Posted on 03/10/2004 6:00:46 PM PST by MegaSilver
Although the 2004 election is barely underway, Conservarives ought to be thinking about how we can redefine the Republican Party once it is over. Say what you will about Bush, McCain, Giuliani, etc., but the Republican Party is our best hope for keeping the nation alive. Thus, it is essential that Conservatives take active roles in helping to shape the Party, because it needs our help, badly.
That said, if Conservatives are to do anything to help the nation, we must come to a consensus on historically dividing issues between Paleoconservatives and Neoconservatives. The purpose of this thread is to generate discussion about the various strains and how we can reconcile them without a huge fight--so people, play nice.
As I see it, the main issues splitting Paleoconservatives and Neoconservatives are issues and foreign policy. Paleoconservatives generally favor a more isolationistic approach; Neoconservatives generally favor an interventionist approach. Similarly, Paleoconservatives are more likely to favor protectionism (and I don't mean that in a bad way; protectionism is a valid P.O.V.), whereas Neoconservatives generally favor free trade agreements.
With that out of the way, let me state where I stand and why. I am somewhere in between. I think a purely isolationistic approach to foreign policy could keep us from seeing a disaster when it is about to arise. The consequences of Britain turning a blind eye to militant Fascism in its infantile stages should teach us a lesson about ignoring the world we live in. That said, I think that we have to be extremely careful not to overreach our boundaries and stretch our military beyond its limits. Our intervention in Vietnam, during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, for example, should remind us of the importance of knowing what we're getting into. We should also be culturally literate enough to be on the lookout for long-term scars that could come back to bite us (like al Qaeda--not that al Qaeda is our fault, but we did underestimate the furor of Wahabiism and turn a blind eye to potential disaster). Thus, my opinion on the war in Iraq is that, while our intelligence may have been faulty, and while our government may have been too unwilling to really brush up on Wahabiism before trying to democratize an Islamic country, now that we're in, we're in, and the Constitutional process is going along much better than one might guess.
On border policy, I'm more Paleoconservative. Until Mexico has shown that it can create a system that takes care of its citizens well enough that they don't need to mooch off our resources (while still pledging loyalty to Mexico), we REALLY need to keep that border sealed tightly and keep quotas.
On trade, I'm not sure where I stand. From what I know about economics (not enough to fill a book, mind you), in purely statistical economic terms, free trade is probably ultimately good for the world economy. However, I think that before we sign free trade agreements, we ought to ask ourselves if the country we'll be trading with is ready to taste first-world capitalism. Again, I'm no expert, but I might question whether we did that effectively with NAFTA, et. al. I also believe that a strong infrastructure (with a flourishing manufacturing sector) is key to preserving our national sovereignty and our economy in times of war.
Have you been stalking me?
Now for some meat:
Similarly, Paleoconservatives are more likely to favor protectionism (and I don't mean that in a bad way; protectionism is a valid P.O.V.), whereas Neoconservatives generally favor free trade agreements.
Why not use our brains and have both. Thats the way to have a substantive answer to the economy. Its not a for/against argument. Its a how argument.
If you mean conservatives of several decades ago vs. what passes for conservative today, let's meet at the Constitution; let the neocons walk all the way back. I'm too old to travel that far.
In the future, that may be a viable option. In the meantime, we need to work together to destroy the anticonstitutional lies of the Democratic Party.
Have you been stalking me?
They say great minds think alike. :)
Ah yes, the classic dilemma that plagues mankind. Which rules are good and which are influenced by the evil intentions of some. Making a case for good requires one to anchor their opinion in some higher authority than "the law". Perverting the rules simply requires that you refuse to acknowledge they exist or have any bearing on moral constraints as perceived by you.
Thus, societies rise and wane as the division between perceived good and evil becomes more distinct and, in the end, results in a most primitive confrontation.
And in complete alienation. A world of helpless slaves and ignoble masters. Hubris' droll inheritance.
Glad to see I'm not the only one that thinks that
Chief Justice Rehnquist seems to disagree with you. He and the conservative justices have been working quietly to bring the Federal system back within the boundaries prescribed for it by the Framers, one case at a time.
Of course, the liberal justices and Sandra the Swinging Gate O'Connor still occasionally drag the Court off the reservation, as they did so obnoxiously in Lawrence, overturning Bowers v. Hardwick after barely ten years and inventing new "rights" not in evidence either in the Constititution or in nature. But that isn't the Chief Justice's fault.
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.