One can read, behind a Washington Post pay wall, an article published on the 26th of May 2015 by Kathleen Parker about William Kristol's self-loathing attack on baby boomers. 

"One can understand why the Weekly Standard’s William Kristol would try to nullify Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy, but smearing all baby boomers in the process seems a stretch of veracity in the service of a blank page..."

Gus: It is interesting to note, not so much in the simplicity of the arguments by Kathleen about the idiosyncrasies expressed by Kristol, but in the underlying complex currents of American politics should one dig below the anchor points of the electoral balloons. Of course the picture of Hillary used by Kristol article is not a neutral nor favourable one, unlike say one of Hillary used on Mother Jones... 

Democrat and Republican parties are made of many sub-sections with treacherous variants. One can see the "Good Wife" political ambitions in the sitcom (er sorry, the "drama" series) of the same name, being thwarted by people's machinations of the same party including her own husband (former), meaning that love and hate can coexist in historical succession or at the same time. "It's complicated" as the famous line in the movie says...

This is why we get the Rand Paul who, in the Republican party, is a fierce presidential candidate, but could feature quite well in the Socialist Party of the USA (SPUSA) while hugging a tree for the Greens. This is why some Democrats will vote against their "own" party at crucial times and this is why some Democrats and some Republicans will vote in favour of Obama's rushing of the TPP, while other Democrats and Republican will oppose it... 

This is why Hillary Clinton could be described as a mild Republican in her own mind and the Republicans hate this. They want full-on tax cuts which she cannot deliver and the right to visit their money in the Bahamas — and most republicans, conservatively, hate women dictating to men.

All this comes from the historical flotsam of ideals, pretence and personal benefits from the American politics in which there is a large amount of corruption (some allowed officially through electoral "sponsorship" and some covert) — of money and of intent... People with different views will make alliances to defeat someone else they both don't like, then they might beat the shit out of each other, electorally speaking, like in a Republican debate on FOX.

Some people disagree with my assumption that Leo Strauss was the father of Neoconservatism in the US (see "Age of Deceit"). That's okay. I can live. But I would suggest that many people got very influenced by his teachings who in turn influenced others with his ideals based on classicist philosophy, "starting with the death of Socrates". So far so good but soon, this lot of conservative compote turns into the relentless glorification of greed, rather than serving a common purpose. It becomes a rich game of greed in which the poor are always hammered — "it's their own fault" is the excusing mantra. 

One can observe ants pushing, towing and shoving a piece of worm in all directions, but the loot nonetheless seems to inch towards the nest. 

With humans, it's a bit more hit and miss, and there will be double-agents and infiltrators who make sure the loot goes into another nest — their own nest, while most people might have forgotten the original desire to push or shove, except for being "in debt".

William Kristol is a "Neoconservative". He does not like the Democrats. He was one of the instigator of the project for the New American Century (PNAC)* — an inspiration for many American conservatives' failures culminating in the ascent of George W Bush to the presidency and his idiotic war on Iraq. 

All this stemmed from a slow developing ideal of Neoconservatism of Strauss penetrating in Kristol's father's switch from Trotskyism to full-on conservative policies in which his "...international "revolution" through nation-building/militarily imposed "democracy" and application of Fabian Socialism/Keynesianism coupled with a socially conservative viewpoint" still run the roost in the Republican movement. This is designed for grand failure. 

As mentioned, this ideal culminated in George W Bush social and economic failures and his disastrous war on Iraq. What this "doctrine" fails to see is that, even poor people in "other" countries have their own agenda, have their own happiness, their own frameworks and some people will work well to defeat the Empire. They and we, don't like to be ruled by boots — including economic bootees. The TPP, for example, despite being promoted by Obama, a "liberal" is a Neocon imperial decree designed to benefit the rich, while the TPP is very poor in social understanding. There will be blood on the walls and the "revolutions" might happen but not to satisfy the neocons towards their imposed democracy — which in itself is a bad contradiction in term. To the contrary... Hence the rise of ISIS... amongst other disintegration of the boot policy results — and the rise of other smarter powers, like the Chinese, and accidental rise of others, like India, eventually better, should they be able to eliminate the cast system...  

As humans and as Americans slaves we can do better. 

The rise of neoconservative views with the Kristols, with Irving becoming the face of neoconism in 1979 are explained here:

... Neo-conservatism, [Irving] Kristol [father of William] maintains, is not an ideology but a "persuasion," a way of thinking about politics rather than a compendium of principles and axioms. It is classical rather than romantic in temperament, and practical and anti-Utopian in policy. One of Kristol's most celebrated quips defines a neo-conservative as "a liberal who has been mugged by reality." As a former Trotskyist, Irving was indeed himself mugged by the "reality" of conservative philosophy and enfolded leftist policies such as a lack of objection to welfare programs, international "revolution" through nation-building/militarily imposed "democracy" and application of Fabian Socialism/Keynesianism coupled with a socially conservative viewpoint. These concepts lie at the core of neo-conservative philosophy to this day.

That "reality," for Kristol, is a complex one. While propounding the virtues of supply-side economics as the basis for the economic growth that is "a sine qua non for the survival of a modern democracy", he also insists that any economic philosophy has to be enlarged by "political philosophy, moral philosophy, and even religious thought," which were as much the sine qua non for a modern democracy.

----------------------------

Gus: here we can sense the process in which selling stuff (supply), including religious thoughts, is paramount. And of course there seem to be no limits to economic growth in selling stuff. And this growth has to be orchestrated by rich dudes. You, the ordinary mugs, buy the stuff and shut up...

--------------------

One of his early books, Two Cheers for Capitalism, asserts that capitalism, or more precisely bourgeois capitalism, is worthy of two cheers: One cheer, because "it works, in a quite simple, material sense", by improving the conditions of people. And a second cheer, because it is "congenial to a large measure of personal liberty". These are no small achievements, he argues, and only capitalism has proved capable of providing them. 

But it also imposes a great "psychic burden" upon the individual and the social order as well. Because it does not meet the individual's "'existential' human needs", it creates a "spiritual malaise" that threatens the legitimacy of that social order. As much as anything else, it is the withholding of that third cheer that is the distinctive mark of neo-conservatism, as Kristol understands it.

--------------------

Gus: so what is the "existential human needs"?. Here on yourdemocracy, we often tackle the subject as "defining our own purpose" versus the meaning of existence itself. This is the battle waged daily between humanists and the religious mobs, in which there is no meaning to life but its own accident. The god delusion does not provide a truthful meaning but a distraction from this reality. 
Humans and humanity in this context are, at this point in time of evolution, works in progress. We're imperfect in the sense that nature sent us on an evolutionary path which is mostly out of focus and often reliant on faulty senses and loopy interpretations. This is why we muddle in various ways to deal in our relationships with others — and the planet itself. Some of us assign an absolute religious value to gap-fill this natural failure. Some of us accept the challenge and play the guitar instead of using machines-guns. 
So why would most conservative be against fixing global warming for example? If they had a bit of real adventurous spirit, there is cash to be made and saving the planet at the same time. But they seem to be caught in the calcification of their established money-making structures and models. 
Any decent person, conservative or not, would have to pay attention to sciences without fear or favour, without bullshit and distortions. Any decent person would have to know and accept say to a value of 97 per cent that there is an anthropogenic global warming happening to this small planet. Should one investigate in earnest, this becomes a 100 per cent certainty, but this is resisted. One does not want to know about it for lousy specific reasons such as "global warming is not mentioned in the bible" or "two economic scientists say that global warming is not happening (Gus note: economics is not a science, but an art form) so we believe them because it's more conveniently lazy to sell oil and coal" or "because that's the way we've done business since the industrial revolution" or "the science is still undecided". Pissweak untenable arguments. The science of global warming is far more precise than the stock market predictions — which more often than not are just hindsight in a rut with some mysterious sawdust added to give the illusion of incoming fairy dust.
Capitalism may not be a bad thing but it HAS TO BE reconstructed to involve the planet's health. We need to acquire knowledge beyond what we are doing blindly. What Gertrude Himmelfarb first indicated seems reasonable here:

Gertrude Himmelfarb, [William Kristol's mother], explained that the Victorian virtues – prudence, temperance, industriousness, decency, responsibility – were thoroughly pedestrian. "They depended on no special breeding, talent, sensibility, or even money. They were common, everyday virtues, within the capacity of ordinary people. They were the virtues of citizens, not of heroes or saints – and of citizens of democratic countries, not aristocratic ones."

We can accept that prudence, temperance, industriousness, decency, responsibility can define a well-oiled society where conflicts are at a minimum... Sounds like a Leprechaun colony or Middle Earf, but in fact these are quite animalistic. Most species survive by being prudent in avoiding dangerous situations, industrious in the search of feed and shelter making, responsible in raising the next generation, and knowing their needs without wants (temperance). A bird that is too fat does not fly.

 

Decency is a bit more philosophically elevated. Most animal species tend to live by various evolutionary needs in reproduction. Some species will be promiscuous and the resultant progeny will be looked after by the entire group. Some will adopt the partner for life "policy" because it suits them better... and in some species the female will be the one left alone to carry the burden of offsprings, often because there would not be enough resources to cater for a big male as well, in the same habitat. Simple. There are also variants where the male carry the brood in its pouch...

 

Then Gertrude went off the rails: she argued "for the reintroduction of traditional values (she prefers the term 'virtues'), such as shame, responsibility, chastity, and self-reliance, into American political life and policy-making".

 

Shame and chastity are religious values, not economic values. But the Conservatives harp on those as a centre-point to their bigotry. Their opposition to abortion and promiscuity pollutes their thinking while conveniently forgetting the Kings of the bible and their many concubines (polite word for official prostitutes). Mind you, often the rich conservative will have "his" bit on the side... One has only to see the number of self-invented preachers' failures to follow their own stuff, and including anointed priests to know that there is a bit of self-serving hypocrisy in the process of "moralisationing".

The number of conservative "apologetic" columns on behalf of the ultra-Christian Duggar family is quite eye-opening... Forgiveness becomes paramount, while the victims may "have done something wrong" to get what happened... (see chart of the family in comments) 

 

Self-reliance in the Neocon political jargon is often limited to that of the rich money-making process rather than a spread of self-sufficient enlightened democratic value. Self-reliance is really resented by those who need you to be "dependent" of their products. This is the theme of advertising: making you dependent with an illusion, or even a reality, of choice, but it massages your brain to become "hooked". This is where most of the presidential election cash will be spent: to make you believe that Santorum's soap powder is better than Hillary's. Imagine the kerfuffle created by Elon Musk of the Tesla car fame and his battery box to make you independent of the poles and wires?...

--------------------------
In Australia, the failure in charge is a neo-con-artist of the worse kind. His heart is full of a hypocritical conservative catholicism that is harder than a sharpening stone. It seems he spend his time of the day thinking new ways of pushing his sharpened sticks up your arse, if you are poor or not rich. 
Tony Abbott, the Turd, may not know it, but he is an accomplished sadist on this level. He only survive here because of that other manipulative institution, the "news-cycle" commandeered by Uncle Rupe. The techniques of spruiking neo-fascist crap is to be admired for their hypocritical efficiency but not to be swallowed. They stink. Time for Turdy-the-Nope-nope-nope to go. Yep, yep, yep...
Hopefully, there will be more guitars than guns in the future.
"If there were more music schools than soldiers in the streets, there would be more guitars than guns, and more artists than assassins."

This is where we go back to England when on the 2nd of September 1642, Charles the First decided that plays and theatre were to be banned: 
Whereas public sports do not well agree with public calamities, nor public stages-plays with the seasons of humiliation, this being an exercise of sad and pious solemnity, and the other being spectacle of pleasure, too commonly expressing lascivious mirth and levity: it is therefore thought fit and ordained by the Lords and Commons in this parliament assembled, that while these sad cause at set times of humiliation to continue, public stage-plays shall cease and be forborne.        Ordinance of parliament, 2 Sept 1642
according to the source, Parliament also banned Christmas. 

Though some playwrights managed to find ways around this edict by turning the plays into "musicals", the edict stood till 1660 under Charles the second — with draconian restrictions that were only lifted in 1843. A bit of history: 

Charles II (29 May 1630 – 6 February 1685) was King of the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland.

Charles II's father, Charles I, was executed at Whitehall on 30 January 1649, at the climax of the English Civil War. Although the Parliament of Scotland proclaimed Charles II King on 5 February 1649, England entered the period known as the English Interregnum or the English Commonwealth, and the country was a de facto republic, led by Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell defeated Charles II at the Battle of Worcester on 3 September 1651, and Charles fled to mainland Europe. Cromwell became virtual dictator of England, Scotland and Ireland, and Charles spent the next nine years in exile in France, the Dutch Republic, and the Spanish Netherlands.

A political crisis that followed the death of Cromwell in 1658 resulted in the restoration of the monarchy, and Charles was invited to return to Britain. On 29 May 1660, his 30th birthday, he was received in London to public acclaim. After 1660, all legal documents were dated as if he had succeeded his father as king in 1649.

Aaaaahhh. Politics, tits and bums for regal coitus, falsification of documents and revolutions...
--------------------------

*The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. that focused on United States foreign policy. It was established as a non-profit educational organization in 1997, and founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership". The organization stated that "American leadership is good both for America and for the world," and sought to build support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity".

Of the twenty-five people who signed the PNAC's founding statement of principles, ten went on to serve in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. Observers such as Irwin Stelzer and Dave Grondin have suggested that the PNAC played a key role in shaping the foreign policy of the Bush Administration, particularly in building support for the Iraq War. Academics such as Inderjeet Parmar, Phillip Hammond, and Donald E. Abelson have said PNAC's influence on the George W. Bush administration has been exaggerated.

The Project for the New American Century ceased to function in 2006