Posted on 04/30/2015 6:46:34 AM PDT by B4Ranch
I detest articles like these.
The founders were neoconservatives.
Lincoln was neoconservative.
Conservatism is neoconservative.
It is Rand Paul neo isolationism that is the fantasy and the delusion
Jefferson did commission the marines to attack the Muslim pirate bases in North Africa. That was not a “neo con conspiracy”
America has never had the luxury of being left alone and it is hardly viable today.
Iran really would like to see us all dead.
North Korea would really like to see us all dead.
Putin really does want to resurrect Russian dominance of global affairs.
The neoisolationist doctrine is bad. We must protect freedom with a robust military force. Mis explaining that force as some sort of neo socialism is infuriating.
Reagan certainly understood this and we have never had clearer hegemony and capacity to influence world affairs so positively as we do today.
Charles Krauthammer is a very intelligent guy, and is very well-spoken. He does have a handful of conservative ideals, but he is a proponent of big government and keeping the little folk “in their place.” He is also one of gun control’s biggest allies.
Taken in totality he is not a conservative, but he is not a liberal, either. I’d say the label of “neo-con” does describe him rather well.
“Neo-conservative is an odd term since they are the ideological heirs of Teddy Roosevelt’s economic activism in domestic affairs, and imperialism in foreign affairs.”
I think that is a very good point.
There are other articles talking about police being murderers just as those rioting goons throughout America are stating.
The one point made in this article that made sense was that the conversions were formalized when George McGovern and other communists seized permanent control of the Demonrat Party. The "neoconservatives" knew their old communist enemies well and became Republicans to give the party intellectual heft in its struggle with the Demonrats.
The 1930s are dead and gone forever. We no longer have to trudge through the world dragging the carcass of Herbert Hoover's massive failures and making believe they were successes. Imagine if paleocons had been running WW II. Would you rather teach your children German or Japanese as their everyday language?
National defense and, frequently, interventionism are legitimate constitutional functions of the central government. Many paleocons would ally with the remnants of the anti-war New Left to deny that fact. That alone disqualifies the paleocons from the conservative movement. This is why the now retired Ron Paul was NEVER to be taken seriously. This is why Rand Paul has effectively rejected his father's looney tune notions as to foreign and military policy. Rand may not be a modern day Curtis LeMay but he has made definite progress on those issues.
Hippie drug taking and the Founding Fathers really do not mix. George Washington opposed sexual perversion. Thomas Jefferson thought men having sex with men should be castrated and if it was a women, then she should have part of her face gouged out. Whatever these Libertarian types advocate, it is not the principles of the Founding Fathers.
Hear! Hear!
They also believe that morals come not from an Objectively True G-d but from "culture" and that culture is created by genes and chromosomes. In other words, it's just another G-dless, atheistic worldview that pays lip service to a local, ethnic "gxd."
And isn't it curious how these "palaeos" always seem to omit how many of their own heroes started out on the Left? In fact the "old right" of the 30s was nothing but the "old left" of the 20s. Many WWII-era isolationists were simply 20's radicals who stayed true to their original ideals rather than constantly change the "party line." Burton K. Wheeler, "right winger" of the New Deal era, had been a notorious pro-red radical the previous decade. Oswald Garrison Villard is another example of the same phenomenon.
Remember that the next time some gene-worshiper starts ranting about how "neocons" used to be socialists.
I don’t agree with Krauthammer on a number of issues (like gun control), but from what I’ve heard him explaining his conversion to conservatism he’s hardly a proponent of big government.
Weird; I’ve never thought of Krauthammer as a “conservative”. I do sometimes agree with his opinions.
So are the white racial collectivists who attack them.
However this group also enjoys kiling Muslims, so its all good on FR
[sarc]Well, obviously we are on "the wrong side" in the Middle East . . . just like we were on "the wrong side" in World War II. And Francis Parker Yockey thought we were on "the wrong side" in the Cold War! After all, the Commies were hanging Jews and supporting the Arabs.
Moslems--the protectors of White Western Womanhood against those e--vil, water-fluoridating JOOOOOOS![/sarc]
when do the book burnings start?
This reminds me of Stalin’s ‘Enemies of the State’ pamphlets.
They never converted to "actual conservatism." They converted actual conservatism to welfare-state liberalism, by making New Deal and later Great Society policies mainstream rather than anathema in the Republican Party. These are the same people that tell us how we're supposed revere Martin Luther King as some kind of conservative hero, after all.
These are also the people most responsible for moving the GOP establishment towards open borders and amnesty for illegals. These so-called “conservatives” like nothing more than having the US flooded with immigrants from the Third World.
At no time was it imaginable that conservatism could be confused with pacifist weenieism which was the dead hand of a dead "conservatism" of the 1930s: Lindbergh, Colonel McCormick, "America First" and admiration for the likes of Neville Chamberlain. I would imagine that the "paleos' thought Winston Churchill a dangerous warmonger and imagined that taking on Tojo and Hitler were dangerous misadventures. My only objection to US action in WW II was that we should have let Hitler and Stalin exhaust their militaries fighting each other to the death and that we should then have stepped in and finished off the "winner" instead of allying with Stalin.
Martin Luther King was no conservative but he sometimes said things that, in retrospect, serve conservatism such as wanting his children to be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. Would the country be somehow better off if they were judged by the color of their skin? Does that make me a "neocon" for raising the question?
What has happened is that most Americans who used to be mere Republicans have been joined by those Democrats and aware others who do not want a communist dominated Demonrat Party dominating our country and necessarily joined with Republicans. If the GOP had done a better job of convincing Americans of its ideas, it might not have been necessary to welcome the heirs of Hubert Humphrey. Do you remember Hubert running as an old school Democrat for his party's POTUS nomination and being defeated and humiliated by McGovern's "rules" and communist cadres? I do. It was the end of the Democrat Party and the birth of the Demonrat Party which we know today. I thought Jean Kirkpatrick did a very nice job serving Ronald Reagan at the UN.
Actual conservatism is a far more muscular political creed than 1930s isolationism whose spokesfolks usually can be found, like ostriches, with their heads in the sand and their rumps in the air waiting to be kicked.
BMG: "I will fight and I know you will too until our cause has one day inspired the world and shown the way to a tomorrow worthy of all our yesterdays." Unfortunately Barry did not mean it and always opposed Ronaldus Maximus but those words were penned by Karl Hess for BMG before Hess himself joined with the New Left. No matter, the words are words to live by. The "cause" was not paleowhatever.
E_H: Exaggerate much?
E_H: Exaggerate much?
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.