Posted on 04/23/2004 11:26:17 PM PDT by MegaSilver
Of course, his assumption (that America is supposed to be a democracy) is flawed in the first place.
And socialism is not??
The administration, which is controlled by neoconservative thought is intent on more , not less involvement in both foreign and domestic issues. This signifies that both are more liberal than conservative. In the topsy-turvy world of diluting the meaning of the language, both the liberal and neo-conservative can claim their place in the political spectrum and attract their share of the voting public. The true conservative(according to the term) that seeks less intervention is unrepresented in the mainstream of politics. The Constitution, Libertarian, Conservative Parties in some states, represent the only actual conservatives. Their efforts can only try to influence to a degree, the liberalism of the two major parties.
You reach the conclusion too fast as you go from "if" to "then:" the society should take care of its aged, but who said that it should be done through the government?
I would submit to you that it is done increasingly through the government precisely because the social institutions through which it was traditionally done have weakened: family and church/synagogue. They have weakened and abrogated this important duty to the aged to the point that we do not even recognize that as an option.
Aged parents should stay with and be helped by their children and grandchildren, not the government.
Neos never saw a war they didn't like--even if it was completely outside of the interests of the US.
Try variations on keywords... "neoconservative kosovo bombing" "Neoconservative Biden McCain Clinton" "serbia churches burning" "Kristol hegemony balkans"
It'll give you quite a chill up your spine. As for me, never call me a neo. I'm looking for a post-neo world.
Mamzelle, a quasi-conservative keeps accusing of treason decent people that may have different views than her own.
This was done with respect to Catholics in this country: they were supposed to be more loyal to the Pope than to their own country. That libel was put to rest during WWII by the bravery of those with Irish and Italian origin.
The same libel is now advanced against the Jews: various Buchanans (strangely, a Catholic himself) accuse Jews in the Bush administration of selling out their own country for Israel. You can find these things on the internet in abundance -- right next to Jews causeing the blague of XIV century by poisoning the wells of Europe, next to Jews needing the blood of a Christian teenager to prepare the matzos, etc.
That's where Mamzelle gets her "education."
If we want to attract minorities into the conservative movement, we need to expell bigots such as these from our midst.
Clinton wasn't exactly a Liberal, though, either. He was a crude political opportunist, and while he may have been prompted by Neoconservatives, I'm not sure it's such a coincidence that he launched the invasion the week of Monica's grand jury testimony.
Besides, if Neoconservative pressure was the ONLY thing pushing him, WHY on Earth did he go in without Congress' permission?
Neos never saw a war they didn't like--even if it was completely outside of the interests of the US.
A true Neocon--in the tradition of David Frum--is also incapable of rational thought and respect for opposing points of view. I suspect that deep down, irrational people know their analyses are not reasoned and thus feel threatened by those who might easily shoot them down.
I once called David Frum the Pat Buchanan of the Neoconservative side. I now regret saying that; it was an insult to Pat.
The poster child for Neoconservatism is probably David Frum. I would say that he, more than anyone else I know of, qualifies as a "quasi-conservative."
This is not to say that Paleoconservatives are always innocent themselves. I personally, however, find Pat Buchanan to be far more tolerable than David Frum.
Make that "dyed in the wool." There are people who would call themselves Neoconservatives who argue in far more reasoned tones than Frum.
I don't particularly care to be "neo" on anything if only for the fact that that's associated with the likes of, say, David Frum. There are reasonable people who call themselves "Neoconservatives." A "dyed-in-the-wool neocon" like Frum is hardly reasonable, though, IMHO.
I don't view government as a problem as long as it does a few things well.
Be careful. Barry Goldwater once said that "a government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away." I think he was right. When implementing a policy, it's important to think about the reverse scenario and ask yourself whether that would be desirable.
This is not to say that Paleoconservatives are always innocent themselves. Innocent?
I personally, however, find Pat Buchanan to be far more tolerable than David Frum. I did not question whether Buchanan is tolerable to you: I claimed that Buchanan is intolerant of others.
Now, the question was NOT what Frum's or anyone else's views were: I said that accusing that person of treason merely on the basis of that person's Jewishness, of Catholicism, is defamation and bigotry.
The very standpoint from which you approach this issue is also faulty: the fact that a person --- say, Frum --- is not "innocent" does legitimizes criticism of that person's behavior; it does not justify prejudice towards that person on the basis of that person's religion or origin.
The problem I have with the piece is that it tends toward neo-conservative boosterism, and here is where the analysis hits some snags. However, in explaining it, I think it illustrates some of the weaknesses in neo-Conservatism itself. Some examples:
1. "Most modern democracies have lived with more extensive welfare states and highly socialized economies than the United States, without somehow reaching a “tipping point” whereupon they tumble into totalitarianism. There is in fact no road to serfdom through the welfare state."
A very shallow view of history. The welfare state has hardly withstood the challenges Hayek presented. The fact that we're not all hailing a fuhrer yet oversimplifies and misses Hayek's point. This impatience with socio-political issues reaching beyond a few election cycles is characteristic of neo-Conservatism.
2. "[Neo-Conservatives] also recognize the fundamental justice of democratic equality. Neoconservatives seek to secure a genuine human freedom and dignity in the age in which we live now, the democratic age, rather than in some futurist utopia."
While it is true that neo-Conservatives avoid some utopian visions, they deeply buy into the notion that Democracy is the very highest form of government possible. They hold Democracy in such quasi-religious regard that they virtually ignore the historical weknesses inherent in it (weaknesses that lead our founders to reject it in favor of limited sufferage and Republican contraint). For neo-cons, Democracy is not a well-reasoned conclusion based on careful consideration of alternatives and historical lessons. It is an article of faith.
3. "Now, neoconservatives are hardly a moralistic lot. On some of these contentious cultural issues, they are as likely to be on the “pro” as on the “anti” side. Moreover, their analysis tends toward the urbane - perhaps too urbane given what is morally at stake."
Neo-conservatives are, in practice if not in theory, secularists who act as if matters of private morality should have no bearing on public policy. A pro-abortion, lesbian, wiccan priestess should, in the perfect neo-con world, feel perfectly comfortable under the policies of a neo-con government. This is not because all neo-cons agree with this "lifestyle." Far from it. It' because in the neo-con world, none of these issues ought to get in the way of more important policy issues. Their importance is somewhat less than whether the top marginal tax-rate is 37 or 36 percent. As such, they have no helpful place in political debate. (As an aside, to me this is the reason neo-conservatives are so unwilling to aggressively take up the anti side in the gay-marriage debate - despite the fact that most of them believe gay marriage is wrong, and despite the fact that "anti" is by far the more popular position.).
Not all changes are progress. In this area we should advocate not the government's continues intervention into this are of life but stregthening of OTHER institutions 000 such as family and religion.
The point is not everything government does is bad. I agree with that too.
Private enterprise and markets underprovide public goods, such as defense, public roads, clear air, etc. That is what the government needs to do.
Kindness to parents and of any other kind, although critical for the health of the culture is not a public good. Noweher does the Jewish Torah or Christian bible speak of groups, but rather along the lines of "you shall take care of the widow and the orphan in your midst" --- always in singular. It were Marxists that moved this area of life into public goods.
And, incidentally, when the government provides private goods, it NEVER does it well:
For neocons, unlike for liberals, the bottom line with government is whether a particular program delivers results. It's not the question of effectiveness (whether it delivers) but of efficiency (at what cost). The government is notoriously inefficient.
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.