Ping for later
This is the conclusion I have come to regarding the use of the word “neocon”: When “neocons” are spoken of in a derogatory or critical way, it is very often a “tell” regarding the criticizer. The criticizer is either an anit-semite, “anti-Zionist”, anti-Israel, or is repeating a mantra spoken by someone who is at least one of those things. It’s another permutation of “The Jews are controlling everything” myth.
I would be prouder to be called a paleocon myself. I would have voted for Barry Goldwater given the chance.
When I hear neocon I think of Karl Rove and Bush 43. I think of compassionate conservatism and nation building. I think of “big-government” conservatism. I think of “path to citizenship.” No thank you.
I prefer constitutional conservatism.
I've never met a Neocon. I'm not even sure such cattle exist. But whenever I hear someone apply the label to a conservative, I iimmediately know that the person applying the label is a liberal or an anarchist.
The thing is the Paulites throw the term around against any one, and I mean anyone that does not embrace the pacifistic nihilism of Ron Paul. Many of them even call William Buckley a neocon. Hell, by their rules of measurement, Winston Churchill was a warmongering neocon.
I love that Ron Paul hearkens back to a Jeffersonian America. I love Jefferson and think he was proved right against the Alexander Hamilton types of his day that big government is the ultimate danger. With that said, Jefferson was an American Exceptionalist. He was NOT a knee jerk blame American firster like Ron Paul is. The whole reason he objected to foreign entanglements was he believed such arrangements would do damage to American republicanism. He really didn't give a flying rat's you know what about what it did to other nations.
Jefferson did NOT just engage pirates (terrorists) in transit but took those rogue states who supported them to task. This is why he sent the marines to North Africa.
Now as for policing the world, the idea that there is some consensus among any conservative faction is ridiculous. There are some who do believe we should spread democracy and that we can do so. Frankly I am not one of them. I have more of an Ayn Rand bent which is if they mess with us, let all hell rain down, but then leave them to sort their own affairs. Perhaps there is a small segment that does have this belief, but they would comprise only a small percentage of conservative belief, I would reckon.
There’s no such thing as a “neocon”. That’s just something the paleocons made up.
The thing I dislike about Ron Paul the most is that he acts as if he’s the only one that can interpret the constitution. He throws out stuff and claims its unconstitutional and was doing it again last night.
Talking about declaring war and how we did it unconstitutionally. Well Dr. Paul, can you please share with me where in the constitution that it says you have to have a declaration of war to go to war? It says Congress has the power to declare war. It does not tell Congress how they may declare war.
Then he made an off the cuff remark concerning tort reform. He claimed that the federal government has no business in dealing with tort reform. Then he said that the federal government getting involved with tort reform was unconstitutional. Oh really? Where in the constitution does it discuss the federal government’s role in tort reform? As Rick Santorum rightly pointed out, when some clown in New York wants to sue a gun manufacturer in Illinois because their product worked properly, how is that a state issue? That is certainly an issue in which the federal government should get involved. To settle disputes between the states. Completely within the spirit of the constitution in Article 1 Section 10. Which can be summed up that no state can screw over any other state.