Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Neo-Conservatives Are not Real Conservatives
self

Posted on 09/26/2002 2:36:29 PM PDT by jstone78

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-313 next last
To: jstone78
Excellent post. Run for office!
21 posted on 09/26/2002 2:52:01 PM PDT by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
I think the "NEO" label has been done to death and is pointless.

I have repeatedly questioned such usage. One is either a Conservative--i.e., interested in preserving what he considers essential to his heritage--or he is not. Calling one a neo-Conservative, should imply that he has newly come to Conservatism. It makes no sense to apply it to one who is not interested in preserving his Country's traditions. Indeed, in such a sense, it can only be misleading.

The fact that some Leftists, today, may seek to hide under a "Conservative" umbrella--they got a good scare, when Reagan was elected--is beside the point. We should not adopt or accept the usage. Words are important, and you should never just accept your enemy's distorted definitions.

Beyond that, it is essential that we always look beyond any label, whatever the source, to analyze what is actually involved in any proposal, or in any issue. Magic words, shibboleths and slogans, are the techniques of demagogues. The effective Conservative should always have in mind a dynamic image of the interrelationships of ideas, facts--both of the present and past--and the potential effect of those ideas and facts on all components of the social order. Understanding the dynamics behind alternative paths and positions is essential in both promoting sound thinking and in exposing the fallacies of the Left, etc..

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

22 posted on 09/26/2002 2:52:44 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: StopDemocratsDotCom
#5...Biblically represents the Christian age---Kingdom coming!

#6...satan---already here!

#7...What we started with!

My trendition...

Creation/God...REFORMATION(Judeo-Christianity)---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc-religion/rhetoric)...

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-America---

23 posted on 09/26/2002 2:54:21 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jstone78
Well done, thanks,

If you want to see magazine contrasts - For Conservatism read The American Conservative that Buchanan launched at the National Press Club Wednesday. For Neo-Con read Kristol's Weekly Standard.

24 posted on 09/26/2002 2:54:48 PM PDT by ex-snook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inkling
It's rather simple; do you wish to conserve your local idenity (your state, your county, your town, your neighborhood) or do wish to 'conserve' some national identity which is currently defined by centralized government, foreign wars, heavily regulated Consitutional rights, federal police forces, July 4, Walmart and McDonalds.
25 posted on 09/26/2002 2:55:23 PM PDT by JohnGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jstone78
I think neo-conservatives should more appropriately be referred to as pseudo-conservatives.

I think jstone78 should referred to as an idiot.

26 posted on 09/26/2002 2:56:12 PM PDT by Cable225
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
Don't forget, neo-cons can now read the New Republic.
27 posted on 09/26/2002 2:56:16 PM PDT by JohnGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jstone78
This is one area needing lots and lots more discussion -- November 6, 2002 would be the perfect time to revisit this topic. Right now, we need to focus on removing as many Democrats as possible in this upcoming election.
28 posted on 09/26/2002 2:56:45 PM PDT by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
"Religious right" conservatives, who try to impose their religious beliefs on people who don't share them, by means of government force, are hard-core pseudo-conservative.

I agree. Before I read your post, I was going to say that I guess I am a real conservative except for point #4. So, I'm 6 for 7.

29 posted on 09/26/2002 2:57:09 PM PDT by stanz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
OK a litmus test. I dig tests.

1. Do you agree with FDR's New Deal interpretation of the commerce clause, and all subsequent government powers/court rulings that have sprung from it?

I oppose anything FDR ever did just as a matter of principle.

2. There is a hypothetical election with no Democratic or third party candidates. The person who wins the Republican nomination wins the election. The candidates for nomination are Ron Paul and George Bush. Who do you vote for?

Call me a 'bot but Bush is my man.

3. Would you approve of a law that forced Congress to cite a specifically enumerated constitutional power before it can pass a law? Also, apply this to every law already on the books.

(1) Yes I would. Every legal imposition upon the American people should be justified Constitutionally. (2) BWAAAHAHAHA...

Score?

30 posted on 09/26/2002 2:57:22 PM PDT by maxwell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jstone78
Well, this attitude should really help you "real conservatives" put together the electoral margins needed for victory - yessirree, Bob.

I note you have Reagan on your list - but unlike you, I remember the '80s, and how you and the rest of the bluenosed crowd treated him - and it was shabby.

31 posted on 09/26/2002 2:57:34 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
...I mean 7 for 8.
32 posted on 09/26/2002 2:58:30 PM PDT by stanz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: maxwell
2/3. Not bad.
33 posted on 09/26/2002 2:59:09 PM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
What does this "5" thing mean?

I think it refers to "the fifth column."

34 posted on 09/26/2002 2:59:10 PM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
Great definitions: just about agree with it all (but as Groucho would say about clubs/organizations/etc that would have him as a member he might say about totally agreeing with any one particular Freep post). One obvious missing reference: the proverbial "war on drugs". In particular, the war on marijuana in the U.S. Just where would a true conservative vs. a neo-con come down on this/these issues. Hint: Lyn Nofziger vs. Fred Barnes.
35 posted on 09/26/2002 2:59:33 PM PDT by Nick Thimmesch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
bluenosed? What are you talking about?
36 posted on 09/26/2002 2:59:37 PM PDT by JohnGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: inkling
>>>I think we should define "neo-conservative." If memory serves, the first person labeled as a "neo-con" was William F. Buckley.
>>>... but what the heck does the term even mean?

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"

And Bill Buckley is no neocon. Buckley is a traditional conservative. Irving Kristol, the father of Bill Kristol is considered the "Father", or "Godfather" of neoconservatism in America.

Neoconservative.com says the following on their frontpage:

A site dedicated to advancing the political perspective known as neoconservatism, which is committed to cultural traditionalism, democratic capitalism, and a foreign policy promoting freedom and American interests around the world

37 posted on 09/26/2002 3:03:24 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Nick Thimmesch
One obvious missing reference: the proverbial "war on drugs".

He he. It's hidden in all 3 questions.

1. No FDR New Deal commerce clause, and WoD goes back to the states.

2. Ron Paul would end the federal WoD and send it back to the states.

3. No constitutional justification for a federal WoD exists. 10th Amendment says it belongs to the states.

38 posted on 09/26/2002 3:03:36 PM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jstone78
Recent thread on conservatism---interesting... post!
39 posted on 09/26/2002 3:04:16 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maxwell
BTW, you get extra credit for your answer to #1.
40 posted on 09/26/2002 3:04:36 PM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-313 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson