Posted on 03/13/2004 10:56:05 AM PST by quidnunc
At first blush, the phrase "anti-establishment conservative" doesn't make sense. Aren't the conservatives, especially considering the United States' current political climate, the establishment?
Well, yes. But there are conservatives who consider what passes for a conservative today George W. Bush, for example equivalent to the Red under one's bed in the 1950s. These folks are called paleoconservatives and, according to guys such as Jim Libinskas, hold a world-view that champions "an isolationist, 'America First' foreign policy, regional culture and politics versus big government and pop culture, protection for American workers (economic nationalism), a stoppage or large curtailment of immigration and a defense of America's European and Christian identity."
The paleoconservative heyday occurred in the early and mid-1990s with anti-immigration, isolationist, anti-free trade, ultranationalist Pat Buchanan making more than a marginal impact in his runs for the Republican presidential nomination. After fighting a losing ideological battle against neoconservatives well-connected, well-funded, well-organized leftists in the paleoconservative's eyes the paleos, to a large degree, went the way of the dinosaur.
Yet they persist. Though few in number, their Web sites are many. At the vanguard in the beginning and toeing the line in the present is Chronicles magazine and its web presence www.chroniclesmagazine.org. Long considered the movement's bible, the mag has dipped in circulation from 20,000 at its peak to less than 5,000.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at newhavenadvocate.com ...
Actually both.
If you disagree, fine....prove me wrong.
Well, good for ya.
Show 'em my motto!
Terrorism like 911 is almost certainly blow-back from America's entanglements in the Mideast, and not just entanglement with Israel (I suspect America's entanglement with Saudi Arabia is primarily what led to 911).
Had we listened to George Washington, I believe we most likely would not have been attacked.
Of course, we live in an increasingly shrinking world--and so I believe that Mr. Washington's admonition is more difficult to follow today.
But Mr. Washington did not say to avoid foreign entanglements altogether--he simply advised us to be wary.
Doubtless Mr. Washington was being mindful that foreign entanglements can lead to unforeseen dangers of bewildering complexity (I note his use of the word, "entanglements," instead of "alliances"), and so they are best avoided unless absolutely necessary.
Which means there must be some very convincing reasons for getting involved to begin with.
So let me understand...
If the United States were not involved in the Middle East in any way, shape or form. Muslims would never attack us?
Aside from being a woefully asinine/incompetent [take your pick] assumption that flies in the face of Islam's history, it is also the foundation of Liberal acclimation towards the Middle East and 9/11...
...It was our fault.
Depends.
In some ways, this country was more free in the 1920's.
We had smaller government and fewer laws.
Depends.
There has never been a paleoconservative president.
Both. Israel's children are God's Chosen People and the land as outlined in Numbers 34 is their land. Of course you could take it up with the Almighty but it's not going to change anything
So Islam has a history of attacking the United States prior to America getting entangled in the Mideast?
Seems to me Islam has a long history of attacking a lot of other countries before America got emmeshed in Mideast politics.
Were it merely a case of history repeating itself, I would think those countries that Islam historically attacked would have been the ones hit.
Sure there has. Before the northern tyrant, many of the Presidents fit closer to the mold of a paleocon than any since Wilson
And then what Rocket science?
Peaceful co-existence with the infidel West.
Please!
I pointed out you were possibly incompetent...but not overwhelmingly stupid. You know your reasoning led...straight to my question.
But did God say Israel is his chosen people or that Israel is His chosen land?
Also, isn't there something in the bible about god condemning the people of Israel to no longer have a land of their own after the people of Israel broke some commandment or other?
If that is the case, then would not the reestablishment of Israel have been against God's will?
I know this business of Israel and the Arabs is an emotional subject for some, but try not to become paranoid over it.
I cannot think of any serious problems from the Mideast until after America became entangled there during the twentieth century--and then only since around the middle of that century.
Indeed before we became enmeshed in Mideast politics over our unquenchable thirst for oil, it was the other West, Europe, that gave us far more trouble than the Mideast even to this day.
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.