The America envisioned by the Paleocons is unworkable in today's world.
..The Paleocon's America...nostalgia
.The Neocon's plan for America....realistic
Posted on 06/10/2006 6:20:18 AM PDT by FerdieMurphy
Conservative Republicans held such hopes when Pres. Bush was heralded into office and the Republicans gained control of the Congress. That was then, this is now.
According to recent polls, conservative republicans are perplexed by the non-conservative actions of this president and the Republican-controlled Congress.
As I probed this latest confusion I found that I, and millions of other citizens, are f-o-s-s-i-l-s. According to Wikipedia Encyclopedia online, we are "Paleo" or "Old" conservatives. We are living fossils, 'about-to-become-extinct' hangers-on of the Grand Old Party which no longer appears to represent traditional conservatism.
The Republican Party in its essentials has been taken over by a mutation. Wikipedia describes this line of thought as "Neo" or "New Wave" conservatism. It's tenets are not really new, just enjoined by present-day politicians and citizens as the direction our nation should pursue. But it is contrary to many basic "Paleocon" principles.
"Paleocons" believe in the principles of limited government, limited spending and borrowing, limited intervention into citizens' lives, and states' rights. They also believe in restraint of foreign entanglement, a strong national defense and traditional family values
"Neocons" believe in an agressive foreign policy, empiric intervention in other nations to spread democracy, and global economic-trade policies. Weak on domestic policies, they lack emphasis on national issues. Their vision includes motivating our nation towards what I believe Pres. Bush's father referred to as the "New World Order." Include growth of government and overspending too.
Sound familiar? Now we know why the media refers to Pres. Bush and his administration as "Neocons." Many congressional Republicans belong in this catagory too.
The Republican-controlled Congress has acted and evolved in accordance with the mutant Neocon concept of overspending and overgrowing government, ignoring the burgeoning National and Public Debt approaching $40-60 trillion, most of it owned by foreign investors.
Recent crises and scandals such as social security, medicare, tax reform, earmarks, budget deficits, illegal aliens and gasoline prices gain the media spotlight for a few days or weeks. Then they seem to fade away, crammed together on the "we'll deal with you later"shelf. Always later.
My wake-up call came the morning I woke up to Howard Dean saying, "The first thing we want is tough border control, we have to do a much better job on our borders than George Bush has done." Though I knew this was blatant political rhetoric, it was shocking because I completely agreed with him.
Pres. Bush and the Congress have ignored domestic security of our homeland, borders and ports — until it was raised by the people! But if I agree with a liberal democrat, that does not a democrat make.
It is clear that the Grand Old Party has evolved and mutated which leaves a large conservative group, the Paleocons, scratching their heads and wondering what happened? I, for one, feel isolated from the GOP. The Party has entombed the Paleocons on the sidelines, bleached fossils, puzzled eyes peering at the GOP's total embrace of Neo-conservatism.
There is excited talk about Congress gearing up and acting on a few issues before the upcoming elections so they won't lose voters. I've got news for them. They have already lost citizens like this old fossil, who have reflected on the last five years of non-conservative actions.
Where's the limits on spending, limits on growth in government, adherence to the U.S. Constitution? Where's the traditional values and seeking the good of the nation as a whole instead of the corruptive influence of special interests? Yes, there are a few "Paleocons" in Congress but they are not listened to nor even heard amongst the clamor of "Neocons" and "Liberals" calling each other names.
I am a living fossil as are million of citizens, which brings me to the point. Where's the party that speaks to my conscience? I am past that retort: "Oh no! you must vote Republican or the Democrats will win!" Oh Please! I say — so what? Has it made any difference?
The Grand Old Party appears to have accepted this "Neocon" mutation, to move towards a world economy policy, open borders and the "New World Order." Why would I, this old fossil of white-bleached bones, vote for any republican candidate? No longer does the Republican Party speak to or for my "conscience."
As for this Paleocon, I am searching for a party that matches my "conscience." This is the one freedom citizens still have in this country — a citizen's privilege and responsibility to vote his or her "conscience." This old fossil takes this duty seriously.
Hmmmm, contrary to 'conservative' thought I would because it is my duty. As a Christian I freely donate my time and my resources to my community. More money in my pocket, higher donations to charity
By accumulating wealth which will be passed to the state at time of your death?
Ah, yes, 'conservative' thought. The estate tax should be eliminated. My money should go to collateral heirs, friends, family, charities, etc. without the government taking their chunk. I have been taxed on that money throughout my life, why should the government be allowed to take money that has already been taxed?
But who would care for you in the old age if other people did not raise their children?
You make it sound as if I don't pay others to have children, they won't. Of course, if I wasn't taxed already at such a high rate, I may be inluenced to have my own children.
I've been searching for 2 days for voting record on this bill and can't find it.
Found results 57 - 42 (I think)
If you (or anyone else) comes across who voted how, please advise and/or post.
Not earth shattering, but more info on who is acting most like RINOs.
He must have been about 19 at the time. And the contract for America was his brain child. Not bad for a former left leaning RINO.
Actually, Rumsfeld/Bush/Romney's etc. spent most of the late seventies twice working against Reagan in the primaries. Guys like Jesse Helms, Paul Laxalt, Bill Buckley and Pat B were the keys to electing Reagan and all worked in or with the administration.
Well, like who for instance? Buckley? Helms? Dornan?
Actually Rummy was a halfassed milk toast Republican. He, of course, worked against Reagan in the 1976 and 1980 primaries. It is remarkable how much pantywaste Mark Kirk fits into the mold holding Rummy's old seat though.
So you support a progressive income tax and oppose tariffs and you call yourself a "conservative"? LOL!
I said stalwart GOPer. Of course he opposed Reagan, he wanted to run himself. The point is he ain't no neocon.
The America envisioned by the Paleocons is unworkable in today's world.
..The Paleocon's America...nostalgia
.The Neocon's plan for America....realistic
Exactly wrong, the conservative choice was Steve Forbes, not Keyes or Pat.
I am a proud George Washington paleo-conservative. Paleo of course means Conservative before it was co-opted by ex-democrats but who were not ex-liberal. When Democrats, they made the democratic party into a big government, entangled with the world party and now have done the same to Republicans.
No choice. Democrats tax and spend. Republicans put in on the credit card and spend.
Vote gridlock it's the most conservative way to control government.
You are a fool.
Not according to the True ConservativesTM on FR at that time. Surely you remember.
A very polite way of putting it. We are furious. If we wanted wild spending and new social programs we'd have elected dems. If we wanted the rule of law to be ignored and the borders to be left wide open we'd have elected dems.
I agree with your sentiments, and historically, so did Goldwater, Reagan and Gingrich in the past.
And, instead of leaving the GOP to the RINOS it is up to Conservatives to go back to our political study books and our political principles, fight even harder than we have for a decade at the grass roots (House of Representatives) and continue to build the constituencies and the candidates for continued Conservative rewnewal IN THE GOP.
However, that does not mean that Conservatives cannot also, and do not also need, to consider priorities and looking at just what are the essentials. Sometimes, if "social" and "libertarian" Conservatives would look beyond a particular result they want to the underlying governance problem that is preventing that result they would find themselves in agreement more often. For instance, the problem with "gay" marriage is totally the courts. So instead of writing a "social conservative" definition of marriage to be imposed by a federal constitutional amendment, write a totally conservative federal amendment that sets the standard for who can define marriage, setting the state legislatures and no one else, and not a court, federal or state as the only power for defining marriage. Simply give conservatives in the states what they need - keep the courts out of it. I think that amendment would have passed.
You're very wise.
Reagan began his career as a Democrat. He later said: "I din't leave the Democratic Party, it left me." I now feel the same about the Republican Party. There is nothing satisfying in knowing that those who grew government, doubled spending and threw open the border have an R after their names.
Did we attack Afghanistan or Iraq first?
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.