Posted on 12/10/2003 8:59:00 PM PST by BobbyK
Enough With The Neocon And Paleocon
Carping—I'll Stand With George W. Bush In 2004
Like most Toogood Reports readers, I observed this year's battles within the conservative ranks with profound discomfort. In my mind, there are far too many real enemies out there to waste time and print fighting one another.
It seems that the world of conservatism has been split up between the "conservatives" and the "paleo-conservatives" or between the "conservatives" and the "neo-conservatives." Both sides present themselves as the bona fide article and the other side as the one in need of a prefix.
Personally, I just want to spit up this strife the same way the bleachers of Wrigley Field do the opposition´s home run balls. This qualifies as a "which side are you on boys" issue. It is my goal to conserve America's wonderful, non-living Constitution, and to forever preserve the personal and economic freedoms that embody our way of life. If you agree with me about these basic propositions, then you're on my side and the rest of your views are of secondary concern. Simply revering the spirit of the Founding Fathers puts you in the top 50 percent of the population on the Chap-o-meter.
Not only is an inter-journalist, inter-intellectual, conservative civil war fruitless, it is also detrimental to the nation as a whole. The country needs all of our efforts just to have a chance of mitigating the damage the culture war has wrought.
Our daily resistance may be the biggest obstacle to the federal pacman swallowing up fifty percent of the economy. We cannot afford to bicker amongst ourselves. The odds are too great. Obsessing over who said what about Taki, Buchanan, Frum, Lowry or any of the other public figures who make up the American right is counter-productive.
The neocon/paleocon debate is as bewildering as it is petty and misguided. Sadly, some conservatives now feel more comfortable with leftists than they do their own kind [I know of one who astonished me by saying that he regards the American Enterprise Institute as "The Death Star"]. Certainly, internal disagreements are to be expected, but they are trivial in comparison to accepting the positions advocated by the other side of the political spectrum. Socialism, cultural Marxism, white guilt, and radical feminism are eternal obstacles to advancing society. Other conflicts pale in importance when compared to them.
I propose that we abandon slurs like paleo-con and neo-con. Instead we should all evolve into "Logicons." The Logicon refuses to slash at the brethren who march alongside him because maintaining some level of public harmony is the only logical way in which we will succeed. Logicons realize that our fighting strength should not be diluted by internecine combat.
Much of the controversy currently centers around President Bush and whether or not one approves of his job performance. I've written here and elsewhere how much I personally admire him, but I also acknowledge that certain criticisms have been valid. Those who label him a big spender are correct in their assessments. He has not used his veto to curb the size of government and has developed a habit of hugging Ted Kennedy's voluminous appropriations.
While this is unfortunate, to pretend that Bush is not the best bet for advancing the country's interests is shortsighted. There are many conservatives out there who could do a better job of slashing outlays, but it is highly unlikely that any of them could get elected by our emotive and squishy electorate. On our side, George W. Bush "feels their pain" better than anyone. He brings in moderate voters the way my old Erie Dearie lures used to bag walleyes .
The problem is one of perspective. We can spend time complaining about steel tariffs or the administration´s pathetic capitulation on affirmative action last summer. Yes, I would have been greatly pleased if he disseminated a Michigan Law brief of his own after the decision entitled “O´Connor a Known Fruitcake,” but the fact is that he didn't and there´s nothing we can do about it. However, we must keep our outlook global by remembering what the alternatives are.
What would Al Gore do with affirmative action? How about Howard Dean, the neurotic would-be-king, with Al Qaeda? Makes you shudder doesn´t it? After the election, Al Sharpton would take his standup around the world as our Secretary of State and we´d hear Patricia Ireland lambasting “patriarchal textbooks” in her role as Secretary of Education.
In actuality, my examples really aren´t all that farfetched. The radical left has been carrying the Democrat Party since 2001 and, now, if the Democrats win, bills will need to be paid.
Rather than fantasize about an ideal future, conservatives need to think about how things can, and will, get devastatingly worse, should Bush lose. Be it Dean or Kerry or whatever burrito they decide to roll out of the Taqueria next summer, the fate of the country will be in jeopardy. By this time in 2006, there will be a foreign policy coward in every pot and a benefit check in the hands of every college drop out. Think France, think Germany, and then be grateful we have a president who doesn't spit after saying "tax cuts."
Besides, the Bush Presidency has produced many hidden benefits. His appointees may well be our salvation even though he backs obese budgets. In the latest issue of The New Criterion, we see that his appointments to the National Endowment of the Arts have had a wonderful effect. Under Dana Gioia, the agency is sponsoring Macbeth for military bases and has resurrected traditional Shakespeare at the national level [Shakespearean plays are now staged as in the days of old which means brothels and bath house scenes are no longer mandatory].
I don´t care if you insult him or trade in Karl Rove conspiracy theories, but, in November of 2004, this particular rightist is going to stand by George W. Bush just as the bumper sticker on my car promises. Our hopes for a better tomorrow rest in the White House on his bed. We must support him because heady days await and also because his reelection keeps the Democrat Party headless. Let´s proudly stand by our man as he loudly subsumes the popular positions of the left while promoting many of ours in the shadows though his judges, appointees, and minions.
And yes, you really are more " PURIST " than not. Would you rather have had algore, instead of W, a massive tax increase, rather than a tax cut ( and some ARE not going to be phased out/come to an end)at all, etc. ? Enquiring minds want to know why 1/2 a loaf isn't good enough.
I think I must have sent one response to message A to party B, and vice versa. My apologies if so.
Why? He had a GOP controlled Congress. Reagan got a 25% reduction in rates...far below our current rate system in 1981 with a DEM controlled Congress.
I don't care about purity, I just want some stinking BACKBONE! But, unfortunately, Bush's people won't let him go over the fray and talk directly to the people they way Reagan did. I guess they figure he's not as good a communicator.
I also feel Bush is being disserved by many in his circle. But that's his choice, he put them there. Personally, I'd tell Powell take a hike and I'd sit the GOP Congressional leadership down and TELL THEM what they are going to do, not listen.
I'd call up Snowe, Collins and Chaffee and read them the riot act and pull a Buford Pusser - put their offices in the basement of their buildings, cut their staff, remove them from ALL committee's etc. unless they played ball.
Those three alone are directly responsible for the lack of flu vaccine this year. And if they threatened to "switch" like Jeffords then I'd threaten to go to their states and campaign against them even if they weren't running in 2004! I'd humiliate them in a nationwide address (just bring up the flu vaccines).
But that's just me. I don't play games with jerks.
Perhaps you need to read up your political history. GHW's biggest failure was falling for the democRATs lies that the nation would go broke if he didn't raise taxes. The RATS claimed that this was the only solution, and GHW mistakenly gave in. Then the RATS turned around and used GHW's campaign pledge of "No new taxes" against him.
Nor was he helped by Alan Greenspan who refused to lower interest rates -- until Clinton was in office.
Do you even recall the outrageous lies and distortions of the truth that the RATS used against GHW during the campaign? Or do you even care? Having read your numerous anti-Bush comments on several threads, I believe you are a troll.
If the spin stops here, then stop spinning. You continue to rail against a less than perfect president to what end? Politics has ever been about voting for the lesser of two evils, so get a clue!
I am proud that GW Bush is our president even though I don't agree with him on some very important issues, but I will never bow down to Mecca, as his opponents would invite, in order to appease our enemies.
That's okay, it's late and I'm off to bed. So ends our discourse.
I disagree. Politics used to be about principle and the top of the ticket was a crony to the party if they weren't leading...not the other way around. The concept of "the lesser of two evils" is, in my opinion, giving up.
There has to be someone willing to stand up and win on pure principle alone.
The exception with Hitlery is this -- it (not she) understands power, and, should it acquire any, will abuse it to an extent never seen in American history. It is Stalin-In-Waiting, in spades. In fact, I'd likely vote for Stalin before I'd vote for Hitlery -- he could do less damage (not only because he's dead, but because he doesn't even pretend to speak English; Hitlery DOES pretend to speak English).
The same is not equivalently true of any of the nine dwarves. They're merely ordinary and very boring state socialist dildos and dildettes (Kucinich being the other dildette, btw), barring Dean, who's just a good old-fashioned Marxist wanker, Lenin without the intellect, Trotsky without the rhetorical skill, although his bombast does approach Khruschev's. Gork's endorsement of this clot was hilarious (politically somewhat clever, which was surprising in Gork's case; he's almost as politically tone-deaf as Hitlery).
Historically, our judicial sytem has never, NEVER been " fair " to all, in every way, shape, manner, and form. Some people has ALWAYS been treated differently ( some better, some worse ) than others. See? You are so a " PURIST ", whose grasp of reality as it is, isn't what it is, or ever has been. Not in colonial times, not as a new nation, not at 100, and certainly NOT now and you and I are NOT going to be able to change that.
" If wishes were horses, than I would be king " and the same is true of the collective wishes of FREEPERS, who refuse to accept reality...daydreams are like soap bubbles; insubstancial but pretty. Reality is something else, no matter how much one might yearn for it to be different.
I attended the same college as both Presidents Bush and, while I never met anyone named Bush, please let me assure you that I met at least 200 or 300 would-be Bushes. There seems to be, in certain people, the unalloyed and utterly unproven assumption that they, somehow, mystically, are fit to govern the rest of us.
I didn't buy that premise in 1969-1972, and I don't buy it now.
OK, fun bs trivia time -- give me the SECOND verse of ''Deck The Halls'' -- verse, mind you, not chorus. (g!)
Questioning those who believe they can achieve political perfection on Earth is not attacking.
It is other people pointing out the real world to them.
So you went to Yale.
while I never met anyone named Bush, please let me assure you that I met at least 200 or 300 would-be Bushes.
And there were about 5 times the number of would be Dean's and Hillary's at Yale. I am surmising that you are in that camp.
Larger government from Mr. Bush? Yes.
More redistribution of income, courtesy of Fat Teddy's education bill, the pork-o-rama farm subsidy bill, and the new prescription drug ripoff...er, entitlement? Yes.
The beginnings of surrender of national sovereignity, to WTO and others (read Marx and Engels' famous work, something they ardently advocated)? Yes.
The advocacy of ''free'' trade (not free trade, but ''free'' trade, again, another of Marx' favourite ideas)? Yes.
Tell you what...just read Marx' and Engels' Communist Manifesto, just read it casually through, one time -- then come on back and tell me why the description of Mr. Bush as a quasi-Marxist is inaccurate.
Never mind personal venting -- you'll notice that, throughout this thread, I haven't -- but make me a rationally-based counterargument, if you care to.
Oh come on. A president can do anything he wants. It's ridiculous to say he "can't". And what's wrong. Can't take rough and tumble politics. Geez, it was a heck of a lot worse in the old days. They'd threaten to kill each other, just ask Hamilton.
Are you saying Bush hasn't got the right to convince Maine and Rhode Island voters their Senators are morons, cowards, and petty a-holes? That never stopped FDR, Kennedy, or LBJ. They threatened on a daily basis. Oh, I guess we should massage them so they don't Jeffords the GOP.
I'd rather elect more conservative Senators and let the RINOs rot. By you saying "think how things really are" you are pointing out you accept the status quo and are completely convinced it can't be changed.
Who's being a purist in thought now? How cares if they got elected by those voters? Voters are people and a good leader pursues the people using strong arguments. Remember the "Reagan Democrats" the GOP has pissed away?
Amazing, this entire thread for the last couple of hours has been attacking me and SAJ and others who want some principle instead of caving into "compromise" that always benefits the left you think you are opposing. Snowe, Collins and Chaffee are the perfect definition of your philosophy. Three total RINO's that have to be countered by a Zell Miller or John Breaux (or Mary Landrieu when she's not on the rag) to get anything done. I guess since they might vote on a few bills Bush wants, it's okay to let them hold hostage real bills based on principle. You know all three of those jerks aren't helping in the judicial nominee fights.
Gee, let's just put Trent Lott back into the majority position and we can complete the circle of being reamed.
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.