Neo-Conservatives are not Conservatives

Sierra Times ^ | August 12, 2002 | Jeff Adams

[philosofy123]

But Mr. Kristol and the neocons do not hate the Croats and the Moslem Bosnians. That is your answer?

[x]

Ten or twenty years ago it might have been easier to accept this sort of thing (though surely twenty years ago it would have looked like a betrayal of a conservative administration that was, thanks in some part to the neo-conservative contribution, taking care of important problems at home and abroad). But now it just looks cheap, threadbare and stupid.

Southern nationalists, state's rightists, secessionists and segregationists could make a case that they are "conservative," but surely one can't reduce "conservatism" or "traditionalism" to such ideas, which on the whole seem more radical than anything else.

Break up the country and all bets are off: there is no more "American conservatism," only various tribalisms and sectional chauvinisms. The South has played a role in American conservatism in recent generations (as different regions have at different times in our history), but breaking up the country simply puts an end to that role along with the country.

Opposition to centralization is a laudable cause, but some of those who have claimed to be most opposed to it have been local barons who promote "centralization" within their own realms and just don't want to lose power to those outside. Our liberties have also been threatened by state and local governments as well as federal.

Devolution of power to lower levels is not a bad idea. It may be an idea whose time has come, but this childish confederatism and abuse of important American traditions simply drags down that cause. Lincoln will be controversial for some time, but if one doesn't accept Washington's desire for a closer union and a stronger nation than the Articles of Confederation allowed, one doesn't have much of an insight into what American conservatism means. It isn't simply anti-state radicalism or hatred of the federal government.

There will always be a tension in American political thought between different views of the relationship between the states and the federal government. But it's important to recognize that this tension is more than a "good guys, bad guys" thing.

It's also clear that "neo-cons" and "paleo-cons" are very small and ambitious groups. Once it might have been natural to define oneself as a "paleo-con" in opposition to a defined neo-conservative clique. Today it's clear that paleos are another little ambitious clique with their own little orthodoxy, that few can accept as a whole.

And that paleo orthodoxy looks more like a feel good mishmash more than anything else. Throw together social conservative localism and libertarian anti-statism and you may have a mixture that pleases people. But you also have a self-contradictory recipe for conflict between local control social conservatives and ultralibertarian free marketeers. Either you see this now or you'll wake up to it later.

[habs4ever]

Sure thing, the "life force of the party".Uh huh.So, which Reps are paleos, and which districts too? And what great ideas did the Paleos bring to the table the past 25 yrs that enabled Ronald Reagan and Gingrich to prosper?? We all know the paleos are such whiz kids on matters economic and are such noted foreign policy stars that its like the 1927 Yankees all over again.So many of them with such good ideas that are so popular with the general electorate.

So, who ARE the paleos exactly? Is it the Christian Right, the Reagan Democrats, the anarcho militia Right, the Sam Francis/ Joe Sobran/Howard Philips/Bob Novak/PJB Right, the David Duke Right...phew!! such a herd of cats,how do they all manage to speak with one voice???

They don't.There are as many strains of them as there are of the neo's, which you love to despise.There's the Krauthammer wing, the Kristol/McCain gang, the Will/NR crew, the Forbes Growth team....and more, and see, they aren't very monolithic are they?

Why is it that the fringe always think they can dictate the terms? You're the one cutting off noses.

[habs4ever]

You are free to support who you like, but don't come calling for a pat on the head.But that's really what you want, isn't it? To be congratulated for having a tantrum all day, everyday.Break out the crying towel.

[habs4ever]

Neo cons as Bolsheviks?? ROFL!! You posting in your undies again??

[habs4ever]

So, its your paranoia that comes to the surface eventually.I knew there had to be a reason why your posts sounded like a tired screed.

[habs4ever]

You're being led to the slaughterhouse like a piggy on market day, right?? Suit yourself.And you then wonder why your ideas aren't more popular, hey Ace?And now i'm a statist...once more, you bring out the clothesline so you push anyone away that doesn't see things quite like you at all.Yeah, you are such a convincing advocate for the paleo view of the world: crabby, mean minded, reactionary,paranoid, cranky, ignorant and pessimistic.Wouldn't you rather join the Hemlock Society instead and skip a few steps?

[skeeter]

And what great ideas did the Paleos bring to the table the past 25 yrs that enabled Ronald Reagan and Gingrich to prosper?? We all know the paleos are such whiz kids on matters economic and are such noted foreign policy stars that its like the 1927 Yankees all over again.So many of them with such good ideas that are so popular with the general electorate.

I'm sure you intended this to be scythe-like sarcasm but you asking what bona fide conservatism contributed to Reagan's victory in '80 and landslide victory in '84 comes across as high comedy.

But hey, if you are satisfied with winning the occasional squeaker thats fine, stick with the party of Bob Dole.

[dcwusmc]

bump for consistency and the CONSTITUTION

[billbears]

crabby, mean minded, reactionary,paranoid, cranky, ignorant and pessimistic.

Mean minded? What the heck is that? Paranoid? Not really. I see the general government not as a manufacturer of black helicopters but one that slowly creeps into our lives more every day. Pessimistic? Hardly. I see a hope for our Republic yet we must give up certain 'rights', one namely the 17th Amendment, and return the power to the states where it belongs. Having a bunch of sheep vote for Senators based on 30 second blurbs without knowing the stance of said Senators is the ignorant move.

I see a vision of this nation with a government that has specific laid out powers. Seems to me the Founders of this nation did as well. The rest of the powers were reserved for the states, but we had a war over that didn't we? You Hamiltonians, Whigs, 'compassionate' Republicans, apparently know better than the rest of us. You know we need a strong centralized government to 'take care' of the general public, when in fact the very Constitution you pretend to observe and protect rallies against this ever happening as it did in Great Britain over 200 years ago

[habs4ever]

You have judged me all wrong.Dole was no neo con.He was an old fashoned Ike/Rockefeller Pubby, a loyal party hack, an ace trimmer.But don't try to con me that the Paleos were responsible for Reagan's tax cut ideas in 1980, or his defense buildup, or his rhetorical assault against the Evil Empire.Or his belief in the Shining City on the Hill.I know very well which policies Reagan ran on and was successful and he didn't need the paleos.

Reagan transformed the Republican Party into the party of growth,strength and optimism...three winning things that the Paleos will NEVER deliver.

[dcwusmc]

My PERSPECTIVE is that Dubya has no business doing the UN-Constitutional things he's doing, war or no. And that he should have asked for and gotten a specific DECLARATION of war, not some namby-pamby resolution. The USA-PATRIOT act is a fine example of grabbing power under the guise of "protecting" us from the evil ones. Question I have is, if we have to give up our rights and liberties in order to win, what do we gain if we do? If we become like them, what's the purpose?

[habs4ever]

You may live..that is the purpose.

[billbears]

Question I have is, if we have to give up our rights and liberties in order to win, what do we gain if we do? If we become like them, what's the purpose?

Spot on!! But of course you know all these Acts will 'sunset' and we won't have to worry about that. And I've got this beautiful bridge for sale.... Problem is that once the general government tastes the power in every other instance the power has stood in the general government's court