Posted on 10/03/2002 7:41:50 PM PDT by logician2u
If you don't examine that cloud, you can't see the sky itself. If you start your examination of conservatism with the side-track of the son of a interesting conservative, a son who is less than a leading light, I think you are in a dark cave.
How do your repeal social security?
As I recall, some posters were quite upset that we are no longer the beacon of freedom and example for other countries to follow but rather thought of as a bully to the rest of the world. Others took exception to the word bully and accused the original poster of being a member of the Hate America First Crowd, etc. They insisted they were the genuine conservatives, since they were preserving America from the terrorists while the anti-war faction was inviting our destruction.
Without getting into the pros and cons of first strike, pre-emptive attack and advanced concepts such as MAD, I believe it is necessary that we FReepers understand which way the conservative movement has drifted since the end of the Cold War.
I have a vague memory of that thread too.
I would characterize him more as a weasel, but you're not far off.
Kristol was originally backing Powell because he knew it would cause a split in the Republicans. Now he trashes Powell as Secretary of State, for the same reason.
Occam's razor suggests a much simpler reason, but I hesitate to suggest it while we're making some headway on the main points.
Certainly Powell's reluctance to pursue an aggressive foreign policy like his predecessor must have some bearing on Kristol's current criticism of the SecState.
Kristol KNEW what his positions were on things when he was backing him. I knew Powell's positions, for heaven's sake, and I am a housewife in Indiana, not a Beltway pundit!
Either Kristol knew and didn't care, or he is far more ignorant about the people in DC than I could imagine.
Hah!
You should. But then so should Tex and he didn't mention it.
Thanks for refreshing my memory, UnBlinkingEye.
Care to offer any comments on "national greatness?"
That seems to be were we are, whether we like it or not.
Meant to close with </sarcasm>. Next time.
Step 1: A Representative in Congress draws up a Bill to repeal Social Security.
Step 2: The House of Representatives passes said Bill.
Step 3: The Senate passes said Bill.
Step 4: The President of the United States signs the bill into law.
Next question?
There is an interesting discussion of neo-conservatism and paleo-conservatism at the weblog of Harvard Law School's Federalist Society (if you can get beyond the fact that it combines three great banes of society: Harvard, lawyers, and student politicians). Interesting quote there:
"I have been, and am still, a traditional conservative, focusing on three general freedoms- economic, social, and political ... Russel Kirk's The Conservative Mind, published [in 1953] was also important to me. Kirk gave the conservative viewpoint an intellectual foundation and respectability it had not attained in modern society ... [Kirk] declared that religion, family, and private property and its yield, as well as law and order, were the foundations of a conservative society ... 'My kind of Republican Party is committed to a free state, limited central power, a reduction in bureaucracy, and a balanced budget'" Goldwater, pp. 109-112. I think this summarizes mainstream conservatism as well as any other statement and I don't understand everyone's fascination with a war on the fringes.
That pretty much does sum up the common understanding of conservatism. The neos are too quick to increase the power of the federal government, when we ought to be trying to reduce it. I don't think we can or should repeal everything done since 1964 or 1932 or 1913 or 1860 or 1787. Practicality and responsibility dictate that some federal agencies will remain. Anarchy is not a conservative goal, and conservatives will have to make peace with some forms of federal regulation and oversight. But that doesn't mean being enthusiastic over increaching the scope and reach of government power.
The article is fascinating, but I don't trust the New Republic very much about conservatives. What's significant is that all this has been obscured by the shift of debate to foreign and military affairs. When the dust clears, we may well find Kristol's neo-conservatism enthrowned as the new conservative orthodoxy, or we may find a bitter battle over domestic policy and the size and role of the state.
Like the gingham dog and the calico cat, neos and paleos, lovers of TR and FDR on one side and haters of Lincoln and Hamilton on the other may end up devouring each other, leaving the way open for political leaders who directly address the voter, rather than courtiers who seek to become power brokers. Goldwater and Reagan, do seem to be a good guide. Though they were most critical of the general trend of government intervention since FDR, I don't think they opposed environmental protection or the regulation of banks and financial markets.
I think we are a great nation and a good people, but I am in total opposition to U.S. hegemony. I support the ideals embodied in George Washington's Farewell Address.
We should be an example for the world, not a policeman.
Deterence worked.
There's always the possibility that Kristol knew and cared more about some power trip he was taking than the future of the Republic.
If so, he's not the only one.
He was campaign manager for John McCain's presidential bid for the same reason. I consider him a Democrat. fsf
You and I had the same experience, only at different venues I'm certain. (He has to keep moving from one group to another because he never gets invited back.)
The feedback from the event was amazing, because almost everyone said that to make the event better they should GET A BETTER SPEAKER.
The sponsors of the event I attended were ashamed to even ask.
logician reminded us that we didn't need to post graphics, but you can't possibly think that this statement could go unchallenged. Please clarify in what way it worked against Al-Qaeda.
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.