Neo-Conservatives are not Conservatives

Sierra Times ^ | August 12, 2002 | Jeff Adams

[11th Earl of Mar]

Paleo-Cons and paleo-libs are working to build bridges to topple the current ruling elite

Well said. You get the gold star.

You just gave the reason why so many people, including myself, despise the Perot/Buchanan type polititians.

They want to 'wreck the system' and hope they can make something good from the rubble. And they are willing to make any compromise to make it happen. [Examples: Pat Buchanan teaming up with Lenora Fulani and asking pro-choice Jimmy Hoffa to be his running mate. Or certain freepers supporting Traficant, in spite of his liberal voting record and his conviction on fraud charges.]

[MainStreetConservative]

>"Paleo-con" is a euphemism for "grumpy".

And why in the world should paleocons not be grumpy?

We see every day the debasement of the term "conservative" to grace an agenda which FDR would have felt comfortable with. I do not think it wrong of them to take this amiss.

An acquaintance said to me recently that he had lived to see an America in which many Christian churches preached doctrine that would have been utterly incomprehensible in any Christian congregation, of any denomination, in his boyhood town.

In like manner, self-described conservatism is changing in ways which are rendering it unrecognizable to people who, by the definitions used fifty years ago, were conservatives as then commonly understood.

I don't propose to allow to start yet *another* unproductive, interminable terminological battle over who-is-and-who-is-not-a-true-conservative; simply to note that stances associated with the term have changed over time, sometimes very markedly.

[Torie]

Quiz time: name one paleo con that holds federal office.

[sauropod]

Re: Post # 147 and several others":

Sorry to disturb you out of your slumber with my "paranoia."

Pleasant dreams. 'Pod

[sauropod]

re: post #137. A thoughtful post. Let me try to address a few of your points: Generally, i cannot say that I approve of laws that make "sodomy" illegal as there is no way to enforce them for every occurrence.

I DO favor a law that says sodomy is illegal to be practiced in the street or on children etc.

Perhaps I do differ than most socio-cons. I would tell you though, that our current Family Law does nothing but destroy family values and I do think that "family values" are A Good Thing.

You nailed it w/ your 1st sentence regarding my ostracism point.

AFA voting for a candidate that wants to make Sodomy illegal, you could certainly do that (as is your right). Whether it is hypocritical would depend on several things. 1) Are you a single issue voter? 2) is this the only thing that you and the candidate differ on? etc.

AFA Enimem and other crap like Murphy Brown is concerned, I would say that Gubbermint has no business regulating this, but Society does have a vested interest in opposing propaganda like this. I oppose it at every opportunity.

TV is dangerous for the slop it spews out. I have 2 young children. Let me tell ya, you become really attuned with what is being force-fed the kids once you have 'em.

Thanks again for your thoughtful post! 'Pod

[sauropod]

My answer is that there should be equal treatment under the law, yet there is not. 'Pod

[billbears]

Yeah well, 40 years ago most blacks didn't vote. Today they vote almost completely en banc for Democrats. In other words, the Democrats got handed roughly 11 percent points on average in the nation

So because the Democratic party has taken over most of the black vote, conservatives are to soften their stance on the issues to win back some of that vote?

(I'm in no way wanting to take anyway anyone's voting rights.) Just stating facts. You can't act like the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the New Deal, the Great Society, and the New Frontier never happen. Would you rather the GOP nominate Herbert Hoover's ghost and lose every single election?

No you cannot act like those didn't happen. But instead of embracing the New Deal and Great Society as good things, touch that 'third rail' of politics. It's got to be done sooner or later, and for the posterity of this generation and for my future childrens' lives, grab hold of it and break it down!! The original intent of the Founders was that running for political office was not meant to be some kind of popularity contest yet that is exactly what it has turned into. The people elect the lesser of two evils. Except for a scant handful of elections within the last 20 years, everytime I stepped into the booth I told myself I was voting for the lesser of two evils. And within 20 years it has only gotten worse. No more. I will vote only for the fiscally conservative candidate, but they must be morally conservative as well. If they can't hold up, well I won't vote for that person. I will vote my conscience. I will not vote for a pro-abortion, anti-gun 'conservative' no matter what the outcome. If that makes me 'fringe' well heck, I guess I have too much of my ancestors' pride and blood in me to know any different

[sauropod]

Re: Post No. 154. Fairly Randian of them, wouldn't you say?

[sauropod]

""Paleo-con" is a euphemism for "grumpy". "

I resemble that remark. 'Pod

[sauropod]

RE: post # 184. Bob Barr?

[Torie]

Is Barr a protect our Southern heritage, isolationist, protectionist, prop up failing old economy industries, cultural warrior type? I don't think so. He is more or a bit bull take no prisoners prosecutor type, with a bit of libertarianism mixed in.

[Snuffington]

So is conservatism in America now a debate between rival ideologues?

[billbears]

Is Barr a protect our Southern heritage, isolationist, protectionist, prop up failing old economy industries, cultural warrior type?

Clarify please. I daresay you are not suggesting that Southern heritage has anything to do with the other qualifiers you have mentioned. If so, you are sadly mistaken and the proof is easily attainable to suggest otherwise.

[Torie]

I am using the paleo con parameters that are used on that ideology test site. You know the one I mean, where of the 10 ideologies number one for me was neocon, and number 9 or 10 was paleo con. What is interesting about it all is that this suggests that these two wings of conservatism really can't do much business together. Cheers.

[Senator Pardek]

BHar - at least someone has a sense of humor here!

[KC Burke]

So is conservatism in America now a debate between rival ideologues?

I think conservatism in America is not nearly as navel-gazing as the typical poster to our forum or the typical conservative political writer of any flavor.

Thanks for your link to my post at #30. R. Kirk points out that he was refered to as a Neo Conservative in the 50s...albeit by the America First crowd and the Taft gangs left over from the first half of the century.

While the younger Kristol wears the mantle proudly, few are as self-promoting as he. Is Horowitz a NeoCon? Who cares as long as he keeps writing as prolifically and speaking as voraciously as he has.

I saw this thread earlier today prior to your first post and frankly, I'm a little weary of discussing mere labels. Perhaps, if we had an issue other than the Big NeoCon Three (Big Government isn't All Bad, Globalism is Our Friend, and Projecting Power is Fun) to define NeoConservatism beyond the application of power while in office as a conservative...say a real thought process, I would delve into it. But honestly, they bore me.

[Texasforever]

Ronald Reagan is a neo-conservative.

[foreverfree]

bump for later

[x]

Your analysis of paleoconservatism is right. It's too much a mixture of libertarianism and social conservatism. It's just a grumpy way of mouthing off and feeling good about one's rejection of what currently exists. "Paleoconservatism" celebrates freedom against the federal government, but not against state governments. It can't decide if it's for individual freedom or for morality and tradition, so it fudges the question. If paleos got the power to change things, the more libertarian and the more moralist elements would immediately start fighting each other.

The high visibility paleos have come to put the cart before the horse, demanding fragmentation of the country or some kind of devolution of power as a prelude to greater freedom and morality. In fact it's a diversion, a red herring. It's a bit like other conservatives who tell us that we don't have to worry about immigration if we can just abolish the welfare state. Dismantling the welfare state looks like a much harder job than reforming immigration policy. Similarly, taking the country apart looks like a harder job than reducing federal budget or bureaucracy or promoting moral conduct. But there is a certain logic: split up the country and will all have our hands full dealing with the consequences and little time for other things.

This isn't true though:

"Social conservative" is a contradiction in terms, and people who proudly wear that label are hypocrites.

"Social conservatism" is conservatism. It's the old fundamental or traditionalist preservation of social institutions and rules. It's the ur-conservatism, love it or hate it. It's libertarian or free market conservatism that is the hybrid form. That doesn't make free market conservatism illegitmate, and indeed, it seems more popular than older "throne and altar" or Catholic peasant or Calvinist-Puritan conservatisms, but it's a wise child who can recognize its father, and a wise student of politics who gives credit where it's due.