Posted on 05/25/2007 10:13:26 AM PDT by Irontank
So-called "neo" conservatism has its roots in a Marxist view of the world. So it is not surprising that the neocons are trying to silence their most prominent conservative critic.
That would be Texas Rep. Ron Paul. He outraged the neocons during the Republican presidential debate last week by advocating that the GOP return to the traditional conservative stance of noninterventionism. Paul invoked the ghost of Robert Taft, the GOP Senate leader who fought entry into NATO. And he also pointed out that messing around in the Mideast creates risks here at home.
That prompted Rudy Giuliani to interrupt Paul and demand that he retract his remarks. Paul not only refused to bow to Il Duce, but after the debate, Paul told the TV audience that the self-appointed saint of 9/11 might consider reading the report of the 9/11 commission, which makes the same point in some detail.
....
I put in a call to Andy Napolitano, the Fox News legal analyst and my brother's old buddy at Notre Dame Law School. In addition to appearing on TV, Andy co-hosts a talk show called "Brian and the Judge" on Fox radio.
"Our calls have been going 10 to one in favor of Ron Paul," said Napolitano, a former Superior Court judge in New Jersey who supports Paul's libertarian views.
....
Clearly, the doctor had hit a nerve. The neocons are fond of arguing that we can't simply retreat into "fortress America," as they call it. But the impulse to do so is deeply ingrained in the American psyche. If you doubt that, look at the polls on immigration. The neocon in chief is an open-borders guy, but that view has no support in the base of the GOP.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
It’s good. Who would want to be a neo- anything. It’s like warmed up leftovers: last week’s lasagna.
Wow comparison of those escaping oppression to what can easily be compared to imperalist actions. And in silly haiku form at that.
And the US would be here. We would just be looking to Jamestown as the first colony (which it was) instead of a group of busy bodies that thought they could tell others to live. Hmmmmm.....
Thanks for the link.
"Dr. Paul consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending, and regulation, and used his House seat to actively promote the return of government to its proper constitutional levels."
That sounds conservative to me, and he has identified himself as a conservative in other interviews.
GRPPL Ping
ping
Domestic policy seems quite good by my standards. His foreign policy on the other hand is quite isolationist. Over the last 90-100 years that hasn’t been very effective. We are a target for some countries and we need to take that into account. Whether its the Japanese Empire, the German Reich or the Russian (Soviet or other) Empire, we need to be able to defend ourselves and our friends.
Correct.
Furthermore, there are a lot more issues than the 25 bills they rate congressmen on.
Rep. Paul has voted against EVERY SINGLE spending bill and voted against EVERY SINGLE tax hike, yet the ACU doesn't care.
He also introduced a bill that would have overturned Roe v. Wade and sent the abortion and gay marriage issues back to the states, but the ACU doesn't care; they instead care about their vote on a Constitutional Amendment that had no chance of passing.
I do wonder the many who supported giving Bush Carte Blanche powers for Iraq would support Hillary the same? Or would it become a matter of limits of the Constitution if a DEM POTUS had done this?
If Letters of Marque and Reprisal had been issued on Saddam and sons as well as Bin Laden and others we may not have had Iran to deal with. A wiser POTUS would have called a closed door session of congress and asked for those actions. He would not have been strutting around shooting his mouth off for nearly a year saying we're coming to get you, then acted stumped because the ones were were after were in hiding.
A Republican who was GW Bush's mentor {Gerald R Ford} got us into the state sponsored terrorism mess by not following the Constitution and founders intent. He in effect with a single E.O. prohibited the ordered killings of heads of state. Not that Carter was any better he signed one just like it.
bookmark for your article.
Any relation to Gov. Janet of Arizona ("fastest dyke in the west"?)
Cheers!
Thank you for those comments.
Be back.
There was a similar quote in an editorial William Kristol wrote for the Boston Globe, May 28, 1980 ("A conservative welfare state - what once was called a social insurance state - is perfectly consistent with the neoconservative perspective. "). Here are a few of the introductory paragraphs:
It has long been a cliché of liberal discourse that what this country needs is a truly intelligent and sophisticated conservatism to replace the rather primitive, philistine, and often racist conservatism that our history is only too familiar with. This new and desirable conservatism should have a philosophic and literary dimension which would rectify the occasional excesses of liberal ideology. It should even have a nebulous but definitely genteel political dimension, since it is likely that we shall always, at intervals, need a brief interregnum of conservative government whose function it is to consolidate and ratify liberal reforms.The ideal conservative President, from this liberal point of view, should be a Dwight Eisenhower who reads Lionel Trilling instead of paperback Westerns, who listens to chamber music instead of playing golf - but who would be, in all other respects, as inert as the real President Eisenhower was.
What we do not need or want, from this liberal perspective, is a conservatism with strong ideas of its own about economic policy, social policy, or foreign policy - especially if these ideas can pass academic muster and survive intellectual debate. Such a conservatism might actually affect public policy, even become a shaping force in American politics, and this is simply impermissible. The very possibility of such a conservatism is a specter that haunts the liberal imagination and can propel it into frenzies of exorcism.
I've read 20-30 articles defining neoconservatives over the years. They contradict each other and are so vague they are meaningless. This is the first time I feel like I understand the term. Now I can say I'm not one.
A neoconservative is one who is like Wilson on foreign policy, like Johnson/FDR on domestic policy and spending, and like Reagan on defense and taxes (the latter being the extent of their conservative credentials). I find it tragicomic that leftists think neoconservatism is some sort of ultra-conservatism - some leftist groups actually have much in common ideologically.
Liberty to these types is held in much lower regard than order and security, and the Constitution represents mostly a nuisance to their brand of progress. Their belief is that a very strong central government with immense powers is necessary to deal with most domestic matters, and would strongly disagree with Reagan's statement that "government is the problem, not the solution". Though neoconservatives disavow Marxism, they are not aligned against many of its fruits. For example, in their view, Johnson's Great Society should not be rolled back, but only "improved". The New Deal planks should likewise be "updated to reflect the changes in society", and not sent back to hell from whence they came.
However, unlike liberals/leftist-"progressives" neoconservatives *are* pro-America (in terms of political and military power at least), but, at the same time, endorse the notion that international institutions should be embraced and utilized; to a neoconservative, the only thing wrong with the UN is that America doesn't have more clout within it. To the liberal, the only thing wrong with the UN is that America has TOO MUCH clout.
The culture wars are viewed as at best a distraction, though most submit that a minimum of tepid support is required out of political expediency (for the time being). By virtue of scale, international economic integration is viewed positively, while cultural change, even multiculturalism, is accepted, at worst, grudgingly.
While much ado is made about the (overblown) idealogical split between right-libertarians and social conservatives (Burkeans), little attention is paid to the differences that both these groups also have with neoconservatives. Ignoring the existence (and importance) of this group (or worse, integrating it with social conservatives!) seems to be the preferred way of dealing with the issue. To me, it is a distinct species that should be recognized as a political force in much the same way that social conservatives are.
Sorry... Correction!
written by Irving Kristol, not son William!
The entire existence of: the Republican Party, of conservatism, and of the U.S. as a country will soon be over if more amnesty for illegal immigrants does become a reality very soon!
Mark for later...
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.