Neocon Rudy vs. New Federalist Fred

The Frederalist ^ | September 17, 2007 | Sturm Ruger

[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.

Conservative think tanker Irwin Stelzer is with the Hudson Institute:

"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.

In The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism, C. Bradley Thompson quotes Nathan Glazer, who "has stated publicly that the differences between socialists and neoconservatives are greatly exaggerated. In fact, he says, they 'agree on more and more'":

"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?"

Where, indeed.

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 people’s '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 people’s '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 Clinton’s '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 Clinton’s 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...

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.

The solution to the problems brought on by the neocons can be found in the new federalism of Ronald Reagan. Reagan's mantle as leader of the new federalist movement now rests with Fred Dalton Thompson, who is its leading proponent. Thompson, in fact, has coined the politically non-threatening tag "mainstream" conservatism to describe a conservatism that is guided by Reagan's new federalist principles. "Mainstream" conservatism directly descends from Burke, while George W. Bush's "compassionate" conservatism, a virtual synonym for neoconservatism, traces its roots to disaffected liberals and the socialists they so admired. Whether we call it federalsim, new federalism or mainstream conservatism, Reagan's philosophy in practice is what set the nation on a sure and steady course, rescued it from the Carter years of malaise and even allowed it to survive eight years of the Clintons in the White House.

Under George H. W. Bush, new federalism was gradually abandoned. But it was his son George W. who allowed the neocons to have unprecedented power in his administration and to subsequently bring the GOP to its knees. This republic can ill afford to be brought to the brink of ruin at the hands of the "neosocialists" of either major political party.

Though he has only been in the race a couple of weeks, Republicans across the country are beginning to realize that Fred Thompson and his federalist-based new conservatism could help to save the GOP and steer the republic back onto the course charted for it by Ronald Reagan.

That great battle brewing in the Republican Party is indeed about much more than just two men fighting for the party's presidential nomination for 2008. It will be between neoconservatism and mainstream conservatism for the very soul of the Republican Party. The former has its roots in socialism, Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol. The latter has its roots in movement conservatism, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Like do many of my fellow disaffected Republicans, I choose the latter.

Eight years of big government, big spending and a failure to secure our borders here at home have served to disconnect many Americans, not only conservatives, from the neocon way of doing things. I firmly believe that Ronald Reagan's coalition of "mainstream" conservatives, independents and Reagan Democrats can be put back together by Fred Thompson to propel him to the GOP nomination and into the White House.

[Josh Painter]

Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Quick Reference

[Jeff Head]

In a race between Rudy and Fred, it's Fred hands down in terms of conservatism and electability against the Shill.

I personally prefer Duncan Hunter above them all, and hope he is at least given a nod as VP with Fred.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

I’m with Fred!

[pissant]

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.

[mnehring]

This is someone’s blog, not the campaign. Based on the ‘About Me’ section, it is a great American named Sturm Ruger.. I’ll let you take your concern to him. :->

[pissant]

Those darn bloggers. LOL

[2ndDivisionVet]

Click on this link to help Fred bring Federalism back: https://www.fred08.com/contribute.aspx?RefererID=c637caaa-315c-4b4c-9967-08d864cd0791

[Tarpon]

Fred adheres to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. What principles does Rudy adhere to?

[Tailgunner Joe]

Pssst! Neo-cons are the secret financiers behind the Confrederacy. Don’t tell anybody.

[bill1952]

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

[Josh Painter]

Thanks, bill.

[unspun]

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.

[Brices Crossroads]

“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.

[unspun]

People who want to hold out for a Constitutional Amendment miss the point.

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.