Conservatism against the Radical Right

enterstageright ^ | April 7, 2003 | By Scott Shore

[Deb]

Trollin' trollin' trollin'...

Noddegamra = Armageddon backwards. Subtle.

[Jhoffa_]

Hopefully its his last. He's inventing boogiemen where they don't exist.

No kidding..

I normally don't comment much on this neo/paleo garbage, but this just looks like one, huge, unjustified, unsourced, ambiguous racial slur to me. It sounds like something ripped straight from the DU.

If this is the best the author can do, then he should quit writing & political analysis and go find something he's good at.

[EternalVigilance]

You got it.

[Jhoffa_]

I also don't appreciate these "neo's" and "paleo's" jockying for position as they are. They try to paint all Conservatives into one corner or the other and it just strikes me as incredibly arrogant.

If you ask me, both these are fringe groups with agenda's and do not properly reflect the thought's of "Joe Conservative"

"What? You want to support our allies? WELL THEN, you're nothing but a worthless Neo! (spit!)"

"What? You don't favor globalization, mass immigration & amnesty? WELL THEN, you're nothing but a worthless Paleo! (spit!)"

Screw em both, afaiac.. Just pots & kettles trading insults.

[EternalVigilance]

Just pots & kettles trading insults.

LOL...you betcha!

[EternalVigilance]

Just goes to show, labels are only useful to a point. Then you have to start actually talking about real issues to find out where folks are really coming from. ;-)

[CFC__VRWC]

Screw em both, afaiac.. Just pots & kettles trading insults.

If these guys (and notice how it's ALWAYS the same tired crew) spent half the energy they use flaming each other to cinders in going after real honest to God liberals and socialists, we would really have the lefties on the run.

[Jhoffa_]

Exactly..

Instead they try to turn everything into some kind power play.

[Princeliberty]

Facism is the right of the Hegelism
and Communism is the left of Hegelism.
Social Democrats etc.. and the middle
of Hegelism.

We who love liberty truely come
form a different spectrum.
We are constitutionalists
who believe in the ideas this nation was founded
upon and thus really belong on a different
spectrum.

That is the real difference in "conservatives"
some are really Hegelians at heart
and some are constitutionalists.

Not good to simply say extreme bad and moderate good,
that's the way the press loves to talk to
ignore people without addressing their ideas.

Hegelisms main beliefs:

1. Socialism
2. Evolution
3. No objective morality
4. Groupism, since no objective morality people
are to be judged by their group status and
expected to conform to that group's normalities.

Both Demcrats and Republicans, Liberals and
Conservatives of many stripes follow these
assumptions.

Remember always judge by actions not words.

[Jackson Brown]

No, not wrong. Since your taking license with what you think "I am", I'll return the favor.

In VERY general terms --
"Models" of political beliefs are NOT neatly grouped on one "line". There are three "lines". Each of the three groups are separated based by the view of "size/power/invasiveness of government".

1 -- Little or no government
2 -- moderate (for want of a better term)
3 -- all powerful or totalitarian

You're most likely some sort of Libertarian, who do not believe in intervention, just defense. Libertarianism is the right on the "little or no government/rules" line with anarchism the left. Libertarians seem to think they are some form of conservative. They are not.

The totalitarian "line" runs from communism/Marxism to fascism.

Classic liberalism and Classic conservatism are the left "range" and right "range" that occupies the middle group -- in one regard -- a "sizable" government in between "very little or no state" and "huge totalitarian state". running from small to big (as opposed to none to huge) with the added fight of some version who should have the most power -- federal or local (state).

What causes the confusion is that the three ALL mingle since people fight being boxed in any category and each group shares some beliefs of the other groups.

My mistake was trying to be brief. I still left out a few thousand permutations this time too, but you wouldn't get it anyway.

JB

[jammer]

Jackson, Jackson, you DIDN'T know what fascism was. You use it as the unthinking Liberals of the past 50 years have used it. Sorry I gave you credit. Fascism is the melding of big business and government. That's much closer to socialism (government control of the means of distribution and production) than anything you're talking about. It's also why Mussolini and Hitler had an affinity.

Sure, sure, it's convenient to talk about left and right, but that has been noted by many to be a false way of talking about it. Hitler is commonly described as being a right-winger, which is ludicrous. Hitler was a NAZI, a national SOCIALIST. So, don't preach that pap to me--I knew it was wrong before you were born.

[Theophilus]

Nice post, I agree.

I would add this: True Liberals believe that mankind is inherently "good" (a syncretistic theft), but stupid, and civilization is corrupted by bad institutions (family, church, labor, investment, defense, education, law, local government). Elites within a towering hierarchy are responsible for success and progress. Teamwork is most important for setting goals rather than achieving them. Process is more important than product. The elusive ends justify the perpetual and exorbitant amoral means.

True Conservatives believe that mankind is inherently bad, generally shrewd and that civilization is preserved by good institutions (family, church, labor, investment, defense, education, law, local government). Individuals within a flattened hierarchy are responsible for success and progress. Teams are formed around common extant goals with a focus on the product. The profitable ends pay for the most expedient and pragmatic but moral means.

[Jackson Brown]

I don't think you really read what I wrote.

They are opposites of the same group. They are "left TO right" (labels used just to help differentiate) because of the range of how one defines what the state is, who owns it, and who is intended to benefit.

Benefit spread out to the "collective" (left) Vs. benefits restricted to private owners (right) -- both controlled by totalitarian central government...this last part is what defines them as one group of the three.

It's the level of power vested in government that defines the three POLITICAL groups.

"Politics" is about the role and functions of government -- not just economic models.

Also, we are now just talking about the economic when trying to compare much broader political models.

My point is that there are "left and right" poles of three POLITICAL groups.

Not just one group spread out left to right on a single liner political model.

It all really only makes sense -- when trying to consider the proper place of EVERY form of political thought -- if the view of the power/size of government is used to separate them. You are just looking at a few and treating them like they are all there is.

If there was JUST one political group -- using your logic -- Libertarians are Anarchists.

""So, don't preach that pap to me--I knew it was wrong before you were born.""
You must be pretty old. I finished my graduate work on this "stuff" in 1967. BTW, if you're that old, you should have learned some manners in all those years.

Oh, BTW...Bite me!

JB

[Jackson Brown]

If there was JUST one political group -- using your logic -- Libertarians are Anarchists.

Actually a better example would be: using your logic an Anarchist (NO government) is the same a Communist (huge centralized totalitarian government)

JB

[jagrmeister]

It's intellectually bankrupt "essays" like this which ruin the conservative brand. As has been expressed on this thread, the author has concocted a myth that the Republican party has a major wing of paleoconservatives that have a racist, paranoid, conspiratorial agenda. The truth is that such a "wing" does not exist. If so, what policy has it influenced? What congressional bills have its stamp on it? The truth of the matter is that the specter of this paleoconservative wing is over-dramatized by the Left so as to discredit the entire Republican party.

[nopardons]

Nope, the author is right on the money ! What's the matter, he hit too close to home, for you ? LOL

[EternalVigilance]

No. What would give you that idea?

He simply is picking fights with nonentities who don't deserve the time of day...stirring up division where there doesn't need to be any. Buchanan and Co. are utterly irrelevent and their views represent no one in the mainstream of the conservative movement.

I think you owe me an apology for your insinuation. By now you should know that I have very little or nothing in common with these people.

[EternalVigilance]

It's intellectually bankrupt "essays" like this which ruin the conservative brand. As has been expressed on this thread, the author has concocted a myth that the Republican party has a major wing of paleoconservatives that have a racist, paranoid, conspiratorial agenda. The truth is that such a "wing" does not exist. If so, what policy has it influenced? What congressional bills have its stamp on it? The truth of the matter is that the specter of this paleoconservative wing is over-dramatized by the Left so as to discredit the entire Republican party.

My point exactly on this entire matter.

But you expressed it so much better than I did. Thank you.

[nopardons]

I was pulling your leg. ; ^ )

There have been and continue to be, many threads on FR, which Balkanize what SHOULD be a solid front, but isn't. Jim got rid of most of the Patsies; just not all of them. The fringe faction here is not helpful and the article did hit that segment pretty well. You can't refute the fact that " neo-con " gets thrown out ( spat out, rather ) as an insult, here, by some. We should all be just Conservatives, as we should all just be Americans, without ANY hyphanation.

[EternalVigilance]

I totally agree!

If I seemed at all testy, I didn't mean to be.

It's just that I've had to fight this particular battle alot in the last 24 hours.

Buchanan has been digging his own political grave for years, but it was 9-11 that provided the final backfill. ;-)

Anti-war, anti-Israel, racist so-called rightwingers in truth quit being conservatives a long time ago, and not just on foreign policy--they are out to sea on many other issues as well. And of course they are such a small group that they are meaningless politically, as I said before.

Have a great day!