To: Sean_Anthony
there is no substantive difference between the creeping statism of William Bennett, George Will and Bill Kristol and the charging statism of Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, and Jesse Jackson. All these types like their privilege and believe they know better than The Little People. Birds of a feather.
2 posted on
11/09/2015 8:48:37 AM PST by
FourPeas
("Maladjusted and wigging out is no way to go through life, son." -hg)
To: Sean_Anthony
Conservatives ARE Conservative, plain and simple.
But read
this"
Liberals, Conservatives, and Neocons - - - Learn the Difference!
March 12, 2014
Almost everybody is confused about the word "neoconservative" and its shortened form, "neocon."
I find that liberals/Democrats seem to use it as a sort of disrespectful form of "conservative,"and probably have no idea the the words have distinct meanings.
On the other hand, I know of some conservatives who define it as "new conservatives,"meaning people who were formerly something else, but have converted to conservatism.
Both are wrong.
As near as I can tell, "neo-" doesn't apply to any other word that way -formerly not X, but having become X.
No, "neo-" almost always refers to an ideology that is different from the root word in a significant way.Neoconfederates are not people who want to secede and become a separate country.
They want the ideals of the Confederacy to be applied to modern politics, more or less, but not all of them.
Neoliberal is a more vague term,but it specifically applies to people who may have SOME of the attributes of liberals,
but who contradict liberalism in their advocacy of free trade and privatization
and other ideas usually thought of as conservative.
And, finally, neoconservatives are mostly those moderate cold war LIBERALS who defected to the Republican party when the Democrats got totally flaky with McGovern and his ilk.
Their ultimate origin, however, is not the Democratic party but the Trotskyite movement.
Jack Kerwick elaborates.
Read
this:
Most "Conservatives" Are Secretly Neoconservatives
12 March, 2014, by Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.
A colleague of mine has drawn my attention to a Washington Post blog post - "Why Most Conservatives Are Secretly Liberals" - by a Professor John Sides, a political scientist at Georgetown University.
Sides agrees with fellow political scientists Christopher Ellis and James Stimson, co-authors of Ideology in America.
Ellis and Stimson CONTEND thatAmerica is, at bottom, a "center-left nation,"
for while "30 percent" of self-described "liberals" are consistent in endorsing "liberal" policy prescriptions,
the same sort of consistency can be ascribed to only "15 percent" of "conservatives."
And another "30 percent" of "conservatives" actually advance "liberal" positions.
In short, Americans may TALK the talk of "conservatism," but they WALK the walk of "liberalism."
That is, they favor Big Government.
Sides, Ellis, and Stimson, it seems clear to me, are "liberals."
It doesn't require much reading between the lines to discern this.
That they associate "liberals," and "liberals" ALONE, with such virtues as "consistency" and such lofty ideals as "a cleaner environment" and "a stronger safety net" is enough to bear this out.
Yet in peddling the ridiculous, patently absurd notion that"conservatives" see the media as PROMOTING "conservatism,"
the verdict regarding their "liberalism" is seen for the NO-BRAINER that it is.
There is, though, another CLUE that unveils Sides', Ellis', and Stimson's ideological PREJUDICES:They equate the term "liberalism" with a robust affirmation of Big Government.
They treat "liberalism" synonymously with its modern, "Welfare-Statist" incarnation.
There is no mention here of the fact that, originally, "liberalism" referred toa vision that attached supreme value to individual liberty,
a vision in which government played, and had to play, a minimal role in the lives of its citizens.
And there is no mention of the fact that, if "liberalism" is now "an ugly word,"
it is because the very same socialists who made "socialism" an ugly word hijacked "liberalism" when it enjoyed a favorable reception
and visited upon it the same fate that they secured for "socialism."
In other words, if Sides himself wanted to be bluntly honest, heâd have to admit that "liberals" are secretly socialists.
Still, though their premises are bogus, Sides and his colleagues draw the correct conclusion thatmost "conservatives" are NOTHING OF THE KIND.
The truth of the matter is thatthe vast majority of contemporary "conservatives"; are neoconservatives.
Now, "neoconservatism" is a term that hasn't the best reputation.
It has ALWAYS BEEN CONTROVERSIAL,
and most of its proponents have DISAVOWED IT to the point of, preposterously, condemning it as an "anti-Semitic" SLUR.
But George W. Bush and his party inflicted potentially irrevocable damage upon the label.
"Conservatism" is a more marketable label.
Nevertheless, the reality is that neoconservatism is indeed a distinct school of political thought.
Beyond this, it is fundamentally different in kind from classical conservatism.
Irving Kristol, the so-called "Godfather" of neoconservatism, an appellation that he readily endorsed, ADMITS this in noting boththat neoconservatism exists
and that "conservative" "can be misleading" when used to describe it.
Neoconservatism, you see, is THE INVENTION OF LEFTISTS like Kristol himself.
When the Democratic Party began veering too far to the Left in the 1960s, Kristol and more moderate leftists began turning toward the Republican Party.
So as TO DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES FROM traditional conservatives, they coined the term "neoconservatism."
Neoconservatives, Kristol asserts, are "not at all hostile to the idea of a welfare state" -even if they reject the "vast and energetic bureaucracies" created by the Great Society.
Neoconservatives ENDORSE "social security, unemployment insurance," and "some kind of family assistance plan," among other measures.
But what's most interesting, particularly at a time when ObamaCare has DIVIDED the country, is that Kristol reminds us thatneoconservatives SUPPORT "some form of national health insurance."
In all truthfulness, however, neither a degree in political science nor an IQ above four is required to know thatneoconservatism has always championed Big Government
for it is its foreign policy vision more than anything else that distinguishes it from its competitors.
For neoconservatives, America is "exceptional" in being, as Kristol puts it, "a creedal nation,"the only nation in all of human history to have been founded upon an "ideology" of equality, of "natural rights."
The U.S.A., then, has a responsibility to promote this ideology throughout the world.
And it is by way of a potentially boundless military - i.e. Big Government - that this "ideological patriotism" is to be executed.
Had the foregoing political scientists been looking in the right places, they would BE FORCED TO CONCLUDE that most "conservatives" are secretly neoconservatives.
So, you see that those WHO THEY CALL
"neoconservatives", are really nothing more than
the old moderate side of the DemocRATS.
It's just THAT SIMPLE .
4 posted on
11/09/2015 9:16:11 AM PST by
Yosemitest
(It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Sean_Anthony
They’re all noecons, including Krauthammer.
5 posted on
11/09/2015 9:29:22 AM PST by
subterfuge
(TED CRUZ FOR POTUS!)
To: Sean_Anthony
Why are conservatives such as William Bennett, George Will, Bill Kristol, et al so graciously accepted by the prevailing liberal establishment? I'll take Because They're Not Real Conservatives for $100, Alex.
6 posted on
11/09/2015 9:49:26 AM PST by
Arm_Bears
(Biology is biology. Everything else is imagination.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson