|
As I understand the terms...
|
Posted on 10/30/2003 4:00:12 PM PST by ComtedeMaistre
Most American conservatives, as well as most freepers (myself included) do not regard themselves as belonging to either the neo-con or paleo-con camp. They agree with neos on some issues, and with paleos on other issues.
When I was a young conservative in the 1960s, terms like neo-con or paleo-con did not exist. There were simply two opposing ideological camps - liberals and conservatives, period. There were two groups of liberals - those libs in the Democratic Party who supported LBJ & RFK, and the other group of liberals in the Republican Party who supported New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller (Rockefeller Republicans). In those days, no Rockefeller Republican ever described himself as a "conservative". They called themselves liberal Republicans, and were proud of it.
But in the 1970s and 1980s, many liberals flooded into the conservative movement, following the failures of the Democratic Party's liberal policies which brought high crime, high taxes, long gas lines, riots, unemployment, busing, drugs, etc. The ideological situation is now confused. Are Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, Arlen Spector, and Christine Todd Whitman, conservatives or liberals? It is all so confusing.
But, as is generally known, neo-conservatives are those intellectuals (and their followers) who made their reputations writing for Commentary, Public Interest, and the Weekly Standard magazine, while paleo-conservatives include those involved in publications such as Chronicles and Southern Partisan. Most American conservatives do not consider themselves part of either group. But conservatives care about many important issues, which they do not see their elected officials addressing. I will list some of those issues, and ask you to speculate on which of the two groups, neos or paleos, you would trust to address those issues.
1. Abortion: Most neos and paleos claim to be pro-life. But which of the two groups do you think is sincere on the issue, and which is pandering? Which group would you trust to effectively protect unborn babies?
2. Gun Control: Which of the two, neos or paleos, would you trust to protect the second ammendment? Which of the two is more likely to take your firearms away?
3. National defense: Which of the two groups would do a better job of protecting homeleand security?
4. The US Constitution: Which of the two groups is more likely to defend the American constitution according to the intent of the founding fathers? Which of the two is more likely to invent rights and undermine constitutional protections?
5. Prayer in school and 10 commandments controversy: Which of the two groups would protect the right of children to pray in school? Which of the two would more effectively defend the right of Judge Moore in Alabama to display the 10 Commandments monument?
6. Multi-culturalism: Which of the two would most effectively defend Western Civilization and Western Culture? Which group would defend the culture and heritage of Southerners? Which of the two can stop the gay agenda and protect traditional morality?
7. Immigration: Which of the two, neos or paleos, would you trust to defend America's borders? Which would you trust to send troops to our Southern border to prevent illegal immigration? Which would you trust to deport illegal immigrants?
This promises to be a great debate on conservative philosophy. Fire away!
Or not.
The issue is not babies, - its controling society. Both groups want power.
2. Gun Control: Which of the two, neos or paleos, would you trust to protect the second ammendment? Which of the two is more likely to take your firearms away?
Both groups agree that governments can 'regulate' certain aspects of firearm ownership. I trust neither.
3. National defense: Which of the two groups would do a better job of protecting homeleand security?
God knows.
4. The US Constitution: Which of the two groups is more likely to defend the American constitution according to the intent of the founding fathers?
Both have totally mistaken views about original intent. Individual rights trump government powers.
Which of the two is more likely to invent rights and undermine constitutional protections?
Its a toss-up.
5. Prayer in school and 10 commandments controversy: Which of the two groups would protect the right of children to pray in school? Which of the two would more effectively defend the right of Judge Moore in Alabama to display the 10 Commandments monument?
Those are non issues. Who cares?
6. Multi-culturalism: Which of the two would most effectively defend Western Civilization and Western Culture? Which group would defend the culture and heritage of Southerners? Which of the two can stop the gay agenda and protect traditional morality?
See #5.
7. Immigration: Which of the two, neos or paleos, would you trust to defend America's borders? Which would you trust to send troops to our Southern border to prevent illegal immigration? Which would you trust to deport illegal immigrants
See #3
I agree. I posted a comment to a thread yesterday in which I posed the notion that what we have today is a kind of "big tent" conservatism which includes quite a range of viewpoints, but all are basically conservative in their notions. Note that, historically, there weren't subsets of conservatism ("neo-" or "paleo") back in the 1950s when conservatism was a decided minority among the voting public. The variety of flavors under the broad banner of "conservatism" is one of fruits of putting together a majority coalition that can win national elections.
Just MHO of course.
1. Abortion: Most neos and paleos claim to be pro-life. But which of the two groups do you think is sincere on the issue, and which is pandering? Which group would you trust to effectively protect unborn babies?I think that both groups are sincere on the question of abortion. Both are equally trustworthy.
2. Gun Control: Which of the two, neos or paleos, would you trust to protect the second ammendment? Which of the two is more likely to take your firearms away?I don't think either side is likely to try to take guns away. I do think neos would probably negotiate a bit more, so I guess paleos.
3. National defense: Which of the two groups would do a better job of protecting homeleand security?Not even close. Neos. The paleos idea of defense seems to be ignore the world and hope no one comes after us or decides to wreck our economy by screwing with our imports.
4. The US Constitution: Which of the two groups is more likely to defend the American constitution according to the intent of the founding fathers? Which of the two is more likely to invent rights and undermine constitutional protections?Seeing as national defense is a prerequisite for defending the constitution, I see this as inherently tied to the previous question.
5. Prayer in school and 10 commandments controversy: Which of the two groups would protect the right of children to pray in school? Which of the two would more effectively defend the right of Judge Moore in Alabama to display the 10 Commandments monument?Depends on if you mean by 'would'. Do you mean 'would intend to', or do you mean 'would be able to'? The paleos probably would put a higher priority on it. The baggage the paleos carry, with their deficient foreign policy positions and their strange obsession with certain ethnicities, makes it very unlikely they will any time soon be in a position to impact the Supreme Court, where the decisions will be made. As such, the answer is the neos.
6. Multi-culturalism: Which of the two would most effectively defend Western Civilization and Western Culture? Which group would defend the culture and heritage of Southerners? Which of the two can stop the gay agenda and protect traditional morality?I think both would do a good job on this.
7. Immigration: Which of the two, neos or paleos, would you trust to defend America's borders? Which would you trust to send troops to our Southern border to prevent illegal immigration? Which would you trust to deport illegal immigrants?The paleos would do better on the borders.
I'm by no means certain I'd care to divide all American political conservatism into separate camps, based solely upon which magazine(s) they most frequently read or published in. What would you call a conservative who published more than once in (say) both National Review and Southern Partisan, anyway: a PaleoNeo...? :)
As for myself: I much prefer the simple, time-honored label of "Reagan Conservative."
2. Gun Control: Which of the two, neos or paleos, would you trust to protect the second ammendment? Which of the two is more likely to take your firearms away?
Paleos. Few neocons care a whit about guns.
3. National defense: Which of the two groups would do a better job of protecting homeleand security?
Toss up. Paleocons generally believe in closing the border and playing ostrich. Neocons want to bring international revolution to the Muslim world to destroy Islamism. However, most remain blind on immigration reform.
The best group are the non-Isolationist Paleocons, willing to fight in the clash of civilizations. Paleos understand teh concept of civilization.
4. The US Constitution: Which of the two groups is more likely to defend the American constitution according to the intent of the founding fathers? Which of the two is more likely to invent rights and undermine constitutional protections?
Aside from the Confederates, the Paleos are far better.
5. Prayer in school and 10 commandments controversy: Which of the two groups would protect the right of children to pray in school? Which of the two would more effectively defend the right of Judge Moore in Alabama to display the 10 Commandments monument?
Toss up.
Multi-culturalism: Which of the two would most effectively defend Western Civilization and Western Culture?
Both have problems. Neocons believe in a national culture. However it is a deracinated democratic culture. They are 1950's liberals here.They will not stand for WEstern Culture abroad.
Paleocons don't necessaruly believe in a national culture. Of course, they do understand Western Civ. The problem is taht the isolationists want the threats to magically go away.
Which group would defend the culture and heritage of Southerners?
No contest. Paleos.
Which of the two can stop the gay agenda and protect traditional morality?
Necons support the traditional family, but many have nothing wrong with much of the queer plans.
7. Immigration: Which of the two, neos or paleos, would you trust to defend America's borders? Which would you trust to send troops to our Southern border to prevent illegal immigration? Which would you trust to deport illegal immigrants?
Generally paleocons. There are sane neocons, but they are a minority here.
I believe the 1960s patriotic liberals fled the Democrat party not because of its failures but because they feared the New Left traitors' takeover of the party. I don't remember any talk of failures in those days. There was no free press except for limited circulation publications.
Thanks to those 1960s liberals-cum-neocons we had a little problem getting a free press. There was the little matter of their destroying the free press. To wit, "You might also think that they would recall the notorious Fairness Doctrine, which was used to 'harass and intimidate' right-wing radio broadcasts, in the words of one unabashed Kennedy-Johnson operative," wrote Dr. Thomas W. Hazlett, a Senior Research Associate at the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information and a Fellow of the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.
All this while the liberals trashed Goldwater, et al. daily as war-mongering racists. The Senator supported a strong defense against the Soviets and he supported states' rights over an all powerful central government.
The liberals brought all the name-calling with them as they became "neocons." James Bowman wrote recently, "the only place that respectable conservatives, wishing to avoid the taint of racism or anti-Semitism or nativism or protectionism, have to go is to the neocons."
I do like the neocons' defense policies however with some reservations.
I tend to think I lean neo-con, but without knowing what is commonly meant by the terms, I hesitate to shout it from the rooftops. Even then, I probably wouldn't, as labels are often limiting, and invite unnecessary, pointless ridicule.
|
As I understand the terms...
|
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.