Posted on 08/12/2002 5:48:59 AM PDT by sauropod
This is the proper definition of the word.
Since I was once a lefty who "saw the light," if you will, and became conservative, I am by definition a neoconservative. David Horowitz is a neocon. Even Dr. Thomas Sowell is a neocon. He used to be a Marxist just like Horowitz used to be.
A lot of disdain is shown here for the so-called "neocon." Let it continue, please. As for this "neocon" not being really a conservative, let's just say that I don't prove negatives. I can only tell you what I am as opposed to what I am not.
But if this makes you and others feel better about yourselves, let it ride.
They'd rather have the whole loaf or none at all - if they can't have it all, they'd rather be schismatics who insure that the libs take the whole wad, rather than settle for partial measures or half-steps.
Stupid sniping from the sidelines about who is and isn't a conservative - how about we argue about this junk after the libs are run off the field?
If this is true then "Old-conservatives" are old-racists.
Or is that too general of a statement for anyone??
It makes it kind of hard for me to find someone to agree with, but easy to find someone to blame.
tcostell
Reagan recognized that we needed a "big government" to fight world communism. He also recognized that there were some things big government did well -- like fight a highly technological war. And he realized that having government engineering social policy was idiotic.
And Ronald Reagan was a better "conservative" than any paleocon nitwit that ever lived.
Cincinatus
Thank you both for summing up the neo/paelo nonsense that is used by some to justify their positions and denigrate everyone else's. Labels mean nothing. I can tell a liberal without a label and I don't buy this 'my way or no way' defeatist attitude some cling to while pinning their pointless little labels on everyone. If you need a name tag to know who you are, you aren't ready for hardball politics.
THANK YOU! I forgot to mention Reagan in my previous post.
It's like this. Man is imperfect, and by extension, any philosophy that the imperfect man creates is by definition imperfect.
Therefore, I will subscribe to no man's dogma. But these types who say that they are the true conservatives are just as dogmatic and rigid in their mindset as the dyed-in-the-wool Leftists are in theirs.
I reject such rigidity of thought out of hand.
If I escaped the mental plantation of the RATS, what makes anyone think that I'm going to enslave my mind yet again to another ideology?
I don't think so. I'm a free-thinker who views issues through the lenses of free (fair) trade, deregulation, tremendously less taxation, overwhelmingly strong defense, and liberty. How to attain these are up for debate to me, but apparently not for others. To them, it's their way or the highway.
Real conservatism is not so simple minded, and never has been. Traditionalism is part of conservatism, and an important part. But that is hardly the whole story.
I much prefer Russel Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles to the shallow description of conservatism above.
One of the problems with conservatism today is that it continually attacks "Neo-conservatism," but fails to define it the same way twice. The term originally referred to a clique of predominantly Jewish Democrats from New York who switched their political affiliation to the Republican Party primarily over the issues of strong national defense and anti-communism. These days the term is tossed around to label anyone judged insufficiently conservative - a variable definition, dependent on the frame of reference of the accuser.
Let me say this for those that are apparently hard of hearing, WE'RE NOT THE FRINGE!!!! We are the ones that keep the party going, the ones that still hold to what it is to be a conservative, and not planning on giving any ground. Unfortunately there are many true conservatives that are willing to vote for the lesser of two evils just because they dislike Democrats more than they dislike the Republican being offered to them. Look at the Republicans of today and compare them to the Republicans of 20 or even 40 years ago. Then compare them to the Democrats of a century and a half ago (that's the line today's Republican comes from, not the Socialist Whig Republicans of the latter half of the 19th century). Every year conservatives give more and more ground and it's about time it stops. You can hardly tell the parties apart except for a few fiscal policies
WRONG! I'm not separating myself from anything like that. But those of you who would love to hurl that term around as an insult, feel free. All I can do is laugh.
Well besides being an inane comment yes it is too general
Ouch! But you know, I could make that argument. I won't though, since in 2002 it's nothing more than shibboleth.
It's not worth the energy or space.
I don't think the labels are important, but I think there are some core issues that are, and those issues are going to be divisive along those lines.
Is FDR's "blank check" interpretation of the Commerce Clause wrong? Are we ultimately shooting ourselves in the foot by saying "Well, it isn't really right, but as long as we've got it, let's try and use it to our advantage."?
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.