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

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

[Long Cut]

BOOOOOOMMMM!!!!!!!!

[GOPBlonde]

You are correct. And balkanization is coming from the much smaller group of Hard Right advocates that demands total submission to their very narrow views.

[u-89]

I was trying to keep things simple - one could go on forever about all those early commie groups, splinter groups, sub-groups and factions. To those involved it was deadly serious and to Krisol et. al. having been part of it they chose their labels and distinctions with care in referring to those days but it seems to me that they brought that mind set to the right with them and made their categories and purged out those who were deemed a theat to their positions. Then again factionalism could be a genetic part of human nature and is inevitable. Now with the cold war being over we argue anew over America's role in the world and it is THE big issue of the day so the factionalism continues...

[terilyn]

"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."

You said a mouthful there, and it doesn't taste very good. Anybody that doesn't hold their nose and vote AGAINST the dems staying in control must prefer the dems to a moderate Republican. That I cannot understand.

[Amelia]

Great post - again - Long Cut!

I admire your ability for articulating these things.

[Long Cut]

The perfect example of good conservative inclusiveness is Ronald Reagan...notice how ALL the little splinter groups, whatever name they choose, claim him as their own. In fact, he was a little of all - the WHOLE, in his case, was greater than the sum of his PARTS. He used this quality to come closer than anyone in my experience to uniting ALL conservatives under one banner.

His example in this case is well worth remembering as an object lesson...in how to WIN!

[inquest]

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".

Oh, please! Neocons are real, not imaginary - deal with it. As a paleo myself, it's not the "warmongering" that I object to, but the persistent internationalism, even in cases where it has nothing to do with our national security. That and the sickening blind faith in anyone with an R after his name.

[inquest]

Anybody that doesn't hold their nose and vote AGAINST the dems staying in control must prefer the dems to a moderate Republican.

Either that or we're just not short-sighted. If we keep voting for RINO's to satisfy an immediate concern, then all we're going to get is RINO's and Dems from now on, until the country finally slides into full-blown socialism. Sometimes it's necessary to make a temporary sacrifice and look at the larger picture.

[Long Cut]

That "temporary sacrifice" you refer to could easily become permanent, considering all the nice poll workers, attorneys general, bureaucrats, and vote counters the victorious Dims will appoint, not to mention the little "tweaks" to the election laws and Gerrymanders they'll make.

Libertarians and other third parties pull about 2% now. After a few years of your notorious "sacrifice", you'll be lucky to get .05%. The Dims, don't forget, will NOT make it easy for you. Hell, you just might find yourself banned entirely. Refer to my long post for the TRUE "big picture".

[Long Cut]

You might also, after you calm down, view THIS little gem. It does quite well refuting that emotional "they're all the same" nonsense.

We have to think rationally. Outbursts like yours evince only heated emotion, not deliberate thought. Such emotion leads to poor descision making, and can lose all for ALL of us on this vast field called "the right".

With cool heads and teamwork, we can defeat the Dims and the Left at their own game. Isn't that what you want?

[GOPBlonde]

Oh, Please! The term Neoconservative has lost its meaning. Anyone who is Hawkish on Iraq is being labeled Neocon, whether Left or Right. And the Hard Right keeps changing the definition of Neocon--presently, it refers to anyone who believes that invasion of Iraq is justified. So, you don't know what you are talking about.

[Festa]

Its hard to classify what type of conservative you are....but I will try and list the groups as best as I can (please correct me if you see somethign that is wrong)

1) Libertarian-reason magazine, Cato institute, Larry Elder, Neal Boortz...these people are the mainstream libertarians: anti-big government, pro choice, anti war on Iraq, open borders (although they don't toss dirty words like "neocon" and the like around

2) Paleo-Libertarian....Lew Rockwell, Thomas Dilorenzo (authoer of The Real Lincoln). These people are extreme libertarians, against privitazation of social securty, school vouchers (they consider these policies selling out), etc. They are typical for the libertarian movement up until abortion (Rockwell is pro-life) and also they are isolationist which most libertarians do not believe in...(they are not against free trade, just against any sort of intervention)

3) Paleo Conservatives-same as above but they are stricter on the social issues and are isolationist because they are against free trade

4)NeoConservatives....these guys are basically reformed leftists....Irvin Kristol, etc. The Weekly Standard best exemplifies these views. These people are former marxists who are reformed. Most, though not all, are Jewish. They are big on the military....too much in my opinion

4) Libertarian leaning conservatives-I consider myself one of these. SOME, though not all, work for the National Review (Stephen Moore, Rich Lowry, Romesh Pammuru (sic)) Basically we are pro-life, want a good strong miltary, believe that the military should not be used to police the world but that when are country is attacked like it was on 9/11 we have to lay the smackdown. I am a big school voucher and social security privitization supporter. We hate welfare not because of its good nature, but because it doesnt work. Taxes are way to high. We either support a strict flat tax or a sales tax (to replace the income tax). Government regulation is too extreme and does not harness the power of the markets. (although, I am taking an environmental economics class with a fairly respectable free marketer who believes in certain types of environmental regulation b/c of property rights problems...yada yada...I am not going to get into it but he does make some good points.)....
I guess we are the conservatives who hate strict ideology....


I am sure there are more groups or people would like to define these differently. But I am just throwing these out there for you.

[terilyn]

Yes, like the eight year temporary sacrifice better known as the Clintons.

All of those principled Perot votes look rather sad in retrospect.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

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

You hit another one out of the park, Long Cut. Frustrating that some people are determined to shoot themselves in the feet and bleed all over the rest of us.

[inquest]

Libertarians and other third parties pull about 2% now.

Then what are you so worried about? Doesn't look like they're having much of an effect on national politics. In other posts you like to blame third parties for the degraded state of Republican opposition, but I think it's clear from your numbers that if Republicans are losing in congressional races, it's because majorities are voting Democrat, not for any other reason.

After a few years of your notorious "sacrifice", you'll be lucky to get .05%.

Here's where I completely disagree. Third parties typically do much better in areas with solid Democrat majorities, for obvious reasons. They could do even better than that with a little more encouragement. It's the GOP that's standing in the way of progress, not the third parties.

The Dims, don't forget, will NOT make it easy for you. Hell, you just might find yourself banned entirely.

Bring it on! I'd sure like to see them try. I trust I don't need to bring up the old analogy about the frog in the slowly heating pot of water. That's the situation we're in now, and it's not getting any better, and it's not going to get any better with RINO's in charge; it will only get slower. That's the big picture, my friend.

[inquest]

If the Republicans have been seemingly too eager to compromise with the Dims of late, those who, by their "principled" votes sent more Dims to Washington are partly to blame...compromise would NOT be as necessary with a greater Republican majority.

If the Republicans gain a majority, the liberal media will still be a formidable force to deal with. In fact, they'll go into overdrive, and the RINO's will still feel compelled to "compromise" all over the place. The problem is, the country believes in big government, and that's not going to change if we're somehow able to engineer a Republican victory. The problem's perpetuated by the fact that many Repubs openly accept the premises that the Democrats lay down, and end up discrediting themselves in the process. "Compassionate conservatism" is a case in point, in that it accepts the premise that politicians show "compassion" by voting to spend other people's money. Once you accept that premise, why not vote Democrat? We paleo's are accused of "shooting ourselves in the foot" by voting third-party, but there's no way we can top an act like that.

The only way out of this situation is to present people with a new premise - a real option - and to articulate the reasons for it clearly. RINO's are not up to the task. They take us in the opposite direction. You talk about frustrating...

[inquest]

I notice you (and/or the author of this piece; I don't if I'm talking about the same person) speak in a lot of vague, generalistic terms. You mention only one writer who seems to have abused the term "neoconservative", and you couldn't even cite an example from him as to whom he used it inappropriately against (he only said that they were "everywhere"). Beyond that, no hard examples, just bald assertions. Paleo's are "self-righteous purists" who demand that everyone submit to their "narrow views", whatever those views may be. "Mainstream conservatives" are maligned as "warmongerers" - by whom specifically, we don't know.

So bottom line, it's hard to tell what your point really is. But in any case, for your information, "neoconservative" is a not just a bogeyman. It refers specifically to the generation of ex-socialists following WWII who took on the conservative banner, and more generally to those who, despite having some libertarian tendencies, still place an enormous amount of faith in state power. Now you'll notice that I didn't accuse you of being one, nor did I even claim that they're "everywhere". I merely pointed out that they do exist, and it's appropriate to call them such. Whether it's an insult or a compliment, I'll leave up to you to decide.

[inquest]

All of those principled Perot votes look rather sad in retrospect.

Both liberals and conservatives voted for Perot, and he was no conservative himself. If he had been, and it was clear he attracted only conservative votes, then those eight years would have been very different, because it would have been clear that not only did the majority vote against Clinton, they voted against everything he stood for. And the upshot may very well have been a real conservative in the White House today.

[Long Cut]

Do you really believe that candidates for office who deliberately turn themselves BLUE present a "real" option? Can a candidate who cannot even name his OPPONENT "articulate the reasons for it" clearly?

Is the situation "frustrating" enough, what with only persuading 2% of the voters that you are serious, that spitting on an interviewer is justified?

I have no doubt of your frustration and sincerity, but are you SURE that this is the horse to attach your wagon to?

There is a VERY good reason that the Libertarians are a minor, fringe party.

[inquest]

Do you really believe that candidates for office who deliberately turn themselves BLUE present a "real" option? Can a candidate who cannot even name his OPPONENT "articulate the reasons for it" clearly?

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Is the situation "frustrating" enough, what with only persuading 2% of the voters that you are serious, that spitting on an interviewer is justified?

Again, I have no clue what you're referring to with the interviewer-spitting comment, but as for "only persuading 2% of the voters that you are serious," you know that's not true. If a third party only gets 2% of the vote, it does not mean that only 2% of the electorate agrees with their platform. You yourself stated that you've tended to agree with the platforms of these parties, but restrained yourself from voting for them for strategic reasons. Do you really imagine yourself unique in that regard?

Now earlier in the thread you admonished me to stick to "logical" arguments, but now I see you engaging in what appears to be a volley of sarcastic cheap shots. Surely you can do better than that.