Conservatives and Neoconservative

The Public Interest ^ | Winter 2004 | Adam Wolfson

[TopQuark]

Many thanks, Mamzelle. I appreciate that you've dropped the pretences.

[TopQuark]

Well, when you have nothing to say...

[hosepipe]

[ Exactly. I cut my teeth on Commentary magazine as a teen. At the time I was still a liberal and didn't realize how good they were. I was addicted though and there was no turning back and here I am instead of winding up on DU! ]

,,You can take the democrat from the party but its hard to remove the democrat from the democrat. All you end up with usually is a RINO. SSI is the same socialist scheme it always was. Democrats can do zero correctly even with a good idea. SSI is a weapon. A socialist democrat weapon. Any that are for it, are for ulmimatly, a contribution to their cause. Dismantleing this Republic.

,,If democrats touched it. Its flawed or they would not have touched it in the first place. You seem to have no idea of the concentrated evil in the democrat party. Sad to say the neocons bring the stink into the republican party. Which just might not be repairable. FreeRepublic is NOT the republican party as it is or even as it used to be. It's what the republican party should be.

[billbears]

When you look at it from that angle, you'll understand why Social Security enjoys near universal support but few like welfare.

And when it's finally explained to the working public that fewer and fewer people are supporting each Social Security recepient, I think they'll start to realize the writing's on the wall for the whole program. It was a New Deal program and any conservative worth their salt should be against it. It was a quick 'fix' that should never have passed. Of course the 'new' conservative movement praises FDR about as much as they praise Reagan

[Leonine]

"There is in fact no road to serfdom through the welfare state."

Ever read the magazine, "This England?"

[MegaSilver]

Ever read the magazine, "This England?"

No. Does it discuss the issue?

[MegaSilver]

The very term paleoconservative is misleading. Unlike the traditionalists, the paleocons contend that we have become irrevocably cut off from a living, sustainable tradition. In their view, the acids of modernity have left us entirely disinherited from old customs and ways, and conservatism’s project of conservation is but a glittering illusion. They have thus gone in search of new gods. Thomas Fleming, editor of the paleoconservative journal Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, has looked to sociobiology, evolutionary theory, and anthropology - hardly traditional conservative guides - for a new beginning.

There's one more flaw in this article. Paleoconservatives' use of science, history, and anthropology in shaping their philosophy in no way cuts them off from the traditional conservative guides. On the contrary, Paleoconservatives are very vocal about the need to save or rejuvinate Christianity, which actually explains their use of science, history, and anthropology. They're attempting to reach back and connect the old order to the new.

That's what a reactionary is, after all; a person who seeks to reform society along the lines of a previous era. Paleoconservatives see us as "post-Christian," but it would be wrong to suggest that they are ready to move on.

[Mamzelle]

I find your insinuating posts hysterical, overwrought, and cowardly.

Why don't you stop Your pretences, and make your accusations public?

here's a link, just for you...