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

Skip to comments.

THE HECK WITH THE "NEOCON" LABEL! I AM NOT THE ETHER ZONE'S TOKEN NEOCONSERVATIVE
ETHER ZONE ^ | 11/4/02 | Carol Devine-Molin

Posted on 11/04/2002 12:24:31 PM PST by GOPBlonde

I'm a mainstream conservative, plain and simple. And we represent the majority of those who self-identify as "conservatives". Unfortunately, other ideological factions often distort the nature and beliefs of mainstream conservatism. True, I'm throwing a few Molotov cocktails, but it's really the best way to clarify matters.

In the Ether Zone forum, a fellow writer referred to me as a "self-proclaimed Neoconservative". Well hold your horses, bucko, I've come to reject that ridiculous label being used by both the Hard Left and the Hard Right to stereotype and assail mainstream conservatives, outrageously casting us as "warmongers". Yes, the term Neoconservative is now the equivalent of an insult being hurled at mainstream conservatives in an attempt to portray us as insidious "warmongers". I readily admit that I was a naive fool to have ever accepted that moniker, failing to realize the "battle cry" it invokes among extremes on both sides of the political spectrum, which I shall readily explore.

In a nutshell, the Hard Left represents dedicated liberals, and beyond that, there is little to say since a Leftist is a Leftist is a Leftist. These are the "Utopian Socialists" that believe if you give government enough power and tax monies, government can solve all problems. Now that's really scary! In reality, what you get from such a socialist system is coercion, lies, misery and dictatorship.

However, the Hard Right is a little more complicated, and is comprised of the Paleoconservatives (Buchananites, John Birchers, and other old-fashioned conservatives with their Isolationist/Libertarian bent) and the Ultra-Libertarians. The Paleoconservatives refer to themselves as the "genuine" or the "traditional" conservatives as they are the self-righteous purist, ready to impugn mainstream conservatives, and all others for that matter, that do not meet their finely tuned standards. And their definition of a "Neoconservative" morphs and changes to include anyone not in agreement with them. Now those who are hawk-ish on Iraq, whether Right or Left, are being snidely dubbed "Neos" by the Hard Right. According to fellow Ether Zone writer Justin Raimondo, "Those damn Neocons are everywhere!" Justin even believes that the Left is being assimilated into the "Borg Continuum" of Neoconservative thought. Isn't this a bit obsessive? Gotta fight those evil Neocons that are all around us! Geezz!

Notably, members of the Hard Right demonstrate little in the way of flexibility, so working within a political party is ultimately doomed. For instance, the Buchananites ran out of the Republican Party (hooray for us!), and quickly took over the Reform Party a few years back. Predictably, they have since been kicked out of there, leaving that independent party in ruins. It irks me that the liberal media (particularly television), in efforts to twist and obscure the true nature of mainstream conservatism, have Paleoconservative leader Pat Buchanan regularly hosting shows and guesting on a variety of programs. Political commentator Pat Buchanan has become the darling of the Left-leaning media, despite the fact that his views are not representative of the majority of conservatives. But Buchanan gives the Left-leaning media exactly what they want. He helps the liberals beat up on the Republican Party and mainstream conservatives. Buchanan's "on air" partnership with liberal Bill Press (MSNBC) is certainly not "fair and balanced". I'll stick with the Fox News Channel.

Up until a few months ago, I thought "Neoconservative" was a perfectly respectable term for those of us who switched parties and came into the GOP over twenty years ago, having become totally disillusioned with the Democratic Party. Many of us were relatively young and did not understand or appreciate the true nature of partisan politics until Ronald Reagan enlightened us about the pernicious Left. In fact, many of us still continue to refer to ourselves as "Reaganites" and hold the same political ideals that include: a) cutting marginal tax rates that unleashes a stimulative effect upon the economy, b) reining in the size and scope of government, c) creating a first class, technologically advanced military, and d) exhibiting a sense of moral certitude as we go about the task of dismantling an "Evil Empire" that poses a global threat. Of course, during the 1980's, the infamous Soviet Union was successfully brought down, thus ending the "cold war" era. Now, we are fighting radical Islamists and rogue nations that work together hand-in-glove, with the goal of destroying western civilization. To use the often cited metaphor, we must "drain the swamps" (rogue regimes) that permit the mosquitos (terrorists) to flourish. Clearly, the Hard Right always revels in the opportunity to criticize our failure at reducing government. And with a lengthy "war on terrorism" being waged, it's uncertain how our nation will reduce costs and the pool of government personnel over the next few years.

Let me reiterate that we mainstream conservatives are no warmongers! The atrocities of September 11th were brought directly to our shores, killing thousands of citizens, and were perpetrated by Islamic fanatics who intend to kill us all. We are mere "infidels" in the minds of these lunatics, the equivalent of insects to be dispassionately disposed of during the course of "Jihad". Americans have no other recourse than to fight this "war on terrorism", and to seek the overthrow of dangerous rogue nations, which aid and abet militant Islamists by providing them with monies, weaponry, and safe harbor. As to the psychopath Saddam Hussein, he is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weaponry that could easily be given to terrorist proxies for the purpose of targeting America. One way or another, we need to dismantle Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. We cannot permit America to be vulnerable to a catastrophic nuclear attack.

Lastly, as I indicated in one of my prior articles, entitled "A Radicalized Ether Zone", "It's important to understand that mainstream conservatism is now comprised of a variety of camps, and that Bill Kristol (political commentator, McCain advisor, and editor of the "Weekly Standard") actually represents only a small faction within the overall movement... In terms of further bona fides, I ran on the ballot in early 1996 as a delegate for "flat tax" advocate Steve Forbes in the NY Republican primary, I can't stand McCain, I think our military should withdraw from the Balkans forthwith (leave it to the Europeans), and I probably better exemplify mainstream conservatives in background and ideology than Bill Kristol".

"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."

Mail this article to a friend(s) in two clicks!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carol Devine-Molin is a Republican District Leader, a community activist, and the host of "On The Right Side", a local program sponsored by the Republicans, and seen throughout most of Westchester County, New York. She is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.

Carol can be reached at DevineMolin@aol.com

Published in the November 11, 2002 issue of Ether Zone. Copyright © 1997 - 2002 Ether Zone.

We invite your comments on this article in our forum!


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: neoconservatives; warmongers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last
To: GOPBlonde
Oh, wait until rightwing2 starts his pompous boasting about your lack of purity. He has advised me today that I am a RINO and a RAT. I guess my consistent voting for Republicans isn't pure enough for him. I can't imagine what he will say about you.
21 posted on 11/04/2002 1:13:38 PM PST by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St. Clair Slim; rdb3
The term "neocon" is used by the Buchanan types and some libertarians who have been against the war on terror, among other things. The Buchanan types, in particular, use "neocon" to imply one is not a "real" conservative.
22 posted on 11/04/2002 1:23:23 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Buchanan as in Pat Buchanan?
23 posted on 11/04/2002 1:31:30 PM PST by St. Clair Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
It doesn't help. But why do conservatives fight among themselves?
24 posted on 11/04/2002 1:33:16 PM PST by St. Clair Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: St. Clair Slim
Correct.
25 posted on 11/04/2002 1:35:23 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
I've heard the name. Is he a good conservative?
26 posted on 11/04/2002 1:38:21 PM PST by St. Clair Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: St. Clair Slim
But why do conservatives fight among themselves?

If you can answer that one you'll be teaching Political Science before the month is out. We do have a distressing tendency to eat our own.

Having fun so far?

27 posted on 11/04/2002 1:40:04 PM PST by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim
I think so.
28 posted on 11/04/2002 1:41:11 PM PST by St. Clair Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
I've always been confused by the neo and paleo. I'm conservative, not religious, am for lower taxes, smaller government, and the second amendment. I'm also against
the WOD. I'm pro-military, and pro-national defense.

So am I paleo or neo?

29 posted on 11/04/2002 1:44:50 PM PST by cryptical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: St. Clair Slim
Personally, I don't think of him as a good conservative. I think his foriegn policy is unrealistic at best (sorry, but two oceans did not protect us in 1941, they will certainly not protect us now), and I think he's trying to take the easy way out with protectionist policies.
30 posted on 11/04/2002 1:46:38 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GOPBlonde
You lost me when you chose to use the term "hard right!" Buh-bye!
31 posted on 11/04/2002 1:49:05 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cryptical
Here's an old thread on the topic. It has a link to a short quiz that is supposed to determine your "best fit" (conservative, paleocon, neocon, libertarian, etc.) Simplistic, but kind of fun.
32 posted on 11/04/2002 1:50:47 PM PST by Nonfaction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
However, the Hard Right is a little more complicated, and is comprised of the Paleoconservatives (Buchananites, John Birchers, and other old-fashioned conservatives with their Isolationist/Libertarian bent) and the Ultra-Libertarians

A Neocon faux pas! Read Buchanan's "A Republic Not An Empire." In his intro he discusses his efforts to shed the label and notes that "isolationism" is a "dismissive slur on a tradition of U.S. independence in foreign policy and nonintervention in foreign wars." <

33 posted on 11/04/2002 1:59:30 PM PST by Burdened White Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Burdened White Man
I disagree.

The effect is little removed from isolationism.
34 posted on 11/04/2002 2:03:48 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
The effect is little removed from isolationism.

If surrendering the responsibility to serve as the world's policeman may be labeled "isolationism" than so be it. Time for our allies to step up to the plate and policew their own backyards. This is outside the context of the War on Terror which, like Pearl Harbor, calls for retaliation.

35 posted on 11/04/2002 2:11:51 PM PST by Burdened White Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Burdened White Man
Sorry, if being the "world's policeman" means we don't have to retaliate for an act like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, I'll take that every time.

Two oceans CANNOT protect us any more. Not when an ICBM can arrive and ruin the day of an entire city in less time than it takes Domino's to deliver a pizza.

Like it or not, if we don't deal with some situations now, that's what we face. Buchanan has his head in the sand.
36 posted on 11/04/2002 2:15:36 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Two oceans CANNOT protect us any more.

Couldn't agree with you more on that. So why not put more of our money and military expertise into guarding our borders. Bush and Ashcroft are not making a valient effort to do this. If we're really aware of our vulnerability we have to close our borders to all but a few select immigrants.

How many nations around the world do we have troops stationed in? Do we really need to be in Germany and Korea, still? I'm just saying, we've overcommitted ourselves globally and that's part of the reason we're a terrorist target. As O'Reilly says, tell me where I'm wrong?

37 posted on 11/04/2002 2:24:09 PM PST by Burdened White Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Burdened White Man
First of all, the anti-immigration line you gratuitously tossed in is scapegoating at best. I'm sorry, but that is entirely unrelated to the foreign policy/national security matter. It's wrong, quite frankly. Are there problems with current immigration policy? Yes. Is that a reason to affect the immigrants themselves? No. The problem, for the most part is in allowing immigrants to get hooked on the degrading narcotic of welfare, and to get a betetr means of checking the backgrounds of those who wish to come here. That was something that our elected officials allowed to happen, and that is something elected officials will have to fix. But it ain't the immigrants' fault - save for those who mean to cause harm to others. Cutting back immigration over 9/11 is like passing a gun ban because of one nutcase shooting up a schoolyard. It's not fair to the innocent people affected by the laws you want passed.

Blaming immigration for problems like unemplyoment is a cop-out for people who don't want to do the heavy lifting that will be necessary to end the hostile business climate created in this country through grossly excessive corporate taxation and regulations that have gone way past any idea of common sense.

Second, I couldn't care less how many countries we are in - this war ain't just al-Qaida and Afghanistan. It's about clearing out ALL of those groups. If those groups have a global reach, they're on our list. If there is a nation-state supporting terrorist groups, they're on our list. We've got troops in Korea as part of a mutual defense treaty with South Korea. The troops in Germany are in as part of the North Atlantic Treaty.

Third, "overcommited" or not, the U.S. pull out until the war is won. Anything less would give potential adversaries the impression that we have a weakness of resolve, and that will be a lot more likely than our current policy to cause a much more costly war down the road - and we will have fewer allies that we can count on to fight that war.

And THAT is where you are wrong. If we make changes in foreign policy, it should only come in AFTER we have won the victory. Any other course of action WILL get us into a more dangerous situation.
38 posted on 11/04/2002 2:37:39 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim
But why do conservatives fight among themselves?

If you can answer that one you'll be teaching Political Science before the month is out. We do have a distressing tendency to eat our own.

But the answer is simple. Conservatives fight among ourselves because we define our political positions (in general) as being for something. And of course, we are not all for the same things with the same intensity.

Leftists, on the other hand, other than being for socialism, seem to define themselves entirely on what they are against. They basically determine that they are against something, then claim the Republicans support the position that they are against, and thus the liberal democrats tend to join together because predominantly they are againsters. If you notice what motivates them, it is what they are against. Heck, go over to the DU - you will only very rarely find anyone pushing an agenda that they are for - their entire forum is based on what they are against. This is why they tell so many lies - they have to define the "Pubbies" as the bogeymen.

First they decide what they are against.
Second they claim that Republicans are for whatever they are against.
Therefore, they vote against Republicans, and that is their motivation.

Democrats define themselves (mostly) by what they are against. Thus they focus on emotion and are weak on logic and intellect.
Republicans define themselves (mostly) by what they are for. Thus they have to craft logical and rational arguments, and thus they dispute with one another.
39 posted on 11/04/2002 2:48:12 PM PST by dark_lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
How is it scapegoating the immigration issue when there are an estimated 15 million illegal aliens in this country. We don't know how many of these are connected to Islamic cells. In what fantasyland is that NOT connected to national security. I'm not suggesting we close our borders to all legal immigrants, but in order to get a handle on things we should temporarily halt nearly all: THIS should've been done on Sept. 12. And my tax dollars are paying for services to law breakers entering this country illegally. We should also be rounding up every Islamist remotely suspected of terror connection. They are still very much among us: read Steve Emerson's "American Jihad."

NATO? A relic of WW2 that is no longer necessary in it's current form. We should not be committed to coming to the defense of the entirety of the European continent, which we nearly are at this point. And do we have to be in a defense pact with Korea forever? no, no, no! At some point we must relinquish this to regional allies.

I'm all for being in as many countries as possible to hunt down Al Qaida. Let do it! And you're right that we shouldn't bring any troops home until this is accomplished. But at some point we have to realize our limits and take care of THIS country.

40 posted on 11/04/2002 2:56:22 PM PST by Burdened White Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 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