Posted on 12/29/2002 9:10:29 PM PST by Pokey78
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:05:05 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.
I have been called many names in my career--few of them printable--but the most mystifying has to be "neocon." I suppose I get labeled thus because I am associated, in a small way, with the Weekly Standard, which is known as a redoubt of "neoconservatism."
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
An anti-Semite is someone winning an argument with a traitor.
TR's environmental record is admirable and in stark contrast to today's "green" movement, which is basically anti-capitalist and anti-technology. In TR's day, the west was in serious difficulty through drought and from soil erosion caused by over-grazing and over-logging. His efforts to "conserve" natural resources were reasonable and prudent and his policies (not the ones of the current enviro-wackos) are largely why the environment we have today is in such good shape. TR created the national park system, so that beautiful areas would be preserved for future generations. Do you think that was a "commie" idea too?
The whole idea that government is perforce bad is ridiculous and has no historical pedigree among conservatives. The Federalists (the "conservatives" of the early republic) were famous for advocating strong central federal authority, for survival, if for no other reason. The famous "Articles of Confederation" were a failure, mostly because the confederation had such a weak, decentralized government and could not handle the new states' debts or adequately defend the nation as a whole. That's why we had a Constitutional Convention to begin with!
The true conservative position is that some things are inappropriate for government to do, like social engineering. And most of that started with the massive expansion of the entitlement state under LBJ, over 60 years after TR's administration.
We don't have to imagine it -- they were not reticent about braying very loudly exactly what they thought. The only trouble was, they didn't have any viable alternative, just like a lot of the anti-government crowd today.
As for Jefferson, beloved of paleolibertarians everywhere, when he wasn't admiring the French Reign of Terror, he was pontificating about "natural rights" and "limited government." Of course, that was when he was NOT doing things like making unconstitutional land purchases and using the very strong central executive powers set-up by the Constitution.
Who's advocated "unlimited" government? I'm simply pointing out that the concept that all government is "bad" or evil is just silly. And that sentiment seems to be prevalent around this web site, particularly among the paleocon and libertarian faction.
Btw, were it not for Jefferson's "unconstitutional" land purchase, the United States would still be confined to the East of the Mississippi, and instead of El Paso and San Diego the May-hee-cans would all be crashing our borders at the Quad Cities and Memphis.
Oh, so now you approve of unconstitutional acts, huh? But you disapprove of TR's "unconstitutional" actions, like signing the Pure Food and Drug Act or his conservation initiatives. Always a pleasure to meet a Man of Principle (tm).
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.