Neoconservatism, not libertarianism, is the true aberration on the American Right

Charleston City Paper ^ | 2010-04-07 | Jack Hunter aka Southern Avenger

[Dead Corpse]

Actually, if you look at all of them, they have one thing in common: They all involve expansion of the State beyond it's Constitutional boundaries.

The definition I gave you is probably the most concise you will get.

[Notary Sojac]

We are going after the foot soldiers of the enemy while their ideological and financial support structures in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia remain inviolate.

If you think that only the likes of Rachel Maddow are entitled to make this point, I strongly beg to differ.

We knew that World War II would be "of indefinite length until over" but we also knew that the war had to end with Hitler at the end of a rope, and the Nazi ideology ground out of existence. I have no faith that any equivalent event will bring the "war on terror" to a close.

Failing that, I'll know the war is being won when I can carry my Leatherman on an airliner again, when the metal detectors come down at the Smithsonian, and the concrete barriers disappear from Pennsylvania avenue. Care to speculate on the time frame for those events??

[Chi-townChief]

A Reagan democrat or a Jewish conservative is mostly what I’ve understood it to mean.

[marron]

in 1976 said Reagan, "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." As you can see, advocating for "limited government" without employing some degree of libertarianism would be logistically impossible.

And Reagan was the one who confronted the soviets on multiple fronts with multiple proxy wars and broke their back.

Its better, if you want to have a discussion, to just lay out what it is you believe rather than throwing epithets around. If you think we should withdraw from Afghanistan, say so and explain how we can make such a withdrawal work.

We are in the process of drawing down our forces in Iraq as the Iraqis are assuming control. If you want to accelerate that process, and bring the forces out quicker, say so and explain how it works. Right now we are assuming we'll leave a force in Kuwait as a reserve that could intervene if the Iranians try to crush the government in Baghdad or any of the other gulf states. If thats a mistake, say so and defend it.

If you are a pragmatist who thinks our friendship with Israel is the cause of all our troubles in the world, again, say so. Then we can have an actual discussion or debate about the specifics of your or our views.

Just calling someone a neocon doesn't mean much. Most of us here aren't jewish intellectuals, and if we were, the word still muddies more than it clarifies.

[bamahead]

Jack has redeemed himself somewhat.

[Nosterrex]

I am trying to figure out how we can discuss this matter without me having to quote long passages from my books on political philosophy. I do not know if it is beneficial to get into a debate over definitions. Classical Liberalism is more concerned about INDIVIDUAL freedoms than international affairs. Would you agree with that? I am trying to find some common ground between us.

[SnakeDoctor]

>> We are going after the foot soldiers of the enemy while their ideological and financial support structures in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia remain inviolate.

I agree in part ... though the individual nature of attacks on the American homeland (including a huge attack carried out by 19 people) necessitates that we take out the “foot soldiers”.

>> If you think that only the likes of Rachel Maddow are entitled to make this point, I strongly beg to differ.

You have the right to make whatever point you’d like ... though if, in a discussion of foriegn policy, I found myself surrounded by Rachel Maddow and Amy Goodman, I’d likely re-think my position.

>> I’ll know the war is being won when I can carry my Leatherman on an airliner again, when the metal detectors come down at the Smithsonian, and the concrete barriers disappear from Pennsylvania avenue. Care to speculate on the time frame for those events??

Your definition of “victory” includes metal detector placement at the Smithsonian?

Terrorist attacks have revealed vulnerabilities — is it your belief that those vulnerabilities should be restored as a sign of victory? Is it ever a good idea for us to forget the lessons of the last war? If Islamic terrorists can attack and destabilize via hijacked airliners or individual suicide bombers, so can other enemies (China, Iran, Russia, whomever).

SnakeDoc

[canuck_conservative]

Dick Cheney gave an interesting interview in the run-up to the Iraq War, where he unwittingly revealed why Iraq was so important - because from there, all the surrounding countries could be attacked. Obviously, the US is trying to be dragged into an attack on Iran now. Syria would be after that, then Saudi Arabia ... hey, the neocons have big plans for American troops in the Middle East!

Strategic interests? You have to ask? The US is a trading nation, and has an overriding economic interest in good relations with all the countries in the Middle East, some of which have strategic locations and resources.

[daniel885]

Yes. But those individual freedoms extend beyond our borders because they are natural rights. Enlightenment era liberalism was non-interventionist in foreign policy for the most part. Our founders urged us not to make alliances (including Washington’s farewell address where he warned of “entangling alliances”).

[Stepan12]

I want nothing to do with your hideous Libertarians. Anti-Semitism, pro child molestation, drug/dope usage, sympathy for Islamic terrorism (when that Libertarian party member was shot and seriously wounded by John Allen Mohammed, Reason magazine and other Libertarian organs scarcely reported on it), support for homosexual rights; etc., are just too much for me to bear.

[OkiMusashi]

The word you are looking for is “Rockefeller Republicans”.

NeoCon’s, by definition, are very rare birds. Unfortunately, we are covered up with “Rockefeller Republicans”.

[Notary Sojac]

The way you make the country "less vulnerable" is by swift and decisive reaction against any country that attacks Americans or provides support to a terrorist group attacking Americans.

Not by putting restrictions on the activities of American citizens within their home country.

And yes, the little things, like metal detectors, searches, and ID checks in dozens of places Americans of my father's generation never knew, tick me off.

They are a symbol of our willingness to harass the good guys because we don't have the willpower to kill the bad guys.

[Notary Sojac]

follow up comment

Your definition of “victory” includes metal detector placement at the Smithsonian?

Those metal detectors send the message that we are terrorized. That for the moment, at least, the other side has won.

[Jewbacca]

LOL. Try lithium.

[daniel885]

I want nothing to do with your hideous Libertarians. Anti-Semitism, pro child molestation, drug/dope usage, sympathy for Islamic terrorism (when that Libertarian party member was shot and seriously wounded by John Allen Mohammed, Reason magazine and other Libertarian organs scarcely reported on it), support for homosexual rights; etc., are just too much for me to bear. That's one hell of a straw man argument. Let's see "Anti-Semitism" -- I believe Jews are God's chosen people. I simply oppose all foreign aid (to any nation including Israel's enemies) for the same reason I oppose welfare. Pro-child molestation -- A core responsibility of government is to protect citizens against an infringement on their liberties by other citizens. Thus, a legitimate government intervention is punishing crime such as this. No reasonable libertarian would argue otherwise. Drug/dope usage -- I am opposed to drgus. I just don't think I can force my will on others. Let them consume what they want. Besides, the war on drugs is unconstitutional. Where in the Constitution does Congress have the authority to regulate drugs? If it is regulated it should be done on the state level. Sypathy for Islamic Terrorism -- Nope. Not in the least. Initiating violence against others goes against the very heart of libertarian thought. Support for homosexual rights -- I guess it depends on what that means. Libertarians believe that everyone is free to live their lives as they see fit so long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights. So if you mean they should have the same rights that everyone else has, yes. Should they have special rights? No. Hate crime legislation for example is a crime against thought, so that's wrong. Forcing employers to hire someone against their will is wrong. I'm not sure what "homosexual rights" you are talking about. We believe in individual rights.

[Gen. Burkhalter]

Outstanding examples of neo-Conservatives would include Bill Bennett, David Horowitz, and Ronald Reagan. Should we be so arrogant as to exclude them from the Conservative Movement? I think neo-conservatives have provided much intellectual nourishment to our cause and I welcome them aboard.

[canuck_conservative]

Why?

[Oceander]

Reformed liberals of a particularly nasty persuasion. They are a little bit like some caricatures of Saul who, when he converted and became Paul, has been said to have brought some of the attitudes and habits of the pharisees over into Christianity. Whether that is true or not - and we can discount it given that Paul was, in fact, divinely inspired - it is a fairly apt description of many neoconservatives who, having been liberals, get tired of being milquetoast and come to conservativism in order to yoke its more robust view of government force to their "cosmic visions" - as the term is used by Thomas Sowell - the core vice of which they have generally not been cured.

[pallis]

“Seems to me it’s a pretty meaningless term.”

Seems to me you are probably right. In a general way, think of the Bush Administration with lower taxes, but growing medicare, public education, amnesty, or make something up.

[Stepan12]

Hate crime legislation for example is a crime against thought, so that's wrong. Forcing employers to hire someone against their will is wrong. I'm not sure what "homosexual rights" you are talking about. We believe in individual rights.

Libertarians are dope smoking hippies with a few right wing bounces. I'm sure that many supporters of Lenin did not believe in Cheka terror, war Communism, and the brutal supression at Kronstadt, they simply wanted the "land, bread, and peace" that Lenin preached.

Likewise, I'm sure that many Nazis were not so keen (at first) on putting Jews in gas chambers, they just wanted the humiliation of the Versaille treaty to be gone; however, it is the ideas of the leaders Lenin, Hitler; etc., that determine a party's movement, not some of its more naive followers.