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

Skip to comments.

THE HECK WITH THE "NEOCON" LABEL! I AM NOT THE ETHER ZONE'S TOKEN NEOCONSERVATIVE
ETHER ZONE ^ | 11/4/02 | Carol Devine-Molin

Posted on 11/04/2002 12:24:31 PM PST by GOPBlonde

I'm a mainstream conservative, plain and simple. And we represent the majority of those who self-identify as "conservatives". Unfortunately, other ideological factions often distort the nature and beliefs of mainstream conservatism. True, I'm throwing a few Molotov cocktails, but it's really the best way to clarify matters.

In the Ether Zone forum, a fellow writer referred to me as a "self-proclaimed Neoconservative". Well hold your horses, bucko, I've come to reject that ridiculous label being used by both the Hard Left and the Hard Right to stereotype and assail mainstream conservatives, outrageously casting us as "warmongers". Yes, the term Neoconservative is now the equivalent of an insult being hurled at mainstream conservatives in an attempt to portray us as insidious "warmongers". I readily admit that I was a naive fool to have ever accepted that moniker, failing to realize the "battle cry" it invokes among extremes on both sides of the political spectrum, which I shall readily explore.

In a nutshell, the Hard Left represents dedicated liberals, and beyond that, there is little to say since a Leftist is a Leftist is a Leftist. These are the "Utopian Socialists" that believe if you give government enough power and tax monies, government can solve all problems. Now that's really scary! In reality, what you get from such a socialist system is coercion, lies, misery and dictatorship.

However, the Hard Right is a little more complicated, and is comprised of the Paleoconservatives (Buchananites, John Birchers, and other old-fashioned conservatives with their Isolationist/Libertarian bent) and the Ultra-Libertarians. The Paleoconservatives refer to themselves as the "genuine" or the "traditional" conservatives as they are the self-righteous purist, ready to impugn mainstream conservatives, and all others for that matter, that do not meet their finely tuned standards. And their definition of a "Neoconservative" morphs and changes to include anyone not in agreement with them. Now those who are hawk-ish on Iraq, whether Right or Left, are being snidely dubbed "Neos" by the Hard Right. According to fellow Ether Zone writer Justin Raimondo, "Those damn Neocons are everywhere!" Justin even believes that the Left is being assimilated into the "Borg Continuum" of Neoconservative thought. Isn't this a bit obsessive? Gotta fight those evil Neocons that are all around us! Geezz!

Notably, members of the Hard Right demonstrate little in the way of flexibility, so working within a political party is ultimately doomed. For instance, the Buchananites ran out of the Republican Party (hooray for us!), and quickly took over the Reform Party a few years back. Predictably, they have since been kicked out of there, leaving that independent party in ruins. It irks me that the liberal media (particularly television), in efforts to twist and obscure the true nature of mainstream conservatism, have Paleoconservative leader Pat Buchanan regularly hosting shows and guesting on a variety of programs. Political commentator Pat Buchanan has become the darling of the Left-leaning media, despite the fact that his views are not representative of the majority of conservatives. But Buchanan gives the Left-leaning media exactly what they want. He helps the liberals beat up on the Republican Party and mainstream conservatives. Buchanan's "on air" partnership with liberal Bill Press (MSNBC) is certainly not "fair and balanced". I'll stick with the Fox News Channel.

Up until a few months ago, I thought "Neoconservative" was a perfectly respectable term for those of us who switched parties and came into the GOP over twenty years ago, having become totally disillusioned with the Democratic Party. Many of us were relatively young and did not understand or appreciate the true nature of partisan politics until Ronald Reagan enlightened us about the pernicious Left. In fact, many of us still continue to refer to ourselves as "Reaganites" and hold the same political ideals that include: a) cutting marginal tax rates that unleashes a stimulative effect upon the economy, b) reining in the size and scope of government, c) creating a first class, technologically advanced military, and d) exhibiting a sense of moral certitude as we go about the task of dismantling an "Evil Empire" that poses a global threat. Of course, during the 1980's, the infamous Soviet Union was successfully brought down, thus ending the "cold war" era. Now, we are fighting radical Islamists and rogue nations that work together hand-in-glove, with the goal of destroying western civilization. To use the often cited metaphor, we must "drain the swamps" (rogue regimes) that permit the mosquitos (terrorists) to flourish. Clearly, the Hard Right always revels in the opportunity to criticize our failure at reducing government. And with a lengthy "war on terrorism" being waged, it's uncertain how our nation will reduce costs and the pool of government personnel over the next few years.

Let me reiterate that we mainstream conservatives are no warmongers! The atrocities of September 11th were brought directly to our shores, killing thousands of citizens, and were perpetrated by Islamic fanatics who intend to kill us all. We are mere "infidels" in the minds of these lunatics, the equivalent of insects to be dispassionately disposed of during the course of "Jihad". Americans have no other recourse than to fight this "war on terrorism", and to seek the overthrow of dangerous rogue nations, which aid and abet militant Islamists by providing them with monies, weaponry, and safe harbor. As to the psychopath Saddam Hussein, he is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weaponry that could easily be given to terrorist proxies for the purpose of targeting America. One way or another, we need to dismantle Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. We cannot permit America to be vulnerable to a catastrophic nuclear attack.

Lastly, as I indicated in one of my prior articles, entitled "A Radicalized Ether Zone", "It's important to understand that mainstream conservatism is now comprised of a variety of camps, and that Bill Kristol (political commentator, McCain advisor, and editor of the "Weekly Standard") actually represents only a small faction within the overall movement... In terms of further bona fides, I ran on the ballot in early 1996 as a delegate for "flat tax" advocate Steve Forbes in the NY Republican primary, I can't stand McCain, I think our military should withdraw from the Balkans forthwith (leave it to the Europeans), and I probably better exemplify mainstream conservatives in background and ideology than Bill Kristol".

"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."

Mail this article to a friend(s) in two clicks!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carol Devine-Molin is a Republican District Leader, a community activist, and the host of "On The Right Side", a local program sponsored by the Republicans, and seen throughout most of Westchester County, New York. She is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.

Carol can be reached at DevineMolin@aol.com

Published in the November 11, 2002 issue of Ether Zone. Copyright © 1997 - 2002 Ether Zone.

We invite your comments on this article in our forum!


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: neoconservatives; warmongers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 next last

1 posted on 11/04/2002 12:24:31 PM PST by GOPBlonde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GOPBlonde
... Let me reiterate that we mainstream conservatives are no warmongers! ...
Speak for yourself, neocon. I want precision guided munitions to descend upon Baghdad like a gentle summer rain and I want it now. I want tank formations and carrier fleets and elite special operations details and missile-bearing drone aircraft. In sum, I want it all.
2 posted on 11/04/2002 12:33:13 PM PST by Asclepius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPBlonde
the Hard Right always revels in the opportunity to criticize our failure at reducing government.

More likely they criticize increases in government from neocons.

And with a lengthy "war on terrorism" being waged, it's uncertain how our nation will reduce costs and the pool of government personnel over the next few years.

It would take a person with a head injury to honestly believe that in the absence of the WoT, neocons would be pushing for a decrease in the size and scope of government.

Increasing the size of government is what neocons do. It's what distinguishes them from other conservatives. You might obtain a plurality of neocons within the conservative movement, and that will be the only way you'll ever be considered "mainstream conservative' - by redefining the term.

3 posted on 11/04/2002 12:36:57 PM PST by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPBlonde
Is that you Green eyes ?
4 posted on 11/04/2002 12:37:59 PM PST by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
. I want precision guided munitions to descend upon Baghdad like a gentle summer rain and I want it now. I want tank formations and carrier fleets and elite special operations details and missile-bearing drone aircraft. In sum, I want it all.

Me too, for the simple reason that if we don't do this we will pay dearly in the long run, kinda a similar reason to drill in ANWR.

5 posted on 11/04/2002 12:39:20 PM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GOPBlonde
Paleo, neo... its all so confusing.

I would only add that it seems odd, to me anyway, that the economic-not-social conservatives(neos?) hold Reagan up as one of them, when Reagan was considered a 'right-wing rogue' even by the GOP.

The man was extremely conservative on social issues, which seems to be the measure of a 'paleo' these days.

6 posted on 11/04/2002 12:40:45 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
All I want is victory !
7 posted on 11/04/2002 12:42:16 PM PST by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GOPBlonde
I've always gotten the impression that neo-conservatives were basically, your 60's hippies, grown up. Out of the stupid left-wing mantra. People who believed in equality for all, got it, and were happy, now I see neo-cons changing into something else. The label neo-con is starting to scare me in that it seems to be tossed at anyone who is not christian and is conservative, i.e. a jewish conservative, etc. David Horowitiz is considered a neo-conservative, but he's seening alot of the negativity that is tossed at him. I consider myself a grass roots conservative. The term mainstream conservative bothers me a little bit too, but that was mostly because of the way Rush Limbaugh described it. There are political quizes all over the internet, take them and see what they say.
8 posted on 11/04/2002 12:43:02 PM PST by Sonny M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
... In sum, I want it all.

Must not have children in the military eh?

9 posted on 11/04/2002 12:43:25 PM PST by Lysander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin
"Is that you, Gree eyes?"

'When you look at the Sun, do you see something'?

;^)
10 posted on 11/04/2002 12:44:15 PM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
I like 'Gree', but the man wrote 'Green'.
11 posted on 11/04/2002 12:44:56 PM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rdb3; St. Clair Slim
Ok, time to throw the lad into the lion's den.No more coddling, let's see him sink or swim.Chop chop ;-)
12 posted on 11/04/2002 12:46:31 PM PST by habs4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: habs4ever
What's a "neocon?"
13 posted on 11/04/2002 12:50:36 PM PST by St. Clair Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lysander
... Must not have children in the military eh? ...
What an odd rejoinder. You seem to imply that any person's support for, or opposition to, a policy goal must be, by definition, motivated by self interest. You also seem to want to believe that we have something other than a professional, volunteer military--no one serves unless they want to. You also seem to believe that our brothers and sisters in uniform are not sworn by oath to defend our interests here or abroad, or that they themselves are somehow motivated only by self-interest, when simply wearing the uniform argues otherwise.

Perhaps you need to take a nap or something. You know, clear your head.
14 posted on 11/04/2002 12:51:10 PM PST by Asclepius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
'When you look at the Sun, do you see something'?

No, but my retinas start to hurt ....
15 posted on 11/04/2002 12:52:04 PM PST by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M
"People who believed in equality for all, got it, and were happy, now I see neo-cons changing into something else. The label neo-con is starting to scare me in that it seems to be tossed at anyone who is not christian and is conservative, i.e. a jewish conservative, etc. David Horowitiz is considered a neo-conservative, but he's seening alot of the negativity that is tossed at him."

That's what I've heard.
16 posted on 11/04/2002 12:56:28 PM PST by St. Clair Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin
bump to return
17 posted on 11/04/2002 12:58:26 PM PST by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: St. Clair Slim
What's a "neocon?"

Literally translated, it's "New Conservative", which helps you not at all.

In this usage, it's a conservative that is to the left of a "paleocon", or "old conservative".

18 posted on 11/04/2002 1:01:50 PM PST by Cyber Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: St. Clair Slim
Oh, welcome to FR. I saw rb's welcome thread....
19 posted on 11/04/2002 1:03:58 PM PST by Cyber Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: St. Clair Slim
Read the article and you will learn.Part of your continuing education, courtesy of your cousin.It is an argument around here that can get passionate at times.
20 posted on 11/04/2002 1:06:44 PM PST by habs4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GOPBlonde
Oh, wait until rightwing2 starts his pompous boasting about your lack of purity. He has advised me today that I am a RINO and a RAT. I guess my consistent voting for Republicans isn't pure enough for him. I can't imagine what he will say about you.
21 posted on 11/04/2002 1:13:38 PM PST by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St. Clair Slim; rdb3
The term "neocon" is used by the Buchanan types and some libertarians who have been against the war on terror, among other things. The Buchanan types, in particular, use "neocon" to imply one is not a "real" conservative.
22 posted on 11/04/2002 1:23:23 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Buchanan as in Pat Buchanan?
23 posted on 11/04/2002 1:31:30 PM PST by St. Clair Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
It doesn't help. But why do conservatives fight among themselves?
24 posted on 11/04/2002 1:33:16 PM PST by St. Clair Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: St. Clair Slim
Correct.
25 posted on 11/04/2002 1:35:23 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
I've heard the name. Is he a good conservative?
26 posted on 11/04/2002 1:38:21 PM PST by St. Clair Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: St. Clair Slim
But why do conservatives fight among themselves?

If you can answer that one you'll be teaching Political Science before the month is out. We do have a distressing tendency to eat our own.

Having fun so far?

27 posted on 11/04/2002 1:40:04 PM PST by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim
I think so.
28 posted on 11/04/2002 1:41:11 PM PST by St. Clair Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
I've always been confused by the neo and paleo. I'm conservative, not religious, am for lower taxes, smaller government, and the second amendment. I'm also against
the WOD. I'm pro-military, and pro-national defense.

So am I paleo or neo?

29 posted on 11/04/2002 1:44:50 PM PST by cryptical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: St. Clair Slim
Personally, I don't think of him as a good conservative. I think his foriegn policy is unrealistic at best (sorry, but two oceans did not protect us in 1941, they will certainly not protect us now), and I think he's trying to take the easy way out with protectionist policies.
30 posted on 11/04/2002 1:46:38 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GOPBlonde
You lost me when you chose to use the term "hard right!" Buh-bye!
31 posted on 11/04/2002 1:49:05 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cryptical
Here's an old thread on the topic. It has a link to a short quiz that is supposed to determine your "best fit" (conservative, paleocon, neocon, libertarian, etc.) Simplistic, but kind of fun.
32 posted on 11/04/2002 1:50:47 PM PST by Nonfaction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
However, the Hard Right is a little more complicated, and is comprised of the Paleoconservatives (Buchananites, John Birchers, and other old-fashioned conservatives with their Isolationist/Libertarian bent) and the Ultra-Libertarians

A Neocon faux pas! Read Buchanan's "A Republic Not An Empire." In his intro he discusses his efforts to shed the label and notes that "isolationism" is a "dismissive slur on a tradition of U.S. independence in foreign policy and nonintervention in foreign wars." <

33 posted on 11/04/2002 1:59:30 PM PST by Burdened White Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Burdened White Man
I disagree.

The effect is little removed from isolationism.
34 posted on 11/04/2002 2:03:48 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
The effect is little removed from isolationism.

If surrendering the responsibility to serve as the world's policeman may be labeled "isolationism" than so be it. Time for our allies to step up to the plate and policew their own backyards. This is outside the context of the War on Terror which, like Pearl Harbor, calls for retaliation.

35 posted on 11/04/2002 2:11:51 PM PST by Burdened White Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Burdened White Man
Sorry, if being the "world's policeman" means we don't have to retaliate for an act like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, I'll take that every time.

Two oceans CANNOT protect us any more. Not when an ICBM can arrive and ruin the day of an entire city in less time than it takes Domino's to deliver a pizza.

Like it or not, if we don't deal with some situations now, that's what we face. Buchanan has his head in the sand.
36 posted on 11/04/2002 2:15:36 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Two oceans CANNOT protect us any more.

Couldn't agree with you more on that. So why not put more of our money and military expertise into guarding our borders. Bush and Ashcroft are not making a valient effort to do this. If we're really aware of our vulnerability we have to close our borders to all but a few select immigrants.

How many nations around the world do we have troops stationed in? Do we really need to be in Germany and Korea, still? I'm just saying, we've overcommitted ourselves globally and that's part of the reason we're a terrorist target. As O'Reilly says, tell me where I'm wrong?

37 posted on 11/04/2002 2:24:09 PM PST by Burdened White Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Burdened White Man
First of all, the anti-immigration line you gratuitously tossed in is scapegoating at best. I'm sorry, but that is entirely unrelated to the foreign policy/national security matter. It's wrong, quite frankly. Are there problems with current immigration policy? Yes. Is that a reason to affect the immigrants themselves? No. The problem, for the most part is in allowing immigrants to get hooked on the degrading narcotic of welfare, and to get a betetr means of checking the backgrounds of those who wish to come here. That was something that our elected officials allowed to happen, and that is something elected officials will have to fix. But it ain't the immigrants' fault - save for those who mean to cause harm to others. Cutting back immigration over 9/11 is like passing a gun ban because of one nutcase shooting up a schoolyard. It's not fair to the innocent people affected by the laws you want passed.

Blaming immigration for problems like unemplyoment is a cop-out for people who don't want to do the heavy lifting that will be necessary to end the hostile business climate created in this country through grossly excessive corporate taxation and regulations that have gone way past any idea of common sense.

Second, I couldn't care less how many countries we are in - this war ain't just al-Qaida and Afghanistan. It's about clearing out ALL of those groups. If those groups have a global reach, they're on our list. If there is a nation-state supporting terrorist groups, they're on our list. We've got troops in Korea as part of a mutual defense treaty with South Korea. The troops in Germany are in as part of the North Atlantic Treaty.

Third, "overcommited" or not, the U.S. pull out until the war is won. Anything less would give potential adversaries the impression that we have a weakness of resolve, and that will be a lot more likely than our current policy to cause a much more costly war down the road - and we will have fewer allies that we can count on to fight that war.

And THAT is where you are wrong. If we make changes in foreign policy, it should only come in AFTER we have won the victory. Any other course of action WILL get us into a more dangerous situation.
38 posted on 11/04/2002 2:37:39 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim
But why do conservatives fight among themselves?

If you can answer that one you'll be teaching Political Science before the month is out. We do have a distressing tendency to eat our own.

But the answer is simple. Conservatives fight among ourselves because we define our political positions (in general) as being for something. And of course, we are not all for the same things with the same intensity.

Leftists, on the other hand, other than being for socialism, seem to define themselves entirely on what they are against. They basically determine that they are against something, then claim the Republicans support the position that they are against, and thus the liberal democrats tend to join together because predominantly they are againsters. If you notice what motivates them, it is what they are against. Heck, go over to the DU - you will only very rarely find anyone pushing an agenda that they are for - their entire forum is based on what they are against. This is why they tell so many lies - they have to define the "Pubbies" as the bogeymen.

First they decide what they are against.
Second they claim that Republicans are for whatever they are against.
Therefore, they vote against Republicans, and that is their motivation.

Democrats define themselves (mostly) by what they are against. Thus they focus on emotion and are weak on logic and intellect.
Republicans define themselves (mostly) by what they are for. Thus they have to craft logical and rational arguments, and thus they dispute with one another.
39 posted on 11/04/2002 2:48:12 PM PST by dark_lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
How is it scapegoating the immigration issue when there are an estimated 15 million illegal aliens in this country. We don't know how many of these are connected to Islamic cells. In what fantasyland is that NOT connected to national security. I'm not suggesting we close our borders to all legal immigrants, but in order to get a handle on things we should temporarily halt nearly all: THIS should've been done on Sept. 12. And my tax dollars are paying for services to law breakers entering this country illegally. We should also be rounding up every Islamist remotely suspected of terror connection. They are still very much among us: read Steve Emerson's "American Jihad."

NATO? A relic of WW2 that is no longer necessary in it's current form. We should not be committed to coming to the defense of the entirety of the European continent, which we nearly are at this point. And do we have to be in a defense pact with Korea forever? no, no, no! At some point we must relinquish this to regional allies.

I'm all for being in as many countries as possible to hunt down Al Qaida. Let do it! And you're right that we shouldn't bring any troops home until this is accomplished. But at some point we have to realize our limits and take care of THIS country.

40 posted on 11/04/2002 2:56:22 PM PST by Burdened White Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Nonfaction
According to the test, I'm a paleocon.
However, as a Israel supporting Hawk, I'm called a Neo-con.

I would preffer the term Nationalist Conservative. Others have called my position Hamiltonian/Federalist. (Most paleos are of the Jefferson-Jackson-Calhoun line).

I think that we do need to call for smaller, government, but we cannot afford to be doves. We are at war and are defeding ourselves and Western Civ.

41 posted on 11/04/2002 3:07:30 PM PST by rmlew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Burdened White Man; Poohbah
First of all, the scapegoating comes when the folks who CAUSED the problem don't seem willing to fix it.

Again, it's not the immgirants' fault OUR tax dollars are going to them. It's the fault of the elected officals in Washington, DC. THOSE are the folks to hold accountable. Not the immigrants who are here.

We used to have the bracero program - and little trouble with illegal immigration back then.

Quite frankly, if we still had that program, we would be able to figure out who was who. But we don't, so a good portion the folks who WOULD have been allowed in under that program end up sneaking across the border.

I do not buy Buchanan's immigration arguments, either. They represent the "soft bigotry of low expectations" that has occured before, particularly with IRISH CATHOLIC immigrants. I see no reason for that to have changed since then. It's the same discredited doom-and-gloom line used back then.
42 posted on 11/04/2002 3:09:43 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: hchutch; Burdened White Man
Concur with hchutch. Please note that the bracero program was terminated by the Democrats on behalf of their AFL-CIO union buddies, who wanted more pension fund contributions to steal. At the same time, we activated the Great Society.

The long-term fix is going to involve several tracks; merely sticking bodies down on the southern border will not stop illegal immigration, and won't appreciably slow it down unless we have an ungodly number of folks on both northern and southern borders, and every stretch of coastline as well.

43 posted on 11/04/2002 3:17:53 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
First of all, the scapegoating comes when the folks who CAUSED the problem don't seem willing to fix it.

There's lots of blame to go around on the immigration issue. But the immigrants are still "knowingly" breaking our laws and are thus unaccounted for once here, so I blame them for their lawlessness. Plus our INS is infected with political correctness and will not or are incapable of enforcing our laws. It's not about bigotry as you suggest. If blond-haired Swedes were the problem I'n be all for keeping them out as well.

DemocRATS welcome illegals in order to swell their minority voting ranks, while Repubs want them for cheap labor and to cozy up to the Hispanic vote. This is an outrage when are borders are not secure.

44 posted on 11/04/2002 3:25:49 PM PST by Burdened White Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Burdened White Man
So why not put more of our money and military expertise into guarding our borders. Bush and Ashcroft are not making a valient effort to do this. If we're really aware of our vulnerability we have to close our borders to all but a few select immigrants.

Watch out...I've been called intellectually dishonest and a 'rat for saying that. And I'm naive and misinformed because of my anti-globalist stands.

It's a shame. There are a lot of views that a majority of conservatives favor, but social conservatives who want to preserve our way of life, our laws, and secure our safety by closing borders to most immigration just aren't conservative enough anymore.

I resent that there are those who think that being a "conservative" means that one must forgo what are deemed "liberal" views on some issues. I don't feel that one has to be ideologically pure to be acceptable.

45 posted on 11/04/2002 3:31:39 PM PST by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Burdened White Man; Poohbah
In a sense, you are correct, but you have the wrong solution.

INS needs to be straightened out big time. But the fact is, I am aware of one case where a Colombian fmaily (father had a degree in electrical engineering and was part-owner of a factory) literally dropped everything and came here on tourist visas (they overstayed them) when they got word that the shcool their oldest son attended was going to be the subject of a "recruiting" drive by a guerilla force that is on our list of terrorist organizations. Their choice was play by the rules and have their son kidnapped, or get here fast and be branded with the broad brush as "illegals."

Let me tell you something - it takes quite a case of stupid to NOT recognize that this was a situation that required quick action. And INS/State screwed it up royally, and left that family with a bad choice.

Changes ought to be made, but we've also got an obligation to sort out the would be braceros and folks like that Colombian family, and provide a means for them to remain in the country - call it probation as opposed to the max. And that will not be an easy task, but it was a screwed-up bureaucracy or two and screwed-up legislation that statered this. CLEARLY that situation was NOT the fault of that family.
46 posted on 11/04/2002 3:35:31 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Correction - NEOCON was not coined by Buchanan or any other "paleo". The Godfathers of neoconservatism made the term themselves - John Podhorwitz, Irving Kristol, etc. These people were all "Trotskyites" in the 1930's and 40's and considered themselves highbrow as opposed to the "Stalinists" who were considered lowbrow. These are their terms, not mine. Notice they never admit to being communists which they were. They then became liberals and anti-communists and finally joined up with the right in the National Review to promote the cold war, Vietnam and other causes.

Many people have the wrong understanding that the neocon terms means they are just new arrivals to conservatism but that is not so - it means a new type of conservatism - one made in their image. There has been some good documentaries on the old left, including the neocons on PBS and some good interviews on C-Span's booknotes which you should track down if you have an interest in the subject.

By the way a couple of months ago on C-Span during a Q & A of a panel group Irving Kristol was asked if he regretted being a socialist in his past and he said socialism was like a fair maiden with whom he had a fling in his youth and had no regrets, only fond memories.

47 posted on 11/04/2002 3:48:29 PM PST by u-89
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: u-89
A Trotskyite is by a definition a communist. Irving Kristol has never denied being one in the 1930's.

I would note that the second generation neocons like Bill Bennet were never communists.

48 posted on 11/04/2002 3:54:27 PM PST by rmlew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin
All I want is victory !

How very Leninist of you!

49 posted on 11/04/2002 3:58:11 PM PST by Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
How very Leninist of you!

Imagine, that.

lol !
50 posted on 11/04/2002 4:06:01 PM PST by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 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