Why Neo-Conservatives Are not Real Conservatives

I have always tried to figure out how real conservatives differ from neo-conservatives. I have listed a few points, with which you should feel free to agree or disagree with, and if you like, you can mention other ways in which you feel real conservatives and neocons differ.

1. Real conservatives (whether Old Rightists or New Rightists) are motivated by high moral principles and deep conviction, that the role of government in people's lives should be minimized, and people should be allowed to run their own lives. But Neo-conservatives are actually liberals and Marxists who pretend to be conservatives, and are motivated by nothing more than opportunism and hypocrisy, and have no moral principles worthy of mention.

2. Heros of real conservatives include individuals such as Gen. Douglass McArthur, Gen. George S. Patton, former Sen. Robert Taft, Robert E. Lee, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Alan Keyes. Heros of the neo-cons include Harry Truman, FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Leon Trotsky, Nelson Rockefeller, Henry "Scoop" Jackson, and Sen. John McCain.

3. Real conservatives always put the interests of America first, ahead of other nations. They also believe that institutions not elected by American voters, have no right to make decisions affecting the lives of Americans. But neo-conservatives support globalization, mass immigration, the WTO, the United Nations, and most other forms of globalism.

4. Real Conservatives often win elections on fundamental moral and constitutional issues like defending the lives of the unborn, the restoration of school prayer, the right of ordinary citizens in a democracy to defend themselves through protection of Second Ammendment rights, and the rebuilding of the Christian foundation that made America a great nation. Neo-cons win elections on materialistic issues like government entitlements, tax privileges for some, and whining about the dangers of the "religious right" and other "extremists" in an attempt to discredit real conservatives.

5. Real conservatives oppose New Deal policies which resulted in big government. Neo-Conservatives support the New Deal.

6. Real conservatives oppose political correctness and victimology. But neo-conservatives are the greatest promoters of victim politics in America, as a result of finger-pointing habits they developed when they were still marxists and liberals. Neo-cons are fond of slandering their enemies using liberal buzz words such as "sexist", "racist", "anti-semitic", "homophobe", "isolationist", "bigot", "nativist", "xenophobe", etc.

In 1981, neo-conservative attack dogs ganged up and destroyed a prominent Southern conservative, the late M. E. Bradford. Bradford, a highly distinguished scholar, had been nominated by Ronald Reagan to be chair of the NEH, and smears by vicious and hateful neo-conservatives forced Ronald Reagan to withdraw the nomination. Many other real conservative scholars and columnists have had their reputations destroyed by hateful and vindictive neo-conservatives. Ironically, one common smear used by neo-cons, the "anti-semitic" smear, disregards the fact that many defenders of the old right are Jewish. Men like the late Murray Rothbard, Howard Phillips, and Paul Gottfried are strong defenders of old fashioned conservatism.

7. Liberals and Marxists hate old fashioned conservatives, whether in America or Europe, because they see real conservatives as a huge obstacle to the imposition of their socialist one-world agenda. Have you all noticed how European conservatives who oppose the European Union and the EU's liberal immigration policy are treated by the media? On the other hand, Liberals, Socialists, and Marxists, love neo-conservatives, whom they see as allies. Maybe the "ex-liberal" and "ex-Marxist" labels that neo-conservatives are often given, are nothing more than a sham (i.e. the "ex" part).

8. There is broad intellectual diversity among real conservatives, and they express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Some are Old Rightists, while others are New Rightists. Some are paleo-libertarians who are very anti-statist, while others are less hostile to the state. Some support Israel, while others do not. Some support free trade, while others are protectionist. Some want the IRS abolished entirely, while others favor reform of the IRS. But almost all oppose New Deal policies, and are strict constructionists in the various ways they interpret the US Constitution. Neo-cons on the other hand, do not tolerate dissent in their ranks, and all match in lockstep. The dictatorial nature of neo-conservatism can be traced to the authoritarian style of one old neo-con hero, Leon Trotsky.

Maybe it's about time to simplify things.

--A Republican is for tax cuts first and never criticizes Bush. Lott is a Republican.
--A RINO is for abortion first and never criticizes Kerry. McCain is a RINO.
--A Neo-Con is for Israel first and never criticizes Sharon. Kristol is a Neo-con.
--A Conservative is for America first and criticizes both Bush and Sharon. Buchanan is a Conservative.

While I may not agree with Irving Kristol's conservative philosophy all the time, its better to have him in the conservative camp then attacking the current conservative Republican leadership, holding court in the WH and HoR. I can't say the same for Bill Kristol and his spitball antics. Although, lately BillK has been mild in his public opposition to the Bush agenda. I think Freddy Barnes might be instrumental in keeping BillK in line. If I remember correctly Irving Kristol, his wife Gertrude Himmelfarb and his fellow neocon's, were big supporters of Ronald Reagan and even managed to get one of their own into the Reagan administration. That would be Jeane Kirkpatrick.

Yes, I knew about Burnham. Reagan gave him an award before he passed away.

Specifically, Reagan presented Burnham with the Medal of Freedom. This was a couple of years after the stroke which forced Burnham's retirement. And thanks for the book recommendations, too!

If I remember correctly Irving Kristol, his wife Gertrude Himmelfarb and his fellow neocon's, were big supporters of Ronald Reagan and even managed to get one of their own into the Reagan administration. That would be Jeane Kirkpatrick.

Jeane Kirkpatrick held specific rank in the Reagan Administration, of course, but Reagan, if I recall, was known to call upon Kristol's counsel every so often. Kristol and company had also found sympathetic ears and space at The American Spectator, who frequently published both their works and those of their children (like John Podhoretz and William Kristol). In those years, the American Spectator was one incredibly engaging journal with the kind of wit and thinkability that people associated with the original National Review, but the Spectator was more like National Review's randier cousin.

As for Bill Kristol's spitball antics, I concur. It is quite possible to critique the present Republican leadership without shooting spitballs and trying to pass them off as wit or quickthink. Spitballs belong in baseball games (yes, I favour legalising the pitch - which, contrary to the mythology, is not a dangerous pitch), not political discourse. As for Fred Barnes keeping Bill Kristol in line, well, somebody's got to...

I know there are a few interpretive definitions of what a neoconservative is. By true definition, the word neoconservative means: "a former liberal espousing political conservatism"

I always thought that "neo-X" meant "new," or "newly arrived to X." The term neo-Natzi is applied, for instance, to those subsribing to the platform and ideology of the Natzis but after the WWII.

Nowhere does the prefix "neo" imply the initial point of the jorney. A neo-conservative could've been previously a liberal, a person entirely indifferent social issues, etc.

Great post. While I would fall under the 'Old' Right, as you say, I agree with the 'New' Right that a government that governs best governs least. No group of people of any size is going to agree one hundred percent of the time.

Hitchens, although I'm not fond of his politics, is one heck of a writer.

I've admired Hitchens's writing style for years. As for his politics, well, I haven't any taste for socialism, but this much should be said in fairness: if you can conceive of such an animal, Christopher Hitchens as socialists go is actually a pretty conservative one...which probably drove some of his former employers (like the diapersoakers at The Nation, for example) to the rye bottle...

Maybe it's about time to simplify things.
--A Republican is for tax cuts first and never criticizes Bush. Lott is a Republican.
--A RINO is for abortion first and never criticizes Kerry. McCain is a RINO.
--A Neo-Con is for Israel first and never criticizes Sharon. Kristol is a Neo-con.
--A Conservative is for America first and criticizes both Bush and Sharon. Buchanan is a Conservative.

Okay, so I am beyond labeling. That works for me!

They wouldn't exactly be the only such animals, of course. But the fact that they might see themselves as working for freedom by way of the left makes them somewhere beyond the standard run of the left, who speak of only too many things ahead of freedom and, indeed, speak of freedom often enough as an encumbrance if they think it means an impediment to things like "justice" or "diversity" or "equality" or "economic balance" or pick your favourite leftist buzzwords. Still, I look forward to finding and reading Why Orwell Matters. Even if it turns out only to keep with my policy of knowing what my real or prospective adversary might be thinking.

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.