Posted on 12/10/2003 8:59:00 PM PST by BobbyK
Enough With The Neocon And Paleocon
Carping—I'll Stand With George W. Bush In 2004
Like most Toogood Reports readers, I observed this year's battles within the conservative ranks with profound discomfort. In my mind, there are far too many real enemies out there to waste time and print fighting one another.
It seems that the world of conservatism has been split up between the "conservatives" and the "paleo-conservatives" or between the "conservatives" and the "neo-conservatives." Both sides present themselves as the bona fide article and the other side as the one in need of a prefix.
Personally, I just want to spit up this strife the same way the bleachers of Wrigley Field do the opposition´s home run balls. This qualifies as a "which side are you on boys" issue. It is my goal to conserve America's wonderful, non-living Constitution, and to forever preserve the personal and economic freedoms that embody our way of life. If you agree with me about these basic propositions, then you're on my side and the rest of your views are of secondary concern. Simply revering the spirit of the Founding Fathers puts you in the top 50 percent of the population on the Chap-o-meter.
Not only is an inter-journalist, inter-intellectual, conservative civil war fruitless, it is also detrimental to the nation as a whole. The country needs all of our efforts just to have a chance of mitigating the damage the culture war has wrought.
Our daily resistance may be the biggest obstacle to the federal pacman swallowing up fifty percent of the economy. We cannot afford to bicker amongst ourselves. The odds are too great. Obsessing over who said what about Taki, Buchanan, Frum, Lowry or any of the other public figures who make up the American right is counter-productive.
The neocon/paleocon debate is as bewildering as it is petty and misguided. Sadly, some conservatives now feel more comfortable with leftists than they do their own kind [I know of one who astonished me by saying that he regards the American Enterprise Institute as "The Death Star"]. Certainly, internal disagreements are to be expected, but they are trivial in comparison to accepting the positions advocated by the other side of the political spectrum. Socialism, cultural Marxism, white guilt, and radical feminism are eternal obstacles to advancing society. Other conflicts pale in importance when compared to them.
I propose that we abandon slurs like paleo-con and neo-con. Instead we should all evolve into "Logicons." The Logicon refuses to slash at the brethren who march alongside him because maintaining some level of public harmony is the only logical way in which we will succeed. Logicons realize that our fighting strength should not be diluted by internecine combat.
Much of the controversy currently centers around President Bush and whether or not one approves of his job performance. I've written here and elsewhere how much I personally admire him, but I also acknowledge that certain criticisms have been valid. Those who label him a big spender are correct in their assessments. He has not used his veto to curb the size of government and has developed a habit of hugging Ted Kennedy's voluminous appropriations.
While this is unfortunate, to pretend that Bush is not the best bet for advancing the country's interests is shortsighted. There are many conservatives out there who could do a better job of slashing outlays, but it is highly unlikely that any of them could get elected by our emotive and squishy electorate. On our side, George W. Bush "feels their pain" better than anyone. He brings in moderate voters the way my old Erie Dearie lures used to bag walleyes .
The problem is one of perspective. We can spend time complaining about steel tariffs or the administration´s pathetic capitulation on affirmative action last summer. Yes, I would have been greatly pleased if he disseminated a Michigan Law brief of his own after the decision entitled “O´Connor a Known Fruitcake,” but the fact is that he didn't and there´s nothing we can do about it. However, we must keep our outlook global by remembering what the alternatives are.
What would Al Gore do with affirmative action? How about Howard Dean, the neurotic would-be-king, with Al Qaeda? Makes you shudder doesn´t it? After the election, Al Sharpton would take his standup around the world as our Secretary of State and we´d hear Patricia Ireland lambasting “patriarchal textbooks” in her role as Secretary of Education.
In actuality, my examples really aren´t all that farfetched. The radical left has been carrying the Democrat Party since 2001 and, now, if the Democrats win, bills will need to be paid.
Rather than fantasize about an ideal future, conservatives need to think about how things can, and will, get devastatingly worse, should Bush lose. Be it Dean or Kerry or whatever burrito they decide to roll out of the Taqueria next summer, the fate of the country will be in jeopardy. By this time in 2006, there will be a foreign policy coward in every pot and a benefit check in the hands of every college drop out. Think France, think Germany, and then be grateful we have a president who doesn't spit after saying "tax cuts."
Besides, the Bush Presidency has produced many hidden benefits. His appointees may well be our salvation even though he backs obese budgets. In the latest issue of The New Criterion, we see that his appointments to the National Endowment of the Arts have had a wonderful effect. Under Dana Gioia, the agency is sponsoring Macbeth for military bases and has resurrected traditional Shakespeare at the national level [Shakespearean plays are now staged as in the days of old which means brothels and bath house scenes are no longer mandatory].
I don´t care if you insult him or trade in Karl Rove conspiracy theories, but, in November of 2004, this particular rightist is going to stand by George W. Bush just as the bumper sticker on my car promises. Our hopes for a better tomorrow rest in the White House on his bed. We must support him because heady days await and also because his reelection keeps the Democrat Party headless. Let´s proudly stand by our man as he loudly subsumes the popular positions of the left while promoting many of ours in the shadows though his judges, appointees, and minions.
Does it make you proud to support a President who knowingly signed an un-Constitutional bill into law?
Do you not recognize that in doing so he runs the risk of alienating conservative voters in the same manner as his "read my lips" dad?
Why is this so hard for you guys to understand? Or are you counting on the fact that the GOP can scare conservatives into supprting them in November with threats of a Democrat victory?
At best, he deserves to be ignored.
I see.
I don't agree with you on this issue, but I didn't figure you'd dodge the debate at hand.
Would you agree that the sole reason Bush signed this bill into law in the first place was the reported public sentiment for it, and his desire to keep his poll numbers (and hence, re-election chances) high?
No, this isn't a debate, really; it's just YOU carping, obfuskating, and bashing those who don't cling to your stated " facts ", 100%. Sounds an awful lot like DU posts, from you.
You don't have any idea, none at all, where I stand, what I have ever said about President Bush and what he's done or has NOT done, yet you are compelled, driven even, to tar me with a broad brush of your own imaginings. SHAME ON YOU ! Unlike YOU, I have posted my disagreements and my agreements re the president's job performance. My posts are all over FR's archieves.
There's a list, much higher up on this thread, listing a myriad of GREAT things that the president's been reponsible for. I have NEVER, not once, seen you say anything good about any of them and I've been here for almost 6 years now, including when I just lurked AND I have a better than excellent memory for FREEPERS and what they've posted through the years.
Cut out the whinging, stop playing a combination of victim & BETTER THAN THOUer, and give it all a rest. Aren't you getting the least little bit weary of playing the fool here ?
Voters that stay home are insignificant. Fishermen go where the fish are, politicians are no different. If Rove thinks that MILLIONS of core conservatives are going to stay home, he'll go after other voting blocs that won't stay home under any circumstances, like the elderly.
I only know what I have seen, and I saw that very thing come to pass in spades in 1992-94. Bush the First lost because he decided to go left of center. When Newt and Co. swung things back to the right after seeing what happened in '92, they won decisively.
Am I recollecting those events differently from you?
Sadly, I agree with this. But I'm not going to be a willing participant in killing the rule of law in this country. And saying that it's acceptable for the President to knowingly and publicly violate his oath of office is something I just cannot stomach.
And it's not that I don't vote Republican. As I said before, I worked very hard for Marilyn Musgrave for the H of R in 2002. She won, and I couldn't have been happier if I had won myself.
I'm not saying that its right. I'm just saying that either Bad Candidate or Worse Candidate is going to win, and by either action or inaction, you're going to help one of them. Any other way you care to dress it up is illusion.
I'm under no illusion here. I fully understand that someone from Socialist Party A or Socialist Party B is going to win this November. What I am advocating is a methodology to bring candidates in the GOP back to the party's platform by denying them the vote until they do so.
Politicians are like dogs or monkeys. They learn behavior based on being punished for being "bad" or being rewarded for being "good". When we reward them for being "bad", then we're fighting a losing battle.
I am quite certain that you, having sorted the whole thing out, can shed some light on it for us unlearned ones in the audience.
I grew up on the field of battle back in 1970! I did my duty in spite if all the hate and disrespect I recieved because of it.
Do you think I would be swayed or somehow impressed by the likes of you? I certainly would not consider any thing you have to say because most of it is almost word for word what I used to hear coming from the mouths of those leftists back in the late '60's.
As far as whining to my "Momma", you're mouthy little tyrades are more entertainment for me than an annoyance.
Bush-Clinton-Bush-Dean-CONSERVATIVE
Possible.
If Republicans keep losing elections because their base keeps crumbling out, that's no incentive to play to the base. That will give them incentive to move towards more popular positions held by the other party.
I never said that, or intimated it. I applauded the partial birth abortion ban, as well as the tax cuts (and yes, I recognize that which you stated as true), the World Court, and Kyoto.
But would you agree that there are some things that are simply fundamental to our existence as a country, and that freedom of political speech is at or near the top of that list? I don't think some people in this discussion realize what an affront this really is to that freedom, and what the repercussions are likely to be for the GOP down the road. The media just won, and they are NOT on your side (or mine).
As to your point about Bush being perceived as too right wing should he happen to lose in '04 (which I honestly don't see happening), I would refer you back to my handful of posts concerning what happened to his father in '92 and what followed in '94. The problem may well be that a more-powerful media should be able to project that image more effectively than it could in '94, and the GOP just handed them the power to do so.
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.