Posted on 08/14/2003 9:38:27 PM PDT by quidnunc
If that's the case how come the neocons are running the whole shebang and the paleocons are left with the Reform Party and Taliban Pat Buchanan, huh?
Answer me that.
I'm neoconic, but not sanguine on the republic's prospects of surviving out-of-control vote-buying and the accelerating push to welfare state status. FDR is not my hero.
Actually it was the liberals who coined the term neocon.
Kristol from his book Reflections of a Neo-Conservative:
"a conservative welfare state... is perfectly consistent with the neo-conservative perspective." He also wrote elsewhere: "[We] are conservative, but different in certain respects from the conservatism of the Republican Party. We accepted the New Deal in principle, and had little affection for the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism."
Mark Gerson in his 1996 book entitled The Essential Neoconservative Reader:
"The neoconservatives have so changed conservatism that what we now identify as conservatism is largely what was once neoconservatism. And in so doing, they have defined the way that vast numbers of Americans view their economy, their polity, and their society."
For those on FR who are anti-anti-neocons they should examine what philosophy they truly believe in - conservatism or neoconservatism i.e. limited government and maximum liberty or activist government and the high taxes required to fuel it. Despite the rosy rhetoric it can be seen through their own words neoconservatism is actually liberalism in disguise.
Kristol above: "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. "
Please note Kristol rejects traditional conservatives/libertarian heroes like Hayek and also from the article Russell Kirk, Coolidge, Goldwater. He says neocon heroes are TR and FDR i.e. activist presidents who believe in a meddling government and central planning.
Then there is Kristol's take on foreign policy:
- "for a great power, the "national interest" is not a geographical term"
-"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."
- "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."
What Kristol is clearly saying here is that he rejects the advise and wisdom of the founding fathers about free trade and peaceful relations with all and not to go out into the world seeking monsters to destroy. He compares us to the Soviet Union - conquering the world through ideology. This is why critics of neoconservatism emphasize their Trotskyite origins. It is clearly seen here that these people still believe in world revolution. They do not wish their country to merely be free and to prosper in the world they want to recreate the world into their vision of utopia. This transformation requires coersion, bribery and even force. These people may have abondoned communism but not their revolutionary zeal. To sum it up these people are not conservatives at all, they have manufactured a NEW conservatism which is the antithesis of the traditional American variety.
Actually, paleoconservatism is more recent than neoconservatism.
And I don't believe may people would agree that paleocons, given their small numbers, are entitled to appoint themselves as arbiters of what is, and what is not, conservatism.
As a matter of fact, this business of the paleocons making common cause with hard-left liberals on so many issues leads me to think that paleocons should be drummed out of the conservative movement.
As far as drumming anyone out of the movement - you injected that. I believe that if the two camps of thought were honestly represented and inspected "conservatives" could then decide for themselves under which banner they will march. However judging by posts I regularly read here on FR many "conservatives" do not know or understand what neoconservatism is or unbelievably what conservatism is or historically was. That is why I believe threads like this are important. Personally I believe the neocon remake of the right is a fate accompli as far as the leadership goes, it is now a battle for the hearts and minds of the grassroots. If it weren't for the ongoing war on terror I do not think the grassroots would be as supportive of the neocon view of the world - foreign or domestic as they are now.
Regarding your assertion that paleos make common cause with leftist is not as damning as would seem to think. If I oppose punching you in the nose because I see it as morally wrong and a leftist does not want to punch you in the nose because he would rather punch you in the gut does not mean we are in solidarity because we both oppose punching you in the nose.
This transformation requires coersion, bribery and even force. These people may have abondoned communism but not their revolutionary zeal. To sum it up these people are not conservatives at all, they have manufactured a NEW conservatism which is the antithesis of the traditional American variety.
Spot-on. That's neoconservatism in a nutshell. The only thing "conservative" about these people is the fact that they are still generally viewed as being slightly to the right of their Democratic counterparts. But compare their beliefs to those of the founders and the neocons end up looking more like socialist revolutionaries.
...paleocons should be drummed out of the conservative movement.
We want no part of your "conservative movement." "Paleo" merely refers to the "Old Right" principles conservatives used to espouse: very limitied government, low taxes, states' rights over federal control, etc. You will not find those principles among the likes of Kristol, Bush, Powell, Rice, et al. Sure, they may say they want smaller government, but their actions betray their true nature.
Nor mine. I put that SOB at the bottom of the list and perhaps even off the list.
No neocon advocates new social entitlements.
However we do view things like prescription drugs as improvements and not new giveaways.
This is really where we split from the paleos and the reason we argue so much.
I find the debate good for the process and personally I felt that we needed to find more savings before funding drugs.
Medicare is indeed not functioning as it should and drugs are a huge part of medicine today. I see it as indispensable.
Tort reform is now on the top of my list of things to do in order to lower costs in medicine. It is critical that we tell the trial lawyers to stuff it.
It may take making them second class citizens to do it. We need more lawyer jokes.
There may be some truth in that, but I prefer to think in terms of moral responses to being mugged by reality. Be moral but tough in all your dealings. You are not going to stop Islamic terror masters by closing the borders or by nuking oil-rich countries run by insane dictators. If the only remaining option is regime change, install new regime with some liberality and try for a regional transformation.
However, there is some truth to the accusation that USA is becoming an empire. But the phrase "empire of liberty" goes back to the first century of our republic.
So the hard left is for doing away with most of FDR's policies, Social Security, Medicare, federally funded education, returning to a Constitutional government, morally and financially, etc.? Didn't think so. Seems the neocons in their 'more government is good for us' mantra fall in quite well with the liberal left. I suggest you get a compromise nailed down on foreign policy with the Democrats, then the vocal minority of the Republican party that believes the neocon line can just go join the Democrats
I'm sure the neos can get a good deal. Just look what they've 'compromised' this nation into within the past 30 years.
The founders would be totally confused by todays society and could not apply their lines of reasoning to the present day mode of life.
I think that they would be pleased however, as they learned what government was capable of doing.
Their vision was very limited in the early days and was confined more to not becoming a English style monarchy. That was their biggest fear.
That is just reality. Not some socialist bent.
I think that they would be pleased however, as they learned what government was capable of doing.
Please with what, exactly? The percentage of our income confiscated by the federal government? The amount we spend on unconstitutional welfare programs like Social Security, Medicare, and publik edukashun? The number of foreign nations in which we have U.S. troops stationed?
Your idealistic utopia is just as silly as the liberal interpretation of what life should be.
It is ok to dream, but you cannot do it all day long.
| Neo Conservatism: Liberalism with prayer (and occasional moral outrage over abortion). |
That is because the "progressive" century we just lived through is the anithesis of everything the founders believed in.
>I think that they would be pleased however, as they learned what government was capable of doing.
Based on what evidence?
That is the only evidence I have and you have. Just opinions.
The difficulty in forming opinion is to try and put yourself into the day and time of the founders. What were their fears and what were their dreams and expectations.
I only point out that over 200 years ago it was quite different.
Asw a former businessman, contractor and founder of a small corporation, I believe firmly that that thing that does not grow will die.
This principle extends throughout natural law to the smallest ant mound.
It is reality, it is the nature of things and it cannot be denied, changed or screwed with.
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.