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.
Secondly, he kept a moderate profile so as not to alienate the left.
But mostly, he stood his ground even under overwhelming opposition from the extreme right and met most everyone "half way". He also stood his ground in the war against Communism until it was defeated.
The parallels of Reagan and President Bush are very similar even though you refuse to look for it.
I agree that he is keeping many of his campaign promises, and I give him credit on many. But there are some that bother me greatly. This issue (First Amendment), him promising to sign the "assault weapons" ban back into law (Second Amendment), the Patriot Act (Fourth Amendment) are all things that cause me to not support him, because he does not support many of the fundamental rights we should enjoy as Americans.
And I totally agree with you on Gingrich's mishandling of the situation after being given a large victory in '94. But the lesson learned is still applicable, IMO: When the GOP runs to the right, where its base is, and then follows up after the people give their support, then it can and will win many elections with ease.
It's late, you are irrational, unbending ( even when, which is about all of the time !)when you are wrong and proven so, and no, you don't see anything at all. I'm going to log off and no, answering your post, to someone else, isn't high on my priority list of things to do, dear.
You don't bother, not once, to debate my points, nor to even make a stab at refuting them. Yet, YOU demand that I should answer YOUR idiocies? Go talk to someone who cares.
The sole reason, Bush signed the CFR, was to shut up McNasty,not give the Dems, who had the Senate majority then, any more fuel, shut up the media, who were beating him over the head with it, and yes, to bolster his position. Poll numbers ? Signing a Bill that the majority of the voting populace neither understood nor gave a damn about ? Yeah, sure, that's right, you just keep repeating that to yourself and maybe, just maybe, your psychopathic need for self validation/ego stroking/attention yearning disorder will be assuaged for a nonce. LOL
Okay, work with me. What "point" or "points" are you making. Please state them clearly, and I will reply one at a time.
We've both been giong back and forth. Time to clean things up a little.
And whislt you're busying yourself with that chore, I'm off. Happy reading. :-)
Your outward disrespect for me or anyone else on this forum who does not agree with you, speaks volumes as to your true nature.
Most of us ignore your kind as do I.
And apparently still haven't learned their lesson.
I see. So GHWB deserved our support despite blatantly looking us in the eye and lying through his teeth, and for governing like a Rockefeller. I would say he was more responsible for his own demise than any other President in recent history (including Carter).
And what happened after the '92 elections? The Republicans reverted to conservative ideals in '94, won control of the House (which they have held ever since), and set the stage for winning the Senate.
And as they have drifted back towards the muddy middle, where they have consistently lost elections, the cheering section grows louder and smaller at the same time.
That is why they are so concerned, and rightly so, that '92 may repeat itself in '04. My suggestion: Start acting like conservatives again. It works.
The battle you want to fight is long over by the time the election rolls around. At that point, A and B are going to look at the the political lay of the land, and fight from there.
If there is little to no demand for issue X, candidates will supply issue X little to no support. Consider back when most people shrugged at Clinton's perjury. If society doesn't care, it's futile to think that politicians will.
Now, we can argue about what people should and shouldn't think all day long, but representatives of the people will generally be as dumb and short sighted as those they represent. In order to influence politician behavior, you have to affect their constituents.
Any other vote than Republican is a wasted vote. Conservative is the goal, whether it is moderate or extremist. A vote for an alternative party will create the same scenario as what gave Clinton the election in '92.
Now enough of this "Beating a dead horse BS". You know good and well what most of our positions are on this but you keep "jigging" for us to take the hook. I believe I have spelled it out clearly. It is just that simple.
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.