Questions about apparent divisions in Conservatism

I have been browsing FR for a few days, and have noticed various distinct factions of conservatism that are often rivals. Of course, there are the conservatives vs. the libertarians. There are those that describe themselves as "Constitutionists" or "Constitutionalists". There is the Buchanan Brigade and the McCainiacs (though I have noticed very few fans of McCain). There are the Bush loyalists (Bushbots?) and those that cannot stand Bush. There are the third-party advocates and the Republican loyalists. There are the dittoheads, and those that cannot stand Rush. And then, of course, there are the conspiracy theorists.

My question is, where are the distinctions drawn? All of these groups claim to be an offshoot of Reagan conservatism. What is a neo-con, and how is that distinguished from a paleo-con? In short, I am having a difficult time tying these groups down, to the point that I can distinguish between, and identify with any one of them. With so many factions, how does one keep track of all of them?

I consider myself a thoroughbred conservative -- No hyphens, no special modifiers, no trendy names, no particular idols (though I do have role models of conservatism, whom I usually agree with). I am a relatively well educated conservative, so I know where I stand on everything … but I have been unable to determine where everyone else stands to the extent that I can identify your labels.

I believe in the supremacy of the individual, but that individual freedom must be tempered by private morality. I believe that the primary purpose of government is the protection of private property from domestic and foreign threats. I believe that morality can and must be imposed where acting immorally would infringe on the rights of other citizens. I am a capitalist, an imperialist, a hawk, Pro-Life, Pro-Gun and Christian. I believe that mind-altering drugs should be banned. I believe immigration should be heavily regulated, but not ceased. I believe in a strong military, and swift and harsh criminal justice. I believe in the absolute right to bear arms (barring felony convictions). I am an avid believer in free trade, for I believe this to be the implementation of global capitalism (which can never be a bad thing). I am against the UN, but for NAFTA, GATT and the WTO.

I identify my beliefs most often with (but not always) Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Bill Buckley. I respect Pat Buchanan, but I believe he has left the reservation on foreign policy and globalism. McCain is far too liberal for my blood. I have immense respect for George W. Bush, and would vote for him for re-election, but have distinct disagreements with many of his recent acts (i.e. campaign finance, farm subsidies, steel tariffs). I am a registered Republican, and feel that any disagreements should be dealt with within the Republican Party. I think third-parties are destructive, and only serve to lessen the conservative hold on the Republican Party.

I suppose my ultimate question is, what are the distinctions between the various factions of conservatism on FR? Who do you identify yourself with and why? And where would one place me - a textbook conservative - on such a spectrum. I appreciate your reading this vanity post, and would appreciate any assistance that could be offered in this matter.

"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." - Ecclesiastes 10:2

This is an often discussed topic. I hope this thread takes off, but you may have picked an inopportune time to post it (threads posted this late (or early) tend to have few response).

The "original" split occurred almost at the beginning of the conservative movement, shortly after the end of World War II. The "libertarians" were the first to gain notice, and almost at the same time, the "traditionalists" appeared. The first heated exchange amongst conservatives occurred along these lines. You can read about the history of the conservative intellectual movement in this book: The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America, by George Nash.

I find myself agreeing with almost all of your description. One question: do you include alcohol with "mind-altering drugs?"

No, I do not consider alochol a "mind-altering" drug, primarily because its consumption does not necessarily cause "mind-altering" effects. Drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, etc. alter the mind everytime they are used - and, thus, they make a user necessarily dangerous to society (in their altered state). Alcohol, on the other hand, does not cause harm until used to the point of intoxication - at which point their use becomes illegal. The only difference is that drugs intoxicate immediately.

Sincerest regards,
Adam D. Elrod

I have immense respect for George W. Bush, and would vote for him for re-election, but have distinct disagreements with many of his recent acts (i.e. campaign finance, farm subsidies, steel tariffs).

That is exactly my feeling also. I also believe the war on terror is in serious trouble, but we really have no way to evaluate that. If there are no more terrorists attacks in the US, then it's OK in the end I guess.

We just have a slight problem with a handful of squatters who hate FreeRepublic but who refuse to leave, nothing more. These same individuals despise traditional morality, the American people, their institutions, their leaders, and their culture.

Main stream US conservatives are mostly what I call small "L" libertarians, or constitutionalists. You would basically fall into that category, in my opinion, as do I.

US conservatism has little to do with "classical" conservatism, which is defined by its reverence for "traditional" values. If you believe in liberty, and constitutional government, you often struggle against tradition. Similarly, although Christians are often considered conservative in the "traditionalist" sense, it is often quite the contrary; Christians often find themselves at war with tradition.

George Nash, mentioned in #2, is very much the "traditionalist" kind of conservative, but he also believes in Constitutionalist liberty; consequently he tends to conflate the two strains of conservatism. Nevertheless, he is well worth reading.

As for why there aren't many McCain supporters here, or Buchananites, you answered the question yourself. They aren't conservatives, at least not the "small L" libertarian, constitutionalist variety.

I find this whole business of labels pretty silly !

I've noticed folks who wish to deny the rights of others, while preserving their OWN rights; people who feel they have a right to force their personal moral values on others;people who apparently HAVE no core of belief other than "Don't interfere with me - no matter WHAT I do !"; people who have racial axes to grind; etc., etc.

There are also a heck of a lot of very fine people, who don't fit into any category; but are uncomfortable with some of the positions governments/institutions take.

Calling some of these folks "conservative" is probably better than calling them late for supper; but, at best,just lumps them into a category.

Just as I was posting here, Rush spoke of the same divisions in conservatism that I was speaking of here. He spoke of the "blue-blood" conservatives, and the "neo-cons" in Washington. However, as he used the terms, they sounded as if he were speaking of liberal Republicans that seem to permeate Washington. I understand such separations between true conservatives, and "Republicans-in-name-only" - but are these divisions only used to describe liberal factions (neo-cons, etc.), or are there divisions between actual conservatives as well?

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.