Skip to comments.Neocon Rudy vs. New Federalist Fred
Posted on 09/17/2007 1:05:09 PM PDT by Josh Painter
It is not unreasonable to see the race for the Republican Party's presidential nomination eventually boiling down to the two men currently atop the GOP polls, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. But if this happens, it will be a race between something more than just the men. It will be a battle between two distinctly different political philosophies.
In Sunday's New York Daily News, the paper's Senior Correspondent David Saltonstall has authored a very revealing piece, Neocon hawks go all-out for Giuliani:
They are officially known as Rudy Giuliani's senior foreign policy advisory board, but they also could be dubbed something else: Neocons For Rudy.Included in the group Saltonstall describes are such neoconservative heavyweights as Norman Podhoretz and Daniel Pipes, among others.
"I think Giuliani has a reasonable claim to the neoconservative mantle," said Stelzer. "And Norman is in the position to put the crown on anyone's head."It will be interesting to see if any of the advice Giuliani receives from these neocons goes beyond the purview of foreign policy, because neoconservatism is about much more than just projecting American power around the world to spread American ideals. And, judging from the Bush Aministration, neocon foreign and domestic policy go hand in hand. You don't seem to get one without the other.
"It is very hard for us to define what it is that divides us, in any centrally principled way. We might, depending on which socialists, and which neoconservatives are arguing, disagree about the details or the scope of health insurance plans; or about the level of taxation that should be imposed upon corporations; or how much should be going into social security. . . . But where are the principles that separate us?"It is the noconservatives who have put the Republican Party out of power. Neocon big government and neocon tax cuts without spending cuts are running this country into the ground and slowly poisoning the party of Jefferson, Lincoln, Goldwater and Reagan. Like a cartoon coyote in a sheepdog suit, neocons are socialists masquerading as conservatives. If Rudy Giuliani is indeed the heir to the neocon mantle, then he and his neocon backers must be stopped before they destroy both the Republican Party and this republic. Our founders, who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to establish this nation asked only of future generations that we keep it. We cannot long preserve a republic if it is led by proponents of a political philosophy as bankrupt and misguided as that of neoconservatism.
Neocons agree with the underlying moral principles of the socialists; they disagree merely over the best means to achieve their shared ends. As do all good socialists, neocons hold that welfare should be regarded as a right because it is grounded in peoples 'needs'and, as Kristol explains, for the neocons, 'needs' are synonymous with rights:
"In our urbanized, industrialized, highly mobile society, people need governmental action of some kind if they are to cope with many of their problems: old age, illness, unemployment, etc. They need such assistance; they demand it; they will get it. The only interesting political question is: How will they get it?"
The neocons rhetorically hide their fundamental moral commitments, for example, to satisfy peoples 'needs' in the guise of pragmatism, for example, by insisting that the only meaningful question to ask is 'How?'
In an essay published several years ago in The Wall Street Journal, [Irving] Kristol joined many liberals and socialists in characterizing Bill Clintons 'two years and out' welfare proposal for able-bodied welfare recipients as 'cruel' 'unfair,' and 'ruthless.' Kristol also described the likelihood that the proposed Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act would actually pass in Congress and then work in practice as a 'fantasy.' Well, the fantasy became reality, and Clintons welfare reform legislation has been a moderate success story. Do not expect such success stories from advocates of a conservative welfare state.
How does a conservative welfare state work? And how does it differ from a liberal welfare state? The neocons advocate a strong central government that provides welfare services to all people who need them while, at the same time, giving people choice about how they want those services delivered. That is what makes it 'conservative,' they argue. That is how the neocons reconcile Adam Smith and Karl Marx, Hayek and Trotsky...
I personally prefer Duncan Hunter above them all, and hope he is at least given a nod as VP with Fred.
I’m with Fred!
If the Thompson camp starts flinging around the term neocon, it will get them nowhere. It is meaningless in its application to the Bush Administration.
Those darn bloggers. LOL
Click on this link to help Fred bring Federalism back: https://www.fred08.com/contribute.aspx?RefererID=c637caaa-315c-4b4c-9967-08d864cd0791
Fred adheres to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. What principles does Rudy adhere to?
Pssst! Neo-cons are the secret financiers behind the Confrederacy. Don’t tell anybody.
You wrote this? Damn fine article.
If you start a Federalist or Fred ping list, put me on it.
Thank you for your post. - bill
Pro-abortionist lobby Rudy, vs. weak on Right to Life knowledge, weak on pro-life enthusiasm, former abortionist lobbyist Fred?
Federalism doesn’t do much good for people who have been killed.
“Federalism doesn’t do much for people who have been killed.”
Oh, It doesn’t, does it? Why don’t you try calculating how many states would ban abortion outright if Roe v. Wade were overturned. It would be 20-25. You can’t tell me that that little does of federalism wouldn’t save lives. And the only candidate I trust on the issue of federalism, the only one who has credibility, is Fred Thompson. None of the others, not Duncan Hunter or any of them, can be trusted on the issue.
People who want to hold out for a Constitutional Amendment miss the point. Such an amendment cannot pass until the legislatures of three fourths of the states will concur(even if we could get two thirds of both houses of Congress to pass it). The only way to achieve this ultimately is to return the issue to the political process, and the only way to do that is to return it to the states (i.e.-federalism). So your statement about federalism is counterintuitive.
I don't know anyone who wants to merely "hold out" for a Constitutional amendment and I don't even know how that would practicably be done.
Whatever may be done, must be done, to protect all. But, the Creator endowed Right to Life trumps technicalities and structural matters such as federalism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.