spending increases and deficits rise. . . . Many present-day conservatives, who generally argue for less government and supported the Reagan/Gingrich/Bush takeover of the federal government, are now justifiably disillusioned. . . .

Government is bigger than ever, and future commitments are overwhelming. . . . The national debt is increasing at a rate greater than a half-trillion dollars per year, the debt limit was recently increased by an astounding $984 billion dollars. Total U.S. government obligations are $43 trillion, while total net worth of U.S. households is just over $40.6 trillion. The country is broke, but no one in Washington seems to notice or care.

In spite of the floundering economy, the Congress and the administration continue to take on new commitments in foreign aid, education, farming, medicine, multiple efforts at nation building, and preemptive wars around the world. Already we're entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan, with plans to soon add new trophies to our conquest. War talk abounds as to when Syria, Iran and North Korea will be attacked. How did all this transpire?. . . . Will the euphoria of grand military victories - against non-enemies - ever be mellowed? . . . We need to know exactly what the philosophic ideas were that drove us to this point; then, hopefully, we will reject them and decide on another set of intellectual parameters.

There is abundant evidence exposing those who drive our foreign policy justifying preemptive war. Those who scheme are proud of the achievements in usurping control over foreign policy. These are the neoconservatives of recent fame. . . . But can freedom and the Republic survive this take-over? That question should concern us. Neoconservatives are obviously in positions of influence and are well-placed throughout our government and the media. . . . The electorate was easily influenced to join in the patriotic fervor supporting the military adventurism advocated by the neoconservatives. . . . Political money, as usual, played a role in pressing Congress into supporting almost any proposal suggested by the neocons. . . .

Since 9-11, protection of privacy, whether medical, personal or financial, has vanished. Free speech and the Fourth Amendment have been under constant attack. Higher welfare expenditures are endorsed by the leadership of both parties. Policing the world and nation-building issues are popular campaign targets, yet they are now standard operating procedures. There's no sign that these programs will be slowed or reversed until either we are stopped by force overseas . . . or we go broke and can no longer afford these grandiose plans for a world empire. . . .

None of this happened by accident or coincidence. . . . The neoconservatives - a name they gave themselves -diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented their goals, strategy and moral justification for all they hoped to accomplish. Above all else, they . . . are not conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government. . . . Neo-conservatism has been around for decades and, strangely, has connections to past generations as far back as Machiavelli. Modern-day neo-conservatism was introduced to us in the 1960s. . . . In many ways, there's nothing "neo" about their views, and certainly nothing conservative. Yet they have been able to co-opt the conservative movement by advertising themselves as a new, or modern form of conservatism.

More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyists. . . . Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss's books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli's philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, former CIA Director James Woolsey, Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame, Frank Gaffney, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree.

The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare. More important than the names of people affiliated with neoconservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:

1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means - that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
13. They believe using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
14. They believe 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

Various organizations and publications over the last 30 years have played a significant role in the rise to power of the neoconservatives. It took plenty of money and commitment to produce the intellectual arguments needed to convince the many participants in the movement of its respectability.

It is no secret, especially after the rash of research and articles written about the neocons since our invasion of Iraq, how they gained influence and what organizations were used to promote their cause. Although for decades they agitated for their beliefs through publications like The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, and the New York Post, their views only gained momentum in the 1990s following the first Persian Gulf War - which still has not ended even with the removal of Saddam Hussein. They became convinced that a much more militant approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an absolute necessity, and they were determined to implement that policy.

In addition to publications, multiple think thanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). . . . They urged early on for war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings. . . . The election of 2000 changed all that. The Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle, played no small role in coordinating the various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us into war against Iraq. It wasn't too long before the dream of empire was brought closer to reality by the election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld playing key roles in this accomplishment. . . . This opportunity was a consequence of the 9-11 disaster.

The money and views of Rupert Murdock also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire . . . facilitated the Rumsfeld/ Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. . . .

Let there be no doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a decade. They justified the use of force to accomplish their goals, even if it required preemptive war . . . they knew that public support was important, and justification had to be given to pursue the war . . . a threat to us had to exist before the people and the Congress would go along with war. The majority of Americans became convinced of this threat which, in actuality, never really existed. Now we have the ongoing debate over the location of weapons of mass destruction. . . .

Neoconservatism is not the philosophy of free markets and a wise foreign policy. Instead, it represents big- government welfare at home and a program of using our military might to spread their version of American values throughout the world. Since neoconservatives dominate the way the U.S. government now operates, it behooves us all to understand their beliefs and goals. . . . There is . . . a recognized philosophic connection between modern-day neconservatives and Irving Kristol, Leo Strauss and Machiavelli. . . . Not only did Leo Strauss write favorably of Machiavelli, Michael Ledeen, a current leader in the neoconservative movement, did the same. In 1999, Ledeen titled his book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli's iron rules are as timely and important today as five centuries ago. Ledeen is indeed an influential neocon theorist whose views get lots of attention today in Washington. His book on Machiavelli . . . was passed out to Members of Congress attending a political strategy meeting shortly after its publication. . . . In Ledeen's most recent publication, The War Against the Terror Masters, he reiterates his beliefs outlined in (his) 1999 Machiavelli book. He specifically praises: "Creative destruction . . . both within our own society and abroad. . . . (foreigners) seeing America undo traditional societies may fear us, for they do not wish to be undone." Amazingly, Ledeen concludes: "They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission."

In Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, Ledeen praises a business leader for correctly understanding Machiavelli: "There are no absolute solutions. It all depends. What is right and what is wrong depends on what needs to be done and how." This is a clear endorsement of situation ethics and is not coming from the traditional left. . . . Ledeen quotes Machiavelli approvingly on what makes a great leader: "A prince must have no other objectives or other thoughts, or take anything for his craft, except war." To Ledeen, this meant: ". . . the virtue of the warrior are those of great leaders of any successful organization." Yet it's obvious that war is not coincidental to neocon philosophy, but an integral part. . . . There's a precise reason to argue for war over peace according to Ledeen, for ". . . peace increases our peril by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts, in depriving us of some of our best leaders." Peace, he claims, is a dream and not even a pleasant one, for it would cause indolence and would undermine the power of the state. . . .

The conflict of the ages has been between the state and the individual: central power versus liberty. The more restrained the state and the more emphasis on individual liberty, the greater has been the advancement of civilization and general prosperity. . . . Neocons . . . claim that war is in man's nature and that we can't do much about it, so let's use it to our advantage by promoting our goodness around the world through force of arms. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty and the preservation of the Constitution.

Ledeen believes man is basically evil and cannot be left to his own desires. Therefore, he must have proper and strong leadership, just as Machiavelli argued. Only then can man achieve good, as Ledeen explains: "In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to 'enter into evil.' This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired and challenging . . . we are rotten," argues Ledeen. "It's true that we can achieve greatness if, and only if, we are properly led." In other words, man is so depraved that individuals are incapable of moral, ethical and spiritual greatness, and achieving excellence and virtue can only come from a powerful authoritarian leader. . . . The question Ledeen doesn't answer is: "Why do the political leaders not suffer from the same shortcomings and where do they obtain their monopoly on wisdom?" Ledeen argues that . . . "lying is central to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously increased." . . . Preserving the state is their goal, even if the personal liberty of all individuals has to be suspended or canceled.
Neocons, anxious for the U.S. to use force to realign the boundaries and change regimes in the Middle East, clearly understand the benefit of a galvanizing and emotional event to rally the people to their cause. Without a special event, they realized the difficulty in selling their policy of preemptive war where our own military personnel would be killed. Whether it was the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, or the Maine, all served their purpose in promoting a war that was sought by our leaders.

Ledeen writes of a fortuitous event (1999): ". . . of course, we can always get lucky. Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor, and demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality." Amazingly, Ledeen calls Pearl Harbor a "lucky" event. The Project for a New American Century, as recently as September 2000, likewise foresaw the need for "a Pearl Harbor event" that would galvanize the American people to support their ambitions plans to ensure political and economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential "rival." . . . After 9-11, Rumsfeld and others argued for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though it was not implicated in the attacks.

Neocons enthusiastically embrace the Department of Education and national testing. Both parties over-whelmingly support the huge commitment to a new prescription drug program. Their devotion to the new approach called "compassionate conservatism" has lured many conservatives into supporting programs for expanding the federal role in welfare and in church charities. The faith-based initiative is a neocon project, yet it only repackages and expands the liberal notion of welfare. . . . Is it any wonder that federal government spending is growing at a rate faster than in any time in the past 35 years?

Michael Ledeen and other neoconservatives are already lobbying for war against Iran. . . . If the neo-conservatives retain control of the conservative, limited-government movement in Washington, the ideas, once championed by conservatives, of limiting the size and scope of government, will be a long-forgotten dream.

In spite of the deteriorating conditions in Washington - with loss of personal liberty, a weak economy, exploding deficits, and perpetual war, followed by nation building - there are still quite a number of us who would relish the opportunity to improve things. . . . Certainly, a growing number of frustrated Americans, from both the right and the left, are getting anxious to see this Congress do a better job. . . . We're at the point where we need a call to arms, both here in Washington and across the country. I'm not talking about firearms. Those of us who care need to raise both arms and face our palms out and begin waving and shouting: Stop! Enough is enough! It should include liberals, conservatives and independents. We're all getting a bum rap from politicians who are pushed by polls and controlled by special-interest money. . . .

Both sides of the political spectrum must one day realize that limitless government intrusion in the economy, in our personal lives and in the affairs of other nations, cannot serve the best interests of America. This not a conservative problem, nor is it a liberal problem - it's a government intrusion problem that comes from both groups, albeit for different reasons. . . . The solution will come when both groups realize that it's not merely a single-party problem. . . . Once enough of us decide we've had enough of all these so-called good things that the government is always promising . . . we can start a serious discussion on the proper role for government in a free society. . . . This requires that those responsible for today's problems are exposed and their philosophy of pervasive government intrusion is rejected.

Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. A few have, and others will continue to do so. But too many, both in and out of government, close their eyes to the issue of personal liberty and ignore the fact that endless borrowing to finance endless demands cannot be sustained. True prosperity can only come from a healthy economy and sound money. That can only be achieved in a free society."

* * * * *
Our listening audience is increasing because supporters are telling others about our programs, distributing tapes, and copying newsletters. Please continue informing others.

I close with the words of a song that can no longer be sung in public schools:



O beautiful for pilgrim feet,
Whose stern, impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty is law!

O beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved,
And mercy more than life!
America! America!
May God thy gold refine,
Till all success be nobleness
And every gain divine!

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea. [6]


Thank you for your faithful support, and your continued prayers.

Yours in Christ,

Stanley Monteith



REFERENCES

1. Ron Paul, Neo-conned: A Call To Arms, Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, P.O Box 1776, Lake Jackson, TX 77556, p 11.
2. Ibid, p. 12.
3. Ibid, p. 12.
4. Ibid, p. 13.
5. Ibid, p. 13.
6. www.newamericancentury.com
7. Nancy Sullivan, general editor, "America the Beautiful," The Treasury of American Poetry, Doubleday, Garden City, NY, 1978, p. 300.


Return to Radio Liberty home page