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