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.
He has a Republican Congress now. What is he doing with it? He's expanding the government at a rate that FDR would be proud of!
So -- do you want to "cut off your nose to spite your face" or do you really want to have conservative reforms.
I'd like the conservative reforms, but voting for GWB seems to not be the way to get them.
So if the Republicans destroy the country it's acceptable to you?
I submit you as Exhibit A of your own quote. You keep voting for Republicans expecting that THIS time they'll actually rein in the federal leviathan.
If you continue to vote for politicians who do unacceptable things, then what leverage do you have over them to make them do right? If a Republican can scare you into voting for him or her out of simple fear of the Democrat, then that Republican may act in any manner he or she sees fit, and you will walk to the polls and cheerfully cast your ballot for the lesser of two evils.
Who doesn't understand? I submit it is you.
I'll take Reagan's "75-80%" anytime. 3/4 of a glass full ain't bad. And if we had a glass filled to the rim, we'd have nowhere to go but down. Spills can be messy.
I liken a second term for President Bush to a team having a chance to win a championship, after a solid rebuilding season. More experience, good bench strength, and some solid recruits.
Some want to fire the coach. He's not winning all the games now. He's not calling all the right plays. If only we could hire a coach who'd do it exactly like we would.
Those folks could start a new team, and call themselves The Utopians, I guess:-).
Sure, allow the Dems to win EVERY election, from now until the SECOND COMING, and what good will THAT do?
By NOT voting to keep GOPers in office, no matter how bad, you get something far worse. Half a loaf is better than none plus you owe three loaves. No one, NOT A SINGLE CANDIDATE/PARTY, " learns a lesson ", especially NOT the " lesson the UNAPPEASEABLES imagine they're sending, when either bounced from office or not elected.
Tell me, just WHAT " lesson " did the GOP " learn ", when Clinton won in '92? It certainly was NOT the one the UNAPPEASEABLES thought that they were sending, when they refused to help re-elect Bush 41.
Your ignorance is overwhelming.
Remember the Contract With America? It was a list of very conservative ideals outlined in great detail which the Republicans ran on in 1994. It was in direct response to the miserable failure of the Bush administration from '88-'92 which culminated in his loss to Clinton, a loss that came to be because Bush did not govern as a conservative, and enough honest-to-goodness conservatives withheld their votes as a consequence. The GOP learned its lesson, the CWA was born, and they stomped the Democrats in the '94 elections.
The lesson works, but it requires the sort of intestinal fortitude not found in people like you.
What ideals does Bush espouse that cause you to support him?
It's a simple question that I hope you'll answer.
Bush 41 lost because enough " conservatives " decided to take as whole clothe, the propaganda heaped upon Bush 41, held it against him, that he dared to try to work with the Dems and then was used and abused by them, the never ending, mindless rantings about the " READ MY LIPS " thing, the abjectly gullible believing the snakeoil, that Perot was spooning out and, as is often the case, enough people deciding that 12 years of one party having the White House was too much. Historically, it is exceedingly RARE, for a V.P. to win the presidential election and then winning re-election.
Bush 41's loss and Clinton's unConstitutional tax hike, made enough people angry, so that they took the House away from the Dems. Yes, the CONTRACT WITH AMERICA helped, but a fat lot of good that did, when all is said and done. And as far as " teaching the GOP a lesson ", the " lesson " you imagine it taught, wasn't really taught at all and your saying so, doesn't make it a fact. ;^)
I support him in the war on terror. Our position in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lowering taxes. Then there is the fact that he is the best option by far - no other alternative that comes close.
You may consider these reasons lame and even find a basis to attack them. That would be your privilege, my privilege is that I get to vote in the next election and I am excited about it.
.
Personally, I hate the fractionalization and the name calling over neo/paleo. It's just a divide and conquer ploy, a way of making snide, smarmy, anti-Semitic remarks for some, and does NO good whatsoever, to OUR cause. What cause is that ? Getting as many Dems out of elected office, as is humanly possible.
I am sick and tired of hearing neanderthals like your self spewing hate and disrespect for our truely honorable Commander in Chief.
The TRUTH is, you people have slithered so far to the Right, you have wound up on the other side!
If you can't be a part of this forum and support the GOP, then get the he// out of here and start your own group of pathetic, grovelling, sniveling, carping defeatists.
YOU CERTAINLY DO NOT BELONG HERE! DO YOU GET IT MAGGOT?
Let me give you a little advice. It's the best kind, because it comes from a fat, dead, alcoholic comedian.
I never vote for anyone; I always vote against.
W. C. Fields
You can fool yourself into thinking that you're always supporting a candidate, but in 99%+ of the cases, you're simply picking the guy who's not as bad as the other.
Clearly, our system sucks. Its faults are summed up best in the words of a fat, dead, alcoholic politician.
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Sir Winston Churchill
So, if you have a better idea that doesn't involve letting the bad guys win easily while we fall on our swords and declare moral victory, I'm all ears. If not, I'll continue to uphold the pillars of dead, fat, alcoholic wisdom.
So, how do you feel about the C-in-C violating his oath of office? What do you, as a person who swore to uphold the Constitution, think about a person who takes an oath similar to the one you and I both did and then turns his back on it?
Last time I checked, Jim Robinson decided who stays and who goes. Your invitation to leave will go unheeded. This isn't an "I Love the GOP Forum", at least not last time I checked.
And if you'll do some reading, I am not "spewing hate and disrespect". I am questioning why a person who swore to uphold the Constitution is doing the exact opposite, and why people like you, who should revere that Constitution over a person, are giving him a free pass on it.
And you're a coward and a disgrace to the uniform for letting it go unchallenged. I belong here much more than you do, because unlike you I refuse to roll over and play dead for the masters at the GOP.
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.