Skip to comments.Enough With The Neocon And Paleocon Carping—I'll Stand With George W. Bush In 2004
Posted on 12/10/2003 8:59:00 PM PST by BobbyK
Enough With The Neocon And Paleocon
CarpingI'll Stand With George W. Bush In 2004
Enough With The Neocon And Paleocon
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.
What if I have almost two dozen plus issues on which I'm not going to vote for Bush over? Can I stay? ;-)
And I do have those reasons!
The first President Bush didn't give any of us any tax cuts, didn't go after Saddam ( instead, he listened to Powelll and the U.N. and some of our " allies " ), and though weak,he would never have sold out the USA ( or committed any other similar dirty deed, that the Clintons did!), so NO, you don't get even that.
You children won't be " paying " for the tax cuts. You stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the myriad good to great things that this President Bush has done. Your blinkers are tied on so tight, it's a complete wonder that you are able to see much of anything at all.
You are an UNAPEASEABLE , who prefers to complain, rather than to have even a few things you attest you want. Frankly, you want perfection and nothing else will do. Well, I've some news for you...you aren't going to get even 75% of what you imagine it is that you want from a president/government; not ever!
For some, the glass is always 1/2 full, for others, it's always 1/2 empty, for the UNAPPEASEABLES, there's NO GLASS! ;^)
You obviously do not understand, in anyway shape or form, the concept of tax rates on the taxable base.
According to the static thinkers like you, Wal-Mart should be bankrupt because for decades they've "rolled back prices". Are your children going to have to "pay for it" in higher toilet paper prices when they turn 25 because Wal-Mart sells you some Charmin 20% lower than last year?
Can you find at least three things, that President Bush has done, which you agree with ?
Do you even KNOW all of the things he's managed to do, or are you only aware of the things that you don't agree with him about ?
After answering those quetions, to yourself, then tell me why President Bush's re-election is not what you want and I'll decide if I ( and I don't run FR, so it matters not a whit. LOL ) think you should stay. :-)
Fortunately, for us, there are now Dems, who would rather vote for President Bush, than any Dem candidate. Isn't it amazing, that some Dems get it, but some supposed " Conservatives " don't ?
However, I'll be G-ddamned if I'll vote again for anyone, Mr. Bush included, who expands gov't shamelessly, entitlements, spending, ''education funding'' (what a tragic joke), all of the above and worse.
And who does NOTHING, not one thing, to protect our borders, to define the difference between citizenship and parisitism, and/or who refuses -- contrary to the oath of office -- to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
If the president, any president, utterly abandons his oath (never mind the Regress, who haven't had a clue about their respective oath of office for upwards of 30 years), there is no more Republic -- there only remains the doctrine of getwhatchacanwhileyacan, otherwise known as savagery.
If there is no longer recognised and admired either the responsibility of citizenship or the benefits accruing from legitimate citizenship, if the random filth from other nations, who have no intention whatever of even considering American ideals, never mind embracing them, need not even obey the laws of the United States in order to have the taxpayers subsidise them, if our protestations against the political class are to be time-limited according to the whim of those in office, as according to the Supreme Court ruling today...there is little point and enormous risk in continuing to believe that ''America'' is any longer a special nation, ''the last, best hope of mankind''.
And now, which course can we who believe in the Constitution take? Revolt, or leave. If there is a third choice, I cannot name it. Sit passively like sheep and wait for further confiscation of our rights and our property, the better for the politicians to buy votes from the parasites and the non-producers? That option is NOT for me.
Do as your conscience guides, and FReegards to all except the site pests, the one-worlders, and the assorted socialists here.
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.
"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.
~~ Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, An American Life .
One: Increase defense spending. But only 9/11 sent him down this road. Without 9/11, he was just as willing to keep overall defense spending down.
Two: He cut marginal tax rates on income, captial gains and the duplicate taxation of dividends. But, again, it's all temporary (most of this is the fault of Congress) and go back up in 2011. The usual mantra was, "don't worry, a future GOP Congress will make them permanent". Hmmm, wasn't that the same wimpy argument I heard about Bush signing campaign finance reform as I was wailing against him? They said, "there is no way the Supreme Court is going to affirm this law". HA!
Three: I'll have to get back to you...I'm drawing a blank.
Best of the season to ya!
Exactly....and the Necro-Conservative death N wish is still alive and well.