Hard to argue with his description of the origins of Neo-Conservatism. We are now into the second generation of Neo-Conservative leaders. Irving’s son, William, is among the leaders. He is editor of the Weekly Standard, which can sort of be thought of as the official journal of Neo-Conservatism.
I think defining Neo-Conservatism as “New Deal + Aggresive Militarism” is pretty realistic.
The problem is that the Socialists have won. The Constitution Party won’t win 1% of the vote. The only candidate who clearly wasn’t a neo-conservative in this election (on the R side) was Ron Paul.
Ron Paul was widely ridiculed by not just the leftist press, but the so called Conservative New Media (Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt) for his traditional conservative views such as a non-interventionist foreign policy, dislike of the inflationary Federal Reserve system, and desire to end popular social programs and replace them with capitalism.
A real conservative can not be elected in the USA today. So we will continue to get various versions of leftism on both sides: Democratic Socialist vs. Compassionate Conservative (Socialist) Radical Redistributionist Socialist vs. Neo-Conservative (Socialist), Racial Justice Socialist vs. Center Right Democratic Socialist “Maverick” (Socialist).
Militant socialists is all they are.
While there is a sad truth in your observation, I’d remind you and those reading this thread that a “communist” is simply a “socialist” who owns and enjoys using a firearm — on other human beings.
Think for a moment about your remarks in the context of where we go once these elitists have taken away OUR weapons — and/or neutralized our abilty to resist them with them — and the state has the only weapons.
Ask the Jews of Europe — or the Ukranians under Stalin — or...
You get the idea.
All of that begs the question “DARE WE STOP RESISTING THEM?”
Look, where we failed was to “nationalize” the whole world when we had the opportunity, strength, and the b@!!$ to do it, just like Patton wanted to.
There is no doubt that open market, free societies are the most productive, primarily the most peaceful and most happy societies, yet, with those freedoms come great responsibilities. We are attacked daily by envious people that have to cheat, steal, and murder to match our military and economic might (and the reasons we let them will probably be the end of the country).
I don't disagree with some of the instances the author speaks of, but I find extremely hard to not pursue the filth that is jihad to the ends of the earth to eradicate such a disgusting political project (which the same argument can be made that it is neoconservative for its exportation of “death”). Has the US overstepped some of its bounds at times, oh, no doubt about it. Has it done such for the name of “national security.” Absolutely. Empire of Democracy and Debt is our current state, but we missed the boat as it set sail 50 years ago. Should have made the whole globe the Sovereign USA, and things might be a lot less complicated. So do I believe in globalism, sure, from the stand point of “Every person is endowed with certain inalieanable rights, something the speach and author fail to point out and something our country fails to understand in terms of history and conquests and empires. Once you're the biggest fish in the pond, you end up with parasites and other infections that not only bleed you from the inside, but the outside. Pleanty of solutions that have to take into account that we're not the only fish in the pond and each and every person in the world is in deed, linked together in some geopolitical economic way. That's realism, not isolationism.”
Considering Hunter was more Reagan-like than Reagan himself, that is a gross mis-characterization.
The Birchers #1 reason for existence was anti-communism. Who is a more rock ribbed anti-communist, Hunter or Paul?
The Birchers claim to be pro-life. Whose record on pro-life issues has no gaps, Hunter of Paul?
The Birchers now claim that Ronald Reagan was one of the good guys (though their history is bit more shaky on this). Who advocates Reagan level funding of our military, including space based weapon systems? Hunter or Paul?
The CP and the Birchers both claim that our trade policy needs to be retooled to help the US industrial base. Who has fought tooth and nail to do that, as opposed to having the "free trade" with commie nations? Hunter of Paul?
Who is an original co-sponsor of the Fair tax, with the added emphasis of ditching the IRS?
Who called for eliminating the all taxation on US manufacturers?
Who has done more than any other individual since Ike to fight the invasion of illegal aliens?
Who was responsible for rejecting the PC nonsense in the military that prevented chaplains from using Jesus' name in certain prayers?
Who doesn't give a rip what the "world" thinks about the United States? Instead of groveling like McCain, Huckabee, Paul and the rest of the candidates said this in response instead: "I will NEVER apologize for the United States of America".
Who refused to pander for even a split second at the "minorities" debate, unlike Keyes and Paul? And instead brought up the great history that the Republican party has in treating minorities as equals?
Who rejects all calls for socialized medicine, RomneyCare, HillaryCare, etc and instead wanted to rip down the barriers for insurers and doctors to deal directly with the consumers, getting gov't out of the way?
Who wants to allow drilling in ANWR, drill off the coasts, increase coal and shale extraction, build nuke plants, and eliminate the bureaucracy holding up refining permits?
Who has a 7% rating from the League of Conservation voters?
The answer to all of the above is Duncan Hunter. The man who should be president.