THE HECK WITH THE "NEOCON" LABEL! I AM NOT THE ETHER ZONE'S TOKEN NEOCONSERVATIVE

ETHER ZONE ^ | 11/4/02 | Carol Devine-Molin

[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!

[rmlew]

According to the test, I'm a paleocon.
However, as a Israel supporting Hawk, I'm called a Neo-con.

I would preffer the term Nationalist Conservative. Others have called my position Hamiltonian/Federalist. (Most paleos are of the Jefferson-Jackson-Calhoun line).

I think that we do need to call for smaller, government, but we cannot afford to be doves. We are at war and are defeding ourselves and Western Civ.

[hchutch]

First of all, the scapegoating comes when the folks who CAUSED the problem don't seem willing to fix it.

Again, it's not the immgirants' fault OUR tax dollars are going to them. It's the fault of the elected officals in Washington, DC. THOSE are the folks to hold accountable. Not the immigrants who are here.

We used to have the bracero program - and little trouble with illegal immigration back then.

Quite frankly, if we still had that program, we would be able to figure out who was who. But we don't, so a good portion the folks who WOULD have been allowed in under that program end up sneaking across the border.

I do not buy Buchanan's immigration arguments, either. They represent the "soft bigotry of low expectations" that has occured before, particularly with IRISH CATHOLIC immigrants. I see no reason for that to have changed since then. It's the same discredited doom-and-gloom line used back then.

[Poohbah]

Concur with hchutch. Please note that the bracero program was terminated by the Democrats on behalf of their AFL-CIO union buddies, who wanted more pension fund contributions to steal. At the same time, we activated the Great Society.

The long-term fix is going to involve several tracks; merely sticking bodies down on the southern border will not stop illegal immigration, and won't appreciably slow it down unless we have an ungodly number of folks on both northern and southern borders, and every stretch of coastline as well.

[Burdened White Man]

First of all, the scapegoating comes when the folks who CAUSED the problem don't seem willing to fix it.

There's lots of blame to go around on the immigration issue. But the immigrants are still "knowingly" breaking our laws and are thus unaccounted for once here, so I blame them for their lawlessness. Plus our INS is infected with political correctness and will not or are incapable of enforcing our laws. It's not about bigotry as you suggest. If blond-haired Swedes were the problem I'n be all for keeping them out as well.

DemocRATS welcome illegals in order to swell their minority voting ranks, while Repubs want them for cheap labor and to cozy up to the Hispanic vote. This is an outrage when are borders are not secure.

[grania]

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.

Watch out...I've been called intellectually dishonest and a 'rat for saying that. And I'm naive and misinformed because of my anti-globalist stands.

It's a shame. There are a lot of views that a majority of conservatives favor, but social conservatives who want to preserve our way of life, our laws, and secure our safety by closing borders to most immigration just aren't conservative enough anymore.

I resent that there are those who think that being a "conservative" means that one must forgo what are deemed "liberal" views on some issues. I don't feel that one has to be ideologically pure to be acceptable.

[hchutch]

In a sense, you are correct, but you have the wrong solution.

INS needs to be straightened out big time. But the fact is, I am aware of one case where a Colombian fmaily (father had a degree in electrical engineering and was part-owner of a factory) literally dropped everything and came here on tourist visas (they overstayed them) when they got word that the shcool their oldest son attended was going to be the subject of a "recruiting" drive by a guerilla force that is on our list of terrorist organizations. Their choice was play by the rules and have their son kidnapped, or get here fast and be branded with the broad brush as "illegals."

Let me tell you something - it takes quite a case of stupid to NOT recognize that this was a situation that required quick action. And INS/State screwed it up royally, and left that family with a bad choice.

Changes ought to be made, but we've also got an obligation to sort out the would be braceros and folks like that Colombian family, and provide a means for them to remain in the country - call it probation as opposed to the max. And that will not be an easy task, but it was a screwed-up bureaucracy or two and screwed-up legislation that statered this. CLEARLY that situation was NOT the fault of that family.

[u-89]

Correction - NEOCON was not coined by Buchanan or any other "paleo". The Godfathers of neoconservatism made the term themselves - John Podhorwitz, Irving Kristol, etc. These people were all "Trotskyites" in the 1930's and 40's and considered themselves highbrow as opposed to the "Stalinists" who were considered lowbrow. These are their terms, not mine. Notice they never admit to being communists which they were. They then became liberals and anti-communists and finally joined up with the right in the National Review to promote the cold war, Vietnam and other causes.

Many people have the wrong understanding that the neocon terms means they are just new arrivals to conservatism but that is not so - it means a new type of conservatism - one made in their image. There has been some good documentaries on the old left, including the neocons on PBS and some good interviews on C-Span's booknotes which you should track down if you have an interest in the subject.

By the way a couple of months ago on C-Span during a Q & A of a panel group Irving Kristol was asked if he regretted being a socialist in his past and he said socialism was like a fair maiden with whom he had a fling in his youth and had no regrets, only fond memories.

[rmlew]

A Trotskyite is by a definition a communist. Irving Kristol has never denied being one in the 1930's.

I would note that the second generation neocons like Bill Bennet were never communists.

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

All I want is victory !

How very Leninist of you!

[John Lenin]

How very Leninist of you!

Imagine, that.

lol !

[gcruse]

So am I paleo or neo?

More like libertarian, I would think.

[u-89]

You are correct but Trotskyite has a better ring to the ear than communist and it doesn't have the nefarious connotations to regular folks which is one reason why I believe they use the term. Second generation neocons were for the most part democrats who became republicans, not that that is a bad thing but not all seem to have gotten over the admiration for government ability to accomplish "good" things or so the current arguement goes. The post WWII history of the right is a rather interesting study, if one likes to study political movements that is.

[Scuttlebutt]

I think I have an understanding of neo-cons and paleo-cons but I have never figured out the definition of "compassionate conservatives". Does it mean that they are BushBots?

[gcruse]

"Compassionate conservatism" seems thus far to mean bigger government, 'living wage' pressures, and blowing a
hole in the wall of separation between state and religion,
not to mention the ongoing gang rape of the Tenth Amendment.

[rmlew]

You are correct but Trotskyite has a better ring to the ear than communist and it doesn't have the nefarious connotations to regular folks which is one reason why I believe they use the term.

I have to disagree here. Trotskyites are either
1.) Anti-Stalinist Marxists-Lenninists. (I suppose Kirovist would also apply, but he was whacked before starting a useful opposition.)
2.) Anti-Stalinist far-leftists in general. This includes the strict definition above plus Menshiviks, and Anarchists. This was the definition used in the 1930's.

Trotskyites like to say that they were the true communists before Stalin screwed up teh USSR. They tend to ignore Trotsky's brutal past.

At Columbia, we have two "Trotskyite" groups.
There is the International Socialist Org, which follows the strict definition and stayed loyal to the USSR.
Then there are the Spratacists who included members for the failed 1919 uprising in Germany.
Personally, I love to see these groups argue!

. Second generation neocons were for the most part democrats who became republicans, not that that is a bad thing but not all seem to have gotten over the admiration for government ability to accomplish "good" things or so the current arguement goes.
I would also add the children of the first generation, like William Kristol.

The post WWII history of the right is a rather interesting study, if one likes to study political movements that is.

Yes. Unfortunately the Buckley/Chodorov conglomeration of anti-communists, sane paleo-cons, and anti-communist libertarians is breaking apart.

[Long Cut]

You know, with each such article or post on the topic, we seem to get more confused.

"Neo", "Paleo", "Mainstream", "Social", "Fiscal", etc...what's it all MEAN?

We are, to put it bluntly, Balkanizing ourselves. Look at how, after the basic meaning of the terms was explained on this thread, people attempted to figure out what THEY were...to find out what GROUP they belonged to, and presumably what group to oppose. ANYTIME someone comes up with "categories" within groups of people, this foolishness happens. Witness also, how some have begun using the name of another's group as a perjorative...as a SLUR.

Ask yourselves, does this splintering of the conservative movement help it to achieve its OVERALL goals? And if not, then just WHOM does it help?

I think we all know the answer to that. And it's NOT pretty.

This petty, tribal bickering serves no one except those we are ALL allegedly against. Notice how THEIR side always comes together when it counts? And that's such disparate groups as unions and greens, Southern pols and yankee hacks, lawyers and, well, OTHER lawyers. No matter, they ALL work for the COMMON goals they all share, and worry about the rest later. We should take a lesson.

A cursory look at the last two decades will show that most losses by conservative candidates were caused by a splintering of the BASE..."Oh, I won't vote for him, even though we agree on 90% of the issues, he doesn't talk about XXX so screw him"; "Those Neos are taking over! they didn't nominate a Paleo, so it's WWE "Smackdown!" for me on Election Day...". I could go on, but you get the point.

I would caution all and sunder to regard with GREAT suspicion anyone promoting such Balkanization of our ranks, ESPECIALLY this close to a crucial, nail-biting election. We've come too far as a movement to blast it all to Hell just to do EXACTLY what the Dims do...break people into GROUPS, rather than INDIVIDUALS.

Watch out for those who sling their terms around like the racial slurs of old. Check the motives of someone who claims that a known, loyal, and comitted conservative voter or candidate is a "socialist". And, as always, beware those whose rhetoric gets too thick, too savage, towards their OWN.

This is the reality - our country is so evenly divided ideologically right now that only a few votes can mean a LOT. This situation developed partly because of that "we eat our own" attitude someone mentioned earlier. We have not the luxury right now of dividing ourselves...this is best done AFTER a victory, not before, unless the victory be the enemy's.

Too much of the "All-or-Nothing" attitude will get us ALL nothing, save total Leftist control.

Please, consider this.

[Chad Fairbanks]

I'm guessing that I am a Mainstream Social and Fiscal Neo-Paleo-conservative... or something like that... ;0)

[Long Cut]

PING!!!!!!!!!

[Long Cut]

KER-POW!!!!!!!!!!!!

[genefromjersey]

I'm sorry, but I didn't get past the 425th paragraph !

Paleo-cons, Neo-cons, mainstream cons......

Anyone care to join me in a bottle of Excedrin (yes, OK. Reg. Trademark ) ????????