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

To: fqued
The old definition was a former liberal (a 'new' conservative) who was very concerned with preventing damage to the social order that seemed to be occurring thanks to the policies of the New Deal and thanks to the spread of communism and socialism. They did not share the same aversion to the use of government for these ideals as traditional conservatives did, but they shared many of the same goals as traditional conservatives.

The new definition seems to be "anyone the left or the paleocons wants to demonize as bloodthirsty and powermad. Especially the Jews."

37 posted on 09/28/2003 6:02:18 PM PDT by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: William McKinley
A neo-con, as distinct from an old-style conservative or libertarian, has no aversion to using the power of the US government to create a "better society". The main difference between them and leftists is what goals they want to achieve thru the power of government
51 posted on 09/28/2003 6:12:17 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor (Java/C++/Unix/Web Developer === (Finally employed again! Whoopie))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: William McKinley; Luis Gonzalez; nopardons
I have to admit that I skimmed this article and completely misread it at first. Given the title and length of the article, I can understand why others assumed it was yet another "Neo-Cons-are-really-evil-Jews" hit piece.

I agree that the term "paleo-conservative" is a misnomer. It isn't paleo because its immediate roots are the America First movement of the 1930s and the Know Nothing movement of the latter half of the 19th century. Traditional conservative thought goes back much further, owing as great a debt to Aristotle and the medieval monks who preserved the wisdom of antiquity as it does to Edmund Burke, Tocqueville and the Founders. It isn't conservative because its central tenets -- isolationism, protectionism and xenophobia -- are antithetical or irrelevant to mainstream conservative ideals.

Paleo-conservatives have more in common with the extreme Left than they do with the mainstream conservatism of Ronald Reagan. Similarly, today's leftists have more in common with totalitarian ideologues than with the liberalism of FDR and JFK. Today's leftists are a loose coalition of Stalinists, environmental Luddites, secular elites and abortion-on-demand extremists united by their loathing of capitalism, interventionism and traditional values. Today's paleo-conservatives are a tatterdemalion rabble of codgers, cranks, anti-Semites and racist rednecks united by their fierce hostility to free trade, immigration and interventionism.

Have you ever noticed that the Left always sides with the totalitarian regimes? It doesn't matter whether the rulers are hostile to religion (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro), indifferent to religion (psychotic secular dictators like Hussein, Mugabe et al.) or religious fanatics (Islamic fundamentalists or ayatollahs). The Left only turns against a brutal totalitarian regime when it attacks another totalitarian regime more to their liking. Thus, the true believers on the Left were not troubled by the Soviet Union's non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany. They were nonplussed and outraged only when the Nazis violated the pact.

If Hitler had not breached the non-aggression pact, the Soviets would not have not sided with the Allies, and the Left would have sided with Fr. Coghlin and the America Firsters, just as the Nation and Justin Raimondo today find themselves in total agreement with Pat Buchanan and the fringe conservatives on the War with Iraq. Strange bedfellows? On the surface, that would appear to be the case, but deep down, not at all.

I used to think the Left behaved the way it did because they embrace nihilism instead of truth. But if nihilism was the answer, the law of averages would dictate that the Left would side with truth, justice and goodness at least occasionally, just as a broken clock is right twice a day. Nihilism does not explain the fearful symmetry between the rantings of anti-American/anti-capitalist Left and those of Pat Buchanan, Lew Rockwell and Joseph Sobran in their contempt of George W. Bush and opposition to the War on Terror.

May I be so bold as to call attention to the elephant in the room, not the symbol of the Republican party, but something uglier.

Anti-Semitism is the glue that unites the loony left and the fringe right. Anti-Semitism is not a political position, but rather a symptom of a spiritual disease or more precisely, the metaphysical refuse of a diseased soul.

256 posted on 09/30/2003 9:34:47 AM PDT by William Wallace (If the liberation of Iraq was really about oil, was World War II really about sake and marzipan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

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