Posted on 03/22/2014 11:42:15 AM PDT by Kaslin
How about we hire Americans, at American companies, which make things for sale in America?
Just saying.
I pass water from a great height on the flat rock of “neo-conservatism”, which is neither of those things. It is as old as the Tower of Babel, and is as conservative as Brave New World.
As usual— another great post by Kaslin.
For myself, I must confess considerable fealty to neoconservatism.
I think the article paints the compromises in too dark of tones and I certainly do not think neoconservatism endorses big government.
I do think the unspecified conservative absolutists have no empirical record or standard. Even the Reagan pretenders concede a vast array of empirical shortfalls on contemporary demands for “true conservatism.”
I do think ethically minded capitalism can reduce poverty. It still shocks me how conservative absolutists refuse to acknowledge that the height of Republican congressional power in the late 1990s successfully bent the trajectory of government and Great Society programs toward the most successful empirical reductions in poverty and the deficit SIMULTANEOUSLY.
The dearth of defense for empirical Republican successes and the fawning over untried conservative absolutism is disheartening.
I have railed to no great end on FR about the golden conservative unicorns that supposedly ride in vast herds throughout the American electorate.
On a more practical note, I think Ted Cruz is America’s best option for 2016.
But frankly, I expect that even he will be torn down by Paulites and absolutists within locales such as FR.
I hope I am wrong about that .
But clearly Cruz’s dad and the heritage of escaping Cuba cannot allow the neo-isolationist demands of current faux conservatism. It will be an interesting dilemma going forward between Paul and Cruz.
Next old Bill will be trying to say the Tea Party are really neo=cons. :-)
What's that doing in there, Kerwick?
Actually the article is not about Bill Kristol, but his father.
It has been reported, on fairly credible authority, that George W. Bush's Second Inaugural Address was actually scripted by a Neocon writer. In order to highlight the real foreign policy issues involved, I put the last former President's remarks, paragraph by paragraph in juxtaposition with the appropriate passages from George Washington's Farewell Address [George Washington vs. George W. Bush.]
Again the Neocon movement is neither new nor Conservative. It goes against some of the most basic principles of American Conservatism.
William Flax
In that definition what I am being told is that folks like W. Krystol and G. Will and a bunch of other DC Bozos want me to foot the bill for their guilt alleviation...... No thanks very much
Maybe it still is.
What do you think Bill Kristol is?
Who remembers back in the early 2000’s, the Weekly Standard was openly cheering big government and deficit spending?
They called it “national greatness conservatism.” They were cooing that the era of conservatives trying to shrink gov’t was over, so we could focus on more important things like starting unnecessary wars to democratize Muslims and throwing open the borders to anyone and everyone.
Neocons lately have been making more of a serious effort to pretend to be conservative on domestic issues, or at least shutting up about them. Don’t be fooled. If Jeb were to become President, the mask would slip and they would be up to the same old tricks.
I disagree with your conclusion but I do like your web page on this question and the analysis that accompanies it.
The comparison between Washington and Bush is fascinating.
Ease up on the scary stories. I'm having lunch here.
Simple definition of what a neocon is...
A former moderate liberal who likes to use american power, especially the military to push american style democracy across the globe...
They joined the republican party because the democrats hate the military...
Kristol Sr. was a New Deal Democrat before he, like many other, defaulted to the Republican side after the Socialists took over the party in the 60’s. They were never samll “C” conservatives. Jean Kirkpatrick was another.
I can do without the socialist programs. Thanks.
Just curious, which tribe do you belong to?
Like “liberal” which has been robbed of its meaning, “conservatism” can have more than one meaning as its commonly used.
I think of myself as part of a classic liberal tradition, rooted in a Biblical worldview. In my opinion, that also describes the Founders and probably most of what we call constitutional conservatives.
Whether that is “conservative” or “paleo” or “neo-conservative” or “radical” as the terms are bandied about depends on the case at hand and the eye of the beholder.
“Classic liberal” constitutionalists don’t always agree with one another on foreign policy; when do you act and when do you take a step back is not always clear to everyone at the same time. But there is a kind of consistency that comes from clarity of principle.
“I think the article paints the compromises in too dark of tones and I certainly do not think neoconservatism endorses big government.”
Well said.
I will take Reagan, Cruz, Palin neoconservatism over Paul, Buchanan libertarianism or paleo in the majority of instances.
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.