Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Neoconservative Persuasion
Weekly Standard ^ | 2003 | Irving Kristol

Posted on 05/24/2004 4:42:38 PM PDT by churchillbuff

WHAT EXACTLY IS NEOCONSERVATISM? Journalists, and now even presidential candidates, speak with an enviable confidence on who or what is "neoconservative," and seem to assume the meaning is fully revealed in the name. Those of us who are designated as "neocons" are amused, flattered, or dismissive, depending on the context. It is reasonable to wonder: Is there any "there" there?

Even I, frequently referred to as the "godfather" of all those neocons, have had my moments of wonderment. A few years ago I said (and, alas, wrote) that neoconservatism had had its own distinctive qualities in its early years, but by now had been absorbed into the mainstream of American conservatism. I was wrong, and the reason I was wrong is that, ever since its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s, what we call neoconservatism has been one of those intellectual undercurrents that surface only intermittently. It is not a "movement," as the conspiratorial critics would have it. Neoconservatism is what the late historian of Jacksonian America, Marvin Meyers, called a "persuasion," one that manifests itself over time, but erratically, and one whose meaning we clearly glimpse only in retrospect.

Viewed in this way, one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy. That this new conservative politics is distinctly American is beyond doubt. There is nothing like neoconservatism in Europe, and most European conservatives are highly skeptical of its legitimacy. The fact that conservatism in the United States is so much healthier than in Europe, so much more politically effective, surely has something to do with the existence of neoconservatism. But Europeans, who think it absurd to look to the United States for lessons in political innovation, resolutely refuse to consider this possibility.

Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the "American grain." It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked. Of course, those worthies are in no way overlooked by a large, probably the largest, segment of the Republican party, with the result that most Republican politicians know nothing and could not care less about neoconservatism. Nevertheless, they cannot be blind to the fact that neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters. Nor has it passed official notice that it is the neoconservative public policies, not the traditional Republican ones, that result in popular Republican presidencies One of these policies, most visible and controversial, is cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth. Neocons are familiar with intellectual history and aware that it is only in the last two centuries that democracy has become a respectable option among political thinkers. In earlier times, democracy meant an inherently turbulent political regime, with the "have-nots" and the "haves" engaged in a perpetual and utterly destructive class struggle. It was only the prospect of economic growth in which everyone prospered, if not equally or simultaneously, that gave modern democracies their legitimacy and durability. The cost of this emphasis on economic growth has been an attitude toward public finance that is far less risk averse than is the case among more traditional conservatives. Neocons would prefer not to have large budget deficits, but it is in the nature of democracy--because it seems to be in the nature of human nature--that political demagogy will frequently result in economic recklessness, so that one sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth. It is a basic assumption of neoconservatism that, as a consequence of the spread of affluence among all classes, a property-owning and tax-paying population will, in time, become less vulnerable to egalitarian illusions and demagogic appeals and more sensible about the fundamentals of economic reckoning.

This leads to the issue of the role of the state. Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative ways of delivering these services. But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on "the road to serfdom." Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his "The Man Versus the State," was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. Though they find much to be critical about, they tend to seek intellectual guidance in the democratic wisdom of Tocqueville, rather than in the Tory nostalgia of, say, Russell Kirk.

But it is only to a degree that neocons are comfortable in modern America. The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives--though not with those libertarian conservatives who are conservative in economics but unmindful of the culture. The upshot is a quite unexpected alliance between neocons, who include a fair proportion of secular intellectuals, and religious traditionalists. They are united on issues concerning the quality of education, the relations of church and state, the regulation of pornography, and the like, all of which they regard as proper candidates for the government's attention. And since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power. Because religious conservatism is so feeble in Europe, the neoconservative potential there is correspondingly weak.

AND THEN, of course, there is foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention. This is surprising since there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience. (The favorite neoconservative text on foreign affairs, thanks to professors Leo Strauss of Chicago and Donald Kagan of Yale, is Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War.) These attitudes can be summarized in the following "theses" (as a Marxist would say): First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. Precisely because we are a nation of immigrants, this is a powerful American sentiment. Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. International institutions that point to an ultimate world government should be regarded with the deepest suspicion. Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies. This is not as easy as it sounds, as the history of the Cold War revealed. The number of intelligent men who could not count the Soviet Union as an enemy, even though this was its own self-definition, was absolutely astonishing.

Finally, for a great power, the "national interest" is not a geographical term, except for fairly prosaic matters like trade and environmental regulation. A smaller nation might appropriately feel that its national interest begins and ends at its borders, so that its foreign policy is almost always in a defensive mode. A larger nation has more extensive interests. And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns. Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.

Behind all this is a fact: the incredible military superiority of the United States vis-à-vis the nations of the rest of the world, in any imaginable combination. This superiority was planned by no one, and even today there are many Americans who are in denial. To a large extent, it all happened as a result of our bad luck. During the 50 years after World War II, while Europe was at peace and the Soviet Union largely relied on surrogates to do its fighting, the United States was involved in a whole series of wars: the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Kosovo conflict, the Afghan War, and the Iraq War. The result was that our military spending expanded more or less in line with our economic growth, while Europe's democracies cut back their military spending in favor of social welfare programs. The Soviet Union spent profusely but wastefully, so that its military collapsed along with its economy.

Suddenly, after two decades during which "imperial decline" and "imperial overstretch" were the academic and journalistic watchwords, the United States emerged as uniquely powerful. The "magic" of compound interest over half a century had its effect on our military budget, as did the cumulative scientific and technological research of our armed forces. With power come responsibilities, whether sought or not, whether welcome or not. And it is a fact that if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you.

The older, traditional elements in the Republican party have difficulty coming to terms with this new reality in foreign affairs, just as they cannot reconcile economic conservatism with social and cultural conservatism. But by one of those accidents historians ponder, our current president and his administration turn out to be quite at home in this new political environment, although it is clear they did not anticipate this role any more than their party as a whole did. As a result, neoconservatism began enjoying a second life, at a time when its obituaries were still being published.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: antiwarsquawking; generalmcclellanbuff; irvingkristol; joooooooos; kristol; neocatfighting; neocons; neoconservatism; neonamecalling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 451-454 next last
To: churchillbuff
Pssssst, sparky...you posted that to yourself.

"If it doesn't involve bloodshed in the middle east, you're not interested."

Subliminal mistake?

201 posted on 05/25/2004 12:06:09 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

"Just where does he state that you claimed you were in a kamp?"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1141481/posts?page=163#163

Anymore questions?

Please try not to make them as superfluous as your last.


202 posted on 05/25/2004 12:09:59 PM PDT by Veracious Poet (Cash cows are sacred in America...GOT MILKED???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Veracious Poet
So hey there Kerry Poet, still going to keep on shuffling and avoid answering what majority anti-war "kamp" you speak for when claiming Conservative Americans who support the war are in the minority?

I know Michael Moore says the same thing? Are they two anti-war "kamps" out there that out number us?

203 posted on 05/25/2004 12:12:18 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Veracious Poet
In that post, he asks to know which camp you are in, but you refused the answer (anti-war). But nowhere in that post does he claim that you stated you were in a camp.

You don't want to talk about it, so he did.

Why are you ashamed of being anti-war?

204 posted on 05/25/2004 12:13:03 PM PDT by Petronski (They could choose between shame and war: Some chose shame, but got war anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: MrShoop
re: I find that description of neo-conservatism particularly uncompelling.))

*snicker*...If you managed to finish this turgid, pretentious, ponderous piece of stale prosebread--much less be compelled by it-- I salute you.

205 posted on 05/25/2004 12:14:09 PM PDT by Mamzelle (for a post-neo conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

"Euhhh. Thank goodness I've arrived."

206 posted on 05/25/2004 12:14:33 PM PDT by Petronski (They could choose between shame and war: Some chose shame, but got war anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

I believe his friend Michael Moore wouldn't want him to reveal his affiliation...it might tarnish Moores gross image.


207 posted on 05/25/2004 12:15:17 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
I save all that neo/paleo BS for those who need labels to try and justify either their existance or their prejudices.

People like the author of this article?

208 posted on 05/25/2004 12:16:49 PM PDT by jmc813 (Help save a life - www.marrow.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Did you see the post by Chamberlainbuff to himself:

"If it doesn't involve bloodshed in the middle east, you're not interested. But that doesn't make you a conservative, it just makes you some guy who is obsessed with the middle east."

Talking to himself third person again.

209 posted on 05/25/2004 12:17:33 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

LOL


210 posted on 05/25/2004 12:18:29 PM PDT by Petronski (They could choose between shame and war: Some chose shame, but got war anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

The person over-intellectualizing labels?


211 posted on 05/25/2004 12:18:45 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

First off, asking which camp you're in pre-supposes you're in a camp to begin with (DUH!).

Secondly, I never claimed to be "anti-war".

I fully and still so our invasion of Afghanistan, but view the Iraq debacle as an unwinnable, expensive Neo-Con gamble.

If you must know, I am an anti-BIG GOV'T., anti-OPEN BORDERS, anti-OUTSOURCING, anti-TAX & SPEND. PRO-LIFE, anti-GAY MARRIAGE conservative.

Perhaps conservatives like me are now in the minority within the conservative movement as CWOJackson espouses.


212 posted on 05/25/2004 12:19:33 PM PDT by Veracious Poet (Cash cows are sacred in America...GOT MILKED???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

Dumber than a box of rocks


213 posted on 05/25/2004 12:21:56 PM PDT by jpsb (Nominated 1994 "Worst writer on the net")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Veracious Poet
A HALLMARK MOMENT

Secondly, I never claimed to be "anti-war".

I fully and still so our invasion of Afghanistan, but view the Iraq debacle as an unwinnable, expensive Neo-Con gamble.

WHEN SAYING I'M AN ANTI-WAR DEFEATIST ISN'T ENOUGH.

214 posted on 05/25/2004 12:22:05 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Correction:

I fully and still support our invasion of Afghanistan...


215 posted on 05/25/2004 12:23:05 PM PDT by Veracious Poet (Cash cows are sacred in America...GOT MILKED???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

Dumber than a box of rocks.

I think you're insulting the intelligence of rocks with that statement. ;-)


216 posted on 05/25/2004 12:24:48 PM PDT by Veracious Poet (Cash cows are sacred in America...GOT MILKED???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Veracious Poet

Yea, he is a serious troll.


217 posted on 05/25/2004 12:25:22 PM PDT by jpsb (Nominated 1994 "Worst writer on the net")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Veracious Poet
Correction:

A HALLMARK MOMENT

Secondly, I never claimed to be "anti-war".

I fully and still support our invasion of Afghanistan, but view the Iraq debacle as an unwinnable, expensive Neo-Con gamble.

WHEN SAYING I'M AN ANTI-WAR DEFEATIST ISN'T ENOUGH.

218 posted on 05/25/2004 12:25:38 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Veracious Poet
First off, asking which camp you're in pre-supposes you're in a camp to begin with (DUH!).

Duh! You are in a camp. To wit:

Secondly, I never claimed to be "anti-war".

I fully and still so our invasion of Afghanistan, but view the Iraq debacle as an unwinnable, expensive Neo-Con gamble.

As far as Iraq is concerned, you are anti-war, and thus in the anti-war camp.

Your pitiful rhetorical gymnastics aside, when the question is IRAQI FREEDOM, you are in the anti-war camp.

And really, this Kerryesque BS is laughable: "[a] I never claimed to be anti-war...[b but view IRAQI FREEDOM] as an unwinnable, expensive Neo-Con gamble."

That's like, "I'm not opposed to the war, but here's why I oppose it."

That throbbing headache you feel is called 'cognitive dissonance' Senator Kerry.

219 posted on 05/25/2004 12:26:51 PM PDT by Petronski (They could choose between shame and war: Some chose shame, but got war anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

Keep working at it. You might actually be able to form a complete and meaningful sentence one day....but then again, with the crowd you hang around with, not likely.


220 posted on 05/25/2004 12:27:16 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Veracious Poet
I fully and still support our invasion of Afghanistan...

Understood, but anti-war on Iraq.

221 posted on 05/25/2004 12:28:55 PM PDT by Petronski (They could choose between shame and war: Some chose shame, but got war anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Veracious Poet

Personally I think he is a Rat operative, since he does just about everything he can to split paleo and neo conservatives, and mainly with personal insults and attacks. Other then my occasional "box of rocks" comment I ignore him. Feel free to use my approach, it works.


222 posted on 05/25/2004 12:29:04 PM PDT by jpsb (Nominated 1994 "Worst writer on the net")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Anti-war MAJORITY...no less.


223 posted on 05/25/2004 12:29:34 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Ask him what he thinks of the Assault Weapons Ban and the "Millenium Challenge" foreign aid package.


224 posted on 05/25/2004 12:29:47 PM PDT by jmc813 (Help save a life - www.marrow.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

Veracious Parrot sure has his anti-war talking points down pat. But don't ask him to admit that on Iraq, he's anti-war.


225 posted on 05/25/2004 12:31:05 PM PDT by Petronski (They could choose between shame and war: Some chose shame, but got war anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
Chamberlainbuff

Who is chamberlain again?

226 posted on 05/25/2004 12:31:11 PM PDT by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jpsb
The typical reaction from those affraid to directly address their betters.

I expect nothing less from the lower levels of the anti-war weasels.

227 posted on 05/25/2004 12:32:38 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

I think you and CWOJackson should take remedial classes together.

Anti-war = against war.

I'm not against war in general, just think "Iraqi Freedom" is a pipe dream.

War is inevitable and necessary at times...


228 posted on 05/25/2004 12:33:27 PM PDT by Veracious Poet (Cash cows are sacred in America...GOT MILKED???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Veracious Poet

So if you oppose the war in Iraq, on that war, you are anti-war.


229 posted on 05/25/2004 12:34:29 PM PDT by Petronski (They could choose between shame and war: Some chose shame, but got war anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
Chamberlainbuff is sulking. He normally doesn't reply to me until he's dead certain I've left FR for the day...it's a just a little courage thing I guess.

He flubbed his last post to himself so I think he might be out getting his nails done for a while. However, if you would like to initiate such a thread feel free.

230 posted on 05/25/2004 12:34:44 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
Chamberlainbuff is sulking. He normally doesn't reply to me until he's dead certain I've left FR for the day...it's a just a little courage thing I guess.

He flubbed his last post to himself so I think he might be out getting his nails done for a while. However, if you would like to initiate such a thread feel free.

231 posted on 05/25/2004 12:35:03 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
Chamberlainbuff is sulking. He normally doesn't reply to me until he's dead certain I've left FR for the day...it's a just a little courage thing I guess.

He flubbed his last post to himself so I think he might be out getting his nails done for a while. However, if you would like to initiate such a thread feel free.

232 posted on 05/25/2004 12:35:19 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

"So if you oppose the war in Iraq, on that war, you are anti-war."

One last lesson and I'm off.

I am not anti-war(period)

I am anti-Iraq war.

See the difference?


233 posted on 05/25/2004 12:38:30 PM PDT by Veracious Poet (Cash cows are sacred in America...GOT MILKED???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Veracious Poet

Iraq might and could work out well for the US and Iraq and all of the Middle East. I am much more hopefull then you, and then again it would go very badly too. Spporting Buch on this action is the only game in town. American withdrawal under fire from Iraq, is not an option.


234 posted on 05/25/2004 12:38:53 PM PDT by jpsb (Nominated 1994 "Worst writer on the net")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
However, if you would like to initiate such a thread feel free.

Nah. I tried to get your opinion on that Millenium Challenge $hit yesterday to no avail.

235 posted on 05/25/2004 12:39:06 PM PDT by jmc813 (Help save a life - www.marrow.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: philosofy123
Chamberlainbuff is a VERY COMMON reference to the poster calling them self: Churchillbuff. It's almost universally used to clear up the misconception his name implies. If one examines Chamberlainbuffs many anti-war threads, they may get the mistaken idea that Churchill was a defeatist and pansy.

It also goes beyond his simply anti-war position, to his actual knowledge of Sir Winston Churchill. Chamberlainbuff either didn't know, or simply forgot, episodes in Churchill's life, such as WWI, that directly contradict his assertions about Churchill.

Chamberlainbuff is far more representative of the fool Neville Chamberlain, who declared Hitler to no be dangerous, and that war was not necessary.

236 posted on 05/25/2004 12:39:48 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Veracious Poet
One last lesson and you're off?

Okay, here's your last lesson:

Regarding the war in Iraq, You are anti-war (and apparently ashamed of it).

237 posted on 05/25/2004 12:40:46 PM PDT by Petronski (They could choose between shame and war: Some chose shame, but got war anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

see 213


238 posted on 05/25/2004 12:41:49 PM PDT by jpsb (Nominated 1994 "Worst writer on the net")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Veracious Poet
A HALLMARK MOMENT

I am not anti-war(period)

I am anti-Iraq war.

See the difference?

WHEN SAYING I'M NOT ALWAYS AN ANTI-WAR DEFEATIST ALL THE TIME SIMPLY ISN'T ENOUGH

239 posted on 05/25/2004 12:42:14 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
All a matter of timing I guess. I was busy yesterday trying to get Kerry Poet there to identify the majority anti-war group he speaks for.

And then there were the many Zinni threads...where people were singing the praises of the butcher of the USS Cole sailors.

240 posted on 05/25/2004 12:43:46 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

To paraphrase Senator Kerry: "I'm not opposed to this war, but here's why I'm opposed to it."


241 posted on 05/25/2004 12:45:03 PM PDT by Petronski (They could choose between shame and war: Some chose shame, but got war anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
"You are anti-war (and apparently ashamed of it)."

Consider the comparison:

American soldier defending his nation - Michael Moorse, sweet dripping off his fat face.

242 posted on 05/25/2004 12:47:42 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
...Michael Moore, sweet dripping off his fat face.

Sweet? Sweet what? Sweet icing? Sweet rolls? Sweet corn?

LOL Now there's a Freudian slip.

243 posted on 05/25/2004 12:49:40 PM PDT by Petronski (They could choose between shame and war: Some chose shame, but got war anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Yeeeecchhhh...I pulled a Chamberlainbuff!

So let me clear this up by pulling a Kerry Poet: I was referring to the various sauces dribbling off his snout and chin, not indicating that I consider his face sweet, because I actually opposed his face in New York, but this is france and you know, french food is often sweet, so that's what I wasn't saying I said.

Kerry Poet out.

244 posted on 05/25/2004 12:53:30 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
...the various sauces dribbling off his snout and chin...

LOL

245 posted on 05/25/2004 12:55:42 PM PDT by Petronski (They could choose between shame and war: Some chose shame, but got war anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I'm a conservative and don't need the "neo" label to identify my persuasion. At the same time, I think conservatism is the stronger for the contribution of disaffected liberals, since we used to be them and know how they think. In no small part, the Left is infuriated by people who successfully steal the thunder out of their arguments. As a result, the Left has been left with nothing to say. In no small part, the neocons have helped to make America, in Micklewaithe and Wooldridge's apt phrase, "The Right Nation.

Bump this analysis!
246 posted on 05/25/2004 1:02:19 PM PDT by uncitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
Oops, I meant to post to you, the phony "conservative" who doesn't have any concern about conservative issues! Thanks for pointing out my mistake, so here we go again, "sparky" - or should I say, "lefty"!

you don't have any interest (at least that you make public) in pro-life, tax cuts, racial quotas, conservative judges, sanctity of marriage or the immigration mess - - and yet you have the gall to question my conservative commitment, when I've been posting on these issues for six years. If it doesn't involve bloodshed in the middle east, you're not interested. But that doesn't make you a conservative, it just makes you some guy who is obsessed with the middle east.

247 posted on 05/25/2004 1:08:13 PM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Getting confused there sparky...you already said the same thing about yourself...and I thought it was spot on. Don't try to wiggle out of the first accurate thing you've said in so long. Enjoy the fact that you got it right FOR ONCE.


248 posted on 05/25/2004 1:11:21 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson; jmc813
Has anyone seen this Jackson character post on anything that didn't have to do with the Middle East? I post on all kinds of traditional conservative concerns - but I've never encountered him when I'm talking about abortion, or high taxes or burdensome regulations, or gun control, or family values, or reverse racism. He cares as much about those issues, it seems, as John Kerry does! That's why I take it with a lot of salt when he disses my opinions - - that's like being disses by Kerry or anybody else who could care less about conservative concerns, it's an honor to be "bashed" by somebody like that!

Have a great day!

249 posted on 05/25/2004 1:13:47 PM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

Oh, and by the way, I'm not a paleo, not a libertarian, not a Ron Paul supporter - - - just a traditional, pro-life, low-tax Reaganite conservative. Proudly posting on those issues, on freerepublic, since 1998. (I was Clinton bashing when Clinton-bashing wasn't cool!)


250 posted on 05/25/2004 1:17:11 PM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 451-454 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson