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.
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 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.
Well Said!