Posted on 05/03/2003 8:44:59 AM PDT by quidnunc
Politics is all about polarities. Republican vs. Democrat, conservative vs. liberal, right vs. left, hard thinking vs. soft thinking. The labels are pervasive, but the ground frequently shifts, requiring a new prefix to freshen up the label.
The word neocon, for example (short for neoconservative), was born of such a shifting of the ground. Coined in the 1970s, the label stuck to Democrats who had watched the Scoop Jackson anti-Communist wing of the Democratic party evaporate before their very eyes. They saw the War on Poverty become a losing battle. On the domestic front, they observed the death of morality as it had been defined for thousands of years in the Judeo-Christian tradition. These Democrats finally concluded that liberalism, as they had known it, was dead.
Irving Kristol, father of the neocons, defined his band of brothers and sisters as "liberals mugged by reality." That reality was the "evil empire" as defined by Ronald Reagan, the leader they championed. The reality extended to a concern for crime and education and what came to be called "family values." A subdivision of the neocons, the "cultural conservatives," were wryly defined as liberals with daughters in junior high.
Jews were prominently identified with the neocons, largely because Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine, made the magazine a sounding board for neocon criticism. But Jeanne Kirkpatrick, a Baptist, and William Bennett, a Roman Catholic, were prominent neocon voices from the beginning. So were other Christians. "What are we," they might ask, "chopped liver?"
The Jewish neocons understood what the majority of Jews who vote Democratic didn't — that Jews and Evangelical Christians held many things in common, among them an admiration and affection for Israel.
Such definitions and ideological attitudes are amply documented in the political history of the second half of the 20th century, but the neocon label resurfaces today as many journalists and pundits identify the neocons as a new generation driving the foreign policy of George W. Bush.
It's a label that doesn't quite fit, since those credited with influence are hardly "neo" anything. For the most part, the label is attributed to second-generation conservatives. Some are sons of the Scoop Jackson Democrats whose fathers have the last name of Podhoretz and Kristol, but the label as accurately understood has a much more inclusive intellectual base, including, for example, Vice President Dick Cheney; his wife, Lynne; Condoleezza Rice; Don Rumsfeld; and Paul Wolfowitz, the hugely influential deputy defense secretary.
The term, however, is disingenuously bandied about at dinner tables and policy meetings in London and Paris and elsewhere, where it is colorfully coded to suggest a Jewish conspiracy working on the White House.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at tallahassee.com ...
You are behaving in the same manner you railed against me for. You have not addresses the substance of my posts. Please re-read and look at the examples I listed.
Really? Like your "Al Sharpton" insults? What facts have you listed on this thread?
Is that an example of your "fact-based" approach, or an example of how you don't attack in your posts?
Quote from my reply #12 above:
The Crusades weren't "perpetrated", they were Europe's reaction to Islamic expansionism.Don't forget, until it was overrun by the Muslims the Holy Land was in large part Christian.
Furthermore, Europe itself was in danger of being overrun.
When it comes to the Crusades, the West has no need to apologize.
It is unreasonable to judge the actions of the 10th century Crusaders by modern standards of morality.
Since that time Cristianity went through the Enlightenment and the Reformation and consequently Christians don't generally act like the Crusaders of the First Crusade anymore..
The same can't be said of the Mohammedans.
Correct. The truth lies somewhere in the middle of each description. I've been called "statist" on the paleocon boards, as well as "jew-lover"...
Paleo-con - A former KKK and current anti-semite posing as a super patriot.
How cute. And how wrong.
Neo-con- One willing to sell out all conservative ideals to get into power. Once into power, the ability to continue to sell out conservatism by deeds and actions that even 15 years ago would be called for what it was, liberal. All the while using cute catch phrases to maintain the voting base
Paleo-con- A conservative who believes and remembers the powers the Constitution gives to the federal government. None of which include powers such as found in the Patriot Act, nationalized healthcare, anti-2nd Amendment bills, etc. The Old Right. Does not believe in foreign aid to everyone everywhere
And considering I am not a former KKK member or an anti-semite, your definition is far off base
Here's the problem, the Republican Leadership etc, developed the theory that they must buy into the systemic social programs (and politically correct thought processes)... just be better at running them than the Democrats (which fortunately ain't that hard). And being oh-so-politically-correct is important if you want the ladies' vote.
This being a two-party system, they'll get the vote of people like me, because they are clearly much the lesser of two evils domestically, and clearly superior internationally.
That's what I set out to say: we have a semantic problem. These labels are being used (or misused) in different ways so we aren't communicating. David Frum muddied the waters but good.
I am out of time to discuss this for now... Carry on :-)
Most libertarians I know would prefer Bush over Buchanan, including yours truly. I still am not sure why you include Ron Paul in that group.
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.