Posted on 08/12/2002 5:48:59 AM PDT by sauropod
Several years ago, I noticed the term "neo-conservative" come into frequent use. I have grown to hate this word because it gives people who bear the term false credentials as true conservatives.
To me, true conservatives fit the description of what used to be called the "Old Right." These "new conservatives" present nothing that reflects the ideas of the "Old Right," or traditional conservatism. Neo-conservatives see nothing wrong with big, centralized government, as long as they, the neo-conservatives, are in charge instead of liberal Democrats. That's like saying, "It would be okay if America was ruled by a dictator, as long as I was the dictator, because I would surely be a benevolent dictator." But you can't count on the next guy to be benevolent. It's asinine.
There is a saying: "Conservatives never conserved anything." In most ways the saying is true. Leading neo-conservatives of today have very moderate stances when it comes to traditional values concerning marriage, sexual mores, immigration, taxation, property rights, limited government, and religion. These people claim to be leaders in the conservative faction of politics. Quite frankly, if you were to put their views and ideas on paper and lay them beside the views and ideas of a liberal Democrat, you would have a hard time telling which ideas were the liberal Democrat's and which came from the neo-conservatives.
Neo-conservatives are in reality neo-socialists, for they cloak their big government socialism in the ideas of big business and they believe that big, centralized government is okay as long as "conservatives" run it. They are the front men for large corporations. They tout capitalism, but in reality they are advocates of mercantilism. This is a close cousin to the state-controlled economies of communist countries. Yes, those economies: the ones that all failed miserably.
What we have in neo-conservatives is a bunch of liberals who are "pretenders to the throne" of conservatism. Real conservatism is actually traditionalism. In that sense, I am not a conservative, but a traditionalist. A "Southern Traditionalist" to be exact. I cling to the ideals and values of our colonial forefathers, and the people of the South who dared stand against Lincoln and the forces of centralization and mercantilism. These new false conservatives can mouth their platitudes and claim to be for tradition all they want. But when their kind continues to expand federal power, to limit our freedoms and liberties, and to accept as normal the perversions that go on in our society, they had best keep in mind that traditionalists like myself see through this façade, and we have had enough. Our numbers are growing, and we no longer believe we have to vote for false conservatives as the "lesser of two evils."
The loud booming voices of neo-conservatism are false prophets. It is like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain of neo-conservatism and you will see not a conservative, but a socialist. Is it any wonder that many of today's noted neo-conservatives are "former" leftists of the 1960's, or had parents who were members of the Communist Party, USA? Don't two of the Republican's big "conservatives," Orin Hatch of Utah and John McCain of Arizona, spend much of their time "in bed" with Ted Kennedy? When Mississippi's "conservative" Trent Lott was majority leader in the U.S. Senate, did he push a conservative agenda? (The answer, of course, is a very loud "NO.") What has the "arch-conservative" John Ashcroft done since becoming Attorney General? With his help, we are headed toward a police state.
Off hand, the only real conservative, or traditionalist, I see on the national scene is Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. People like him deserve our support. The socialists in neo-conservative clothing need to be spurned. I would rather "throw my vote away" on an independent or third-party candidate and sleep well at night because I didn't contribute to the continuing downfall of our lost republic by voting for a neo-conservative/socialist, than choose "the lesser of two evils" and know that I voted into office someone who was going to go for my wallet and stab me in the back as if he were a common street mugger.
Neo-conservatives are really neo-socialists. True conservatives/traditionalists should denounce these frauds. Just as the original definition of the word "liberal" no longer applies in our society, "conservative" doesn't mean what it used to, not when it comes out of the mouths of the political phonies that man the barricades of the Republican Party. I'm not a neo-conservative, or even a conservative. They've ruined that word. I am a Traditionalist. I hope all who love their freedom, fear God, and know what we have lost, will step up and put on the Traditionalist mantle to help separate themselves from the pretenders who think we will vote for them this election year because they believe we have nowhere else to turn.
© 2002 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted)
Southern nationalists, state's rightists, secessionists and segregationists could make a case that they are "conservative," but surely one can't reduce "conservatism" or "traditionalism" to such ideas, which on the whole seem more radical than anything else.
Break up the country and all bets are off: there is no more "American conservatism," only various tribalisms and sectional chauvinisms. The South has played a role in American conservatism in recent generations (as different regions have at different times in our history), but breaking up the country simply puts an end to that role along with the country.
Opposition to centralization is a laudable cause, but some of those who have claimed to be most opposed to it have been local barons who promote "centralization" within their own realms and just don't want to lose power to those outside. Our liberties have also been threatened by state and local governments as well as federal.
Devolution of power to lower levels is not a bad idea. It may be an idea whose time has come, but this childish confederatism and abuse of important American traditions simply drags down that cause. Lincoln will be controversial for some time, but if one doesn't accept Washington's desire for a closer union and a stronger nation than the Articles of Confederation allowed, one doesn't have much of an insight into what American conservatism means. It isn't simply anti-state radicalism or hatred of the federal government.
There will always be a tension in American political thought between different views of the relationship between the states and the federal government. But it's important to recognize that this tension is more than a "good guys, bad guys" thing.
It's also clear that "neo-cons" and "paleo-cons" are very small and ambitious groups. Once it might have been natural to define oneself as a "paleo-con" in opposition to a defined neo-conservative clique. Today it's clear that paleos are another little ambitious clique with their own little orthodoxy, that few can accept as a whole.
And that paleo orthodoxy looks more like a feel good mishmash more than anything else. Throw together social conservative localism and libertarian anti-statism and you may have a mixture that pleases people. But you also have a self-contradictory recipe for conflict between local control social conservatives and ultralibertarian free marketeers. Either you see this now or you'll wake up to it later.
I'm sure you intended this to be scythe-like sarcasm but you asking what bona fide conservatism contributed to Reagan's victory in '80 and landslide victory in '84 comes across as high comedy.
But hey, if you are satisfied with winning the occasional squeaker thats fine, stick with the party of Bob Dole.
Mean minded? What the heck is that? Paranoid? Not really. I see the general government not as a manufacturer of black helicopters but one that slowly creeps into our lives more every day. Pessimistic? Hardly. I see a hope for our Republic yet we must give up certain 'rights', one namely the 17th Amendment, and return the power to the states where it belongs. Having a bunch of sheep vote for Senators based on 30 second blurbs without knowing the stance of said Senators is the ignorant move.
I see a vision of this nation with a government that has specific laid out powers. Seems to me the Founders of this nation did as well. The rest of the powers were reserved for the states, but we had a war over that didn't we? You Hamiltonians, Whigs, 'compassionate' Republicans, apparently know better than the rest of us. You know we need a strong centralized government to 'take care' of the general public, when in fact the very Constitution you pretend to observe and protect rallies against this ever happening as it did in Great Britain over 200 years ago
Spot on!! But of course you know all these Acts will 'sunset' and we won't have to worry about that. And I've got this beautiful bridge for sale.... Problem is that once the general government tastes the power in every other instance the power has stood in the general government's court
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.