It's interesting to see how terms have been bastardized by both ends of the political spectrum. Democrats (read: socialists) hijacked the term "liberal" and have bestowed upon it ideas (e.g. promoting and glorifying the WELfare State) that would be anathema to classical liberals.
Likewise, Repubicans have hijacked the term "conservative" and have bestowed upon it ideas that would be anathema to old Right conservatives (e.g. promoting and glorifying the WARfare State).
I've observed that most FReepers are clueless about the how/why/when this hijacking occurred. As a result, they are dumbfounded when a "conservative" candidate they elected votes for such things as a bigger budget for the Department of Education ... or the federalization of private employees.
There is no need to be dumbfounded if one understands that the "conservative" candidate is really a neo-conservative (read: not a real conservative), who also believes in a welfare state:
In his 1995 book, Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, Kristol announced what it (neo-conservatism) means to him:
Neoconservatives even proudly admit their takeover of the word "conservative." In his 1996 book entitled The Essential Neoconservative Reader, editor Mark Gerson jubilantly observed:
Most Republicans are neo-conservatives now ... and many don't even know it. Bush is a neo-con. Rush is a neo-con. A lot of the icons of the so-called Right are neo-cons. And as long as the grassroots is duped into voting for these neo-cons dressed up as conservatives, they're going to see more expansion of government ... and more victories for the welfare State.
As a libertarian I still get my share of flames (druggie, criminal, libertopian, etc.). So you have nothing to fear. Besides, as you folks always say: we're "one-percenters"--so why are you worried?
|
|
WOW! How much has FR changed in the 7 days you've been a member? |
Home of
|
||||||||
|
|||||
|
You're almost contradicting yourself, dude. The newbies are the ones who're dragging the place down in the first place. I mean, hell, look at me.
Whaddya mean by "more right-winged view"? I haven't noticed anybody (except flamers) having a problem with me saying I don't like flamers... for example... No shortage of gun-lovers around here. No shortage of homeschoolers. No shortage of folks who think Harry Potter is the Anti-Christ.
The fact is that, even though you stick a "conservative", "liberal", "libertarian", or whatever label on someone based on their view of one issue or the way they voted in one election, it doesn't preclude that person from holding any view they want on any other issue they want. Show me two conservatives who agree with each other 100% on every single piece of policy in this country. Show me two anybodys who agree totally. You can't.
With that said, I think it's a good thing that there are many people here willing to forego the web site's stated status quo of "grassroots conservativism" and speak their mind. FF578, if you don't like the fact that some people have taken issue with some of your public posts and comments, then go somewhere else, or have strictly private coversations via email or Freepmail with like-minded folks and continue preaching to the choir. Meanwhile, liberals like me and libertarians like NYpeanut will continue to butt heads with the conservatives and reinforce or reshape our own beliefs. Ain't the Internet great?
Conservative issues are cutting taxes, cutting the government to the bone, destroying PC and affirmative action, controlling the borders, providing school choice, maintaining firearms freedoms and a strong defense coupled with support for strong local law enforcement. These are the true conservative issues.
Libertarians have most of it down pretty well. I only disagree with open borders.
It is clear at this point that their liberal/Neo-con views are affecting the content of FR.
Just 6 months ago, FR was a political powerhouse, but it has quickly wilted into a PTA Koffee Klatch.