Posted on 08/12/2002 5:48:59 AM PDT by sauropod
Several years ago, I noticed the term "neo-conservative" come into frequent use. I have grown to hate this word because it gives people who bear the term false credentials as true conservatives.
To me, true conservatives fit the description of what used to be called the "Old Right." These "new conservatives" present nothing that reflects the ideas of the "Old Right," or traditional conservatism. Neo-conservatives see nothing wrong with big, centralized government, as long as they, the neo-conservatives, are in charge instead of liberal Democrats. That's like saying, "It would be okay if America was ruled by a dictator, as long as I was the dictator, because I would surely be a benevolent dictator." But you can't count on the next guy to be benevolent. It's asinine.
There is a saying: "Conservatives never conserved anything." In most ways the saying is true. Leading neo-conservatives of today have very moderate stances when it comes to traditional values concerning marriage, sexual mores, immigration, taxation, property rights, limited government, and religion. These people claim to be leaders in the conservative faction of politics. Quite frankly, if you were to put their views and ideas on paper and lay them beside the views and ideas of a liberal Democrat, you would have a hard time telling which ideas were the liberal Democrat's and which came from the neo-conservatives.
Neo-conservatives are in reality neo-socialists, for they cloak their big government socialism in the ideas of big business and they believe that big, centralized government is okay as long as "conservatives" run it. They are the front men for large corporations. They tout capitalism, but in reality they are advocates of mercantilism. This is a close cousin to the state-controlled economies of communist countries. Yes, those economies: the ones that all failed miserably.
What we have in neo-conservatives is a bunch of liberals who are "pretenders to the throne" of conservatism. Real conservatism is actually traditionalism. In that sense, I am not a conservative, but a traditionalist. A "Southern Traditionalist" to be exact. I cling to the ideals and values of our colonial forefathers, and the people of the South who dared stand against Lincoln and the forces of centralization and mercantilism. These new false conservatives can mouth their platitudes and claim to be for tradition all they want. But when their kind continues to expand federal power, to limit our freedoms and liberties, and to accept as normal the perversions that go on in our society, they had best keep in mind that traditionalists like myself see through this façade, and we have had enough. Our numbers are growing, and we no longer believe we have to vote for false conservatives as the "lesser of two evils."
The loud booming voices of neo-conservatism are false prophets. It is like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain of neo-conservatism and you will see not a conservative, but a socialist. Is it any wonder that many of today's noted neo-conservatives are "former" leftists of the 1960's, or had parents who were members of the Communist Party, USA? Don't two of the Republican's big "conservatives," Orin Hatch of Utah and John McCain of Arizona, spend much of their time "in bed" with Ted Kennedy? When Mississippi's "conservative" Trent Lott was majority leader in the U.S. Senate, did he push a conservative agenda? (The answer, of course, is a very loud "NO.") What has the "arch-conservative" John Ashcroft done since becoming Attorney General? With his help, we are headed toward a police state.
Off hand, the only real conservative, or traditionalist, I see on the national scene is Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. People like him deserve our support. The socialists in neo-conservative clothing need to be spurned. I would rather "throw my vote away" on an independent or third-party candidate and sleep well at night because I didn't contribute to the continuing downfall of our lost republic by voting for a neo-conservative/socialist, than choose "the lesser of two evils" and know that I voted into office someone who was going to go for my wallet and stab me in the back as if he were a common street mugger.
Neo-conservatives are really neo-socialists. True conservatives/traditionalists should denounce these frauds. Just as the original definition of the word "liberal" no longer applies in our society, "conservative" doesn't mean what it used to, not when it comes out of the mouths of the political phonies that man the barricades of the Republican Party. I'm not a neo-conservative, or even a conservative. They've ruined that word. I am a Traditionalist. I hope all who love their freedom, fear God, and know what we have lost, will step up and put on the Traditionalist mantle to help separate themselves from the pretenders who think we will vote for them this election year because they believe we have nowhere else to turn.
© 2002 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted)
Disagree. If the neo-cons sell us down the river at a little less pace than the Donkey Party, what is the benefit to supporting them? And why shouldn't people be labeled. They persist in labeling us right-wingers. (And I wear that label proudly). 'Pod
We basically have socialized healthcare in this country now. Hillary!'s version is being implemented piecemeal.
Her mistake was that she wanted it all right away. 'Pod
THAT'S THE PROBLEM! The definition keeps changing.
You just said, "in the way i define the term."
That doesn't cut it. I gave the proper definition for it (and it is true). Therefore I am a neocon and will always be one since I came from Left to Right. Any other definition is propaganda used to impugn. And I don't play that game.
Period.
When someone throws the first punch, that person can't complain if he or she gets beaten to within an inch of his or her life. In other words, don't start nuthin', won't be nuthin'.
LOSERS
The LOSERS huff and puff and stamp around proclaiming that only THEY have a right to dictate the direction of the party because only THEY are capable of gaming with the Democrats to advance the conservative agenda thru gradual change. They DEMAND to be in charge because only THEY have the correct vision, the vision of compromise, and that only THEY can win because actual conservatives want too much and are uncompromising.
Of course, for someone so accomodating they are awfully uncompromising and full of bile toward anyone who disagrees with them. In otherwards, you are inflexible because you don't agree with me. Sounds eeriely similar to the liberals shouting down anyone who disagrees with them as 'reactionary.'
Of course, like liberals, we don't ever mention the LOSERS record. Like LOSING the Senate after it was won in the Gringrich Republican Revolution. Or totally LOSING and capitulating the recent Farm Bill. Oh but you see, that was good politics, good because although we took 10 steps back, we are still in the game! Plus we are advancing the Republican agenda!
And that's when I start to bail, is when someone starts using New Speak and telling me that going backwards is going forwards, capitulation is victory, and losing is winning.
All the LOSERS care about is being in power, even if it's on a sinking ship. They don't want victory, they want control. Which is why they lose again and again because they are despotic, narrow little Napoleans who don't want to advance anything but themselves. But more importantly, they are LOSERS. The only good that can come from them is if they are forced from the Party.
Neo-con is a synonym with "national greatness" conservatism espoused by Mr. Kristol among others. That is always the way i have heard it defined and it is my definition.
By your definition, i am also a "neo-con" since i became rabidly right-wing about 1990 or so and I am over 40 years of age. But, I do not think your definition is the way it is used in the vernacular.
The Wall Street Journal is full of Neo-cons, so much so that I've come to call it The Neo-con Journal.
If domestic socialism doesn't destroy this country, international socialism (globalism) will.
Tuor
Yep. That's your definition. It's wrong, but it's yours.
You mean fascism? Hmm. Interesting. I'll have to think about it, but you may be on to something there. The connecting thread between the two is that *neither Liberals nor Neo-cons believe that power should rest witht he individual*. They both seek to strip the individual of power and to give it to their own interests. Thus, insofar as stripping power from individuals is concerned, the Left and certain aspects of the Right act in concordance.
Tuor
Thank you for the definition. Actually, the term should be more like:immoral-liberal.
Reconsider what? Calling themselves what they actually are, which *certainly* isn't Conservatism as I understand it. They want to make the world subservient to corperations and corperations to become essentialy arms of the state, all held together by a strong police force -- secret and overt; informants among the populous probably wouldn't hurt either, in their minds (TIPS, anyone?).
Tuor
Her mistake was that she wanted it all right away. 'Pod
First of all, we have heavily regulated healthcare which is substantially different than socialized medicine. [at least for the time being.]
But more importantly, you make my point by proving that Hillary is geting much of her healthcare agenda by taking it slower and piecemealing it to the American public.
But why do we criticize Republicans who do the same thing? We call them 'spineless' for simply following the same incremental strategy the libs have been using for years.
Damn it all that the Spanish Inquisition had to end, huh? Can't yank people out of their homes at midnite to torture them on the rack because someone who knows someone who knows someone might have heard that they blasphemed Mother Church by saying the Earth revolved around the Sun.
That's right baby, the good old medevial days. When we had morality in the world, and Mother Church could enforce it. If those godless Founders wouldn't have created such an independent judiciary based on law we wouldn't have this problem! Could have just killed the immoral evildoers right there without a stupid trial of the facts! Should have drawn and quartered the whole lot before they ever came over on the boat.
Sure miss the old theocracy days, yep I do!
Yes, you commie neo-con.
What about coining money and enforcing contracts?
The is the original definition of the word. Definitions have a way of changing over the years. At any rate, I wouldn't call someone a neo-con simply because they used to be a liberal or further left.
To me, being a neo-con has little to do with what you *were*, but everything to do with what you *are*. If you *are* someone who supports using the institutions of capitalism to empower government ot strip people of their freedoms, then you are, by my definition, a neo-con. On the other hand, if you support the Consitution and wish to see it conserved as much as possible, and are a strong supporter of individual rights as opposed to state rights, then I would consider you a Conservative, or at the very least not a neo-con.
I understand that many may not agree with my description of a neo-con vis-a-vis a conservative, but that's how I'd judge the matter.
Tuor
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.