Posted on 09/26/2002 2:36:29 PM PDT by jstone78
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.
Neo-conservatives are universally pessimistic to the point of being defeatist about the political chances of restoring the American Republic as it was prior to the Roosevelt revolution.
This pessimism I believe derives from the guilt many of the founders of the neo-conservative movement feel about abandoning their original left-wing ideology and with it, their cohorts in crime: FDR, Stalin, Truman, the Communist-run unions and the various mouthpieces for the left such as The Nation and Partisan Review.
The neo-cons want to travel on and forget all the stupid statist infringements on liberty that were perpetrated over the decades by their former heroes.
Never look back. Never even discuss repealing laws which violate not only the Constitution but the fundamental virtues of mankind. "Reform" Social Security, public schools, welfare, campaign finance (to include "paycheck protection" for unionized government employees), the progressive income tax.
But under no circumstances let the debate steer toward repeal of SS, the income tax, public employee unions (or the laws permitting them and protecting unions from anti-trust laws), mandatory attendance laws, etc.
Why not?
Because that's "too extreme" and the public won't stand for it and we'll get tossed out on our keisters.
So the neo-conservatives stick to the tried-and-true gradualism that has worked so well in the past, getting us, little by little, ever closer to the point that no human activity is out of the scope of government control, oversight or monitoring.
You can't turn a battleship on a dime at 30 knots, you have to slow it down first, etc.
Having watched the progress of the slow dissolution of the welfare state over the past 30 years, I can almost share their pessimism. Almost. Not quite.
There's a new generation of Americans, untested in warfare and unskilled in the fine art of politics yet wise beyond their years to the sham of government promises. They are the first generation to question Social Security, the pyramid scheme to end all pyramid schemes. They don't see the justice in being taxed to death to pay for their grandparents' prescription drugs. They have disdain for the one-party system that has dominated our elected offices for over a century. They don't vote because they realize that whoever wins, they lose.
They came of age witnessing the very worst of presidential behavior, from Bush's "read my lips" to Clinton's lies and infidelity, dismissed as "all about sex" by some neo-cons who are even now stonewalling the release of incriminating documents. Let's travel on.
The Berlin Wall came down, the Soviet Union was dissolved, the Peoples Republic of China took over Hong Kong without a shot being fired. The pessimists never thought it possible, just as they don't think we'll ever abolish the IRS or the indoctrination camps known as public schools. A flat tax and vouchers is all they think is needed.
Or maybe neo-conservatives only pretend they don't want to repeal the welfare state but really do, and are reluctant to say so out of fear of being called troglodytes or (the antithesis of any neo-con) -- gasp! -- libertarians.
In which case, their dishonesty is appalling.
Small 'l' libertarians do not advocate initiation of force, but conservatives may.
A true conservative, while respecting constitutional restraints on federal power, might support initiation of force at the state or local level as their constitutions may allow. Or they might use the few enumerated federal powers that allow initiation of force, for example the power to declare war, to initiate force by starting offensive wars.
All true conservatives respect the Constitution and not some 'living' version. It's what they choose to do within it that distinguishes them from one another. And there is quite a bit of room for variation under the Constitution, and not everything constitutional is wise or proper.
First, I believe inkling was quoting exsnook.
Second, neither said "Jews are Israel-first."
Last, religion and nationality do not define a Zionist who by definition is "Israel first".
Regards
J.R.
And all along I assumed you were an American. In what country do you claim citizenship?
Regards
J.R.
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.