Posted on 06/07/2003 4:50:18 PM PDT by NeoCaveman
Well said.
It amazes me how some people think that the GOP can win anything and at the same time kick out anybody and everybody who dares disagree on one issue.
Single issue fanatics who threaten to bolt the party if somebody in power disagrees with them are just as bad.
Okay, so which one of these am I, Amelia?
It is a great article. Thanks for the ping. ;-)
You know I keep seeing this issue of relatively 'minor' issues. The problem is when you lump them all together and, at least in rhetoric, back them as many Republicans are doing, they're no longer 'minor' issues. What they are is a party that cares less about conservatism and more about votes
Great post. ;-)
What's generated the discussion is the perceived change from Bush's talk about a "more modest" America that would avoid "nation-building" experiments around the world, to a much more activist and interventionist vision. 911 had something to do with the change, but it's not the only cause. It does look likely now that "unilateralism" is something very different from non-interventionism. It may even involve getting into more conflicts around the world than legalistic or bureaucratic "internationalism." There may be perfectly reasonable explanations for the change -- it may not even be a change at all -- but the difference between what was implied by national "modesty" during the campaign and what looks like intense national self-assertion now, does call for explanation.
There has been a lot of positive talk about empire in the media. Not all of it's from recognized neo-conservatives, Republicans or conservatives. Indeed, so far as I know, much of it seems to come from the unorganized fringe of political discussion, people like Robert Kaplan, Niall Ferguson, Mark Steyn, Max Boot. But there are similarities to the thinking of others in side and outside the administration who favor a more active policy around the world, Charles Krauthammer, Robert Kagan, Dinesh D'Souza, for example, to explain why some have made the connection, between neo-conservatives and neo-imperialism.
This idea that neocons are massing at the gates is another absurdity. True neocons are hard to find.
To be sure. You won't find many who represent classical neo-conservatism (circa 1975 or 1979). History has moved on, and old groups have scattered, while new ones have formed. A lot can change in twenty years.
The word "neo-conservative" does tend to get thrown around a lot. But I think its use is not wholly arbitrary to characterize the changes that have come over foreign policy thinking on the right. Much of the talk one heard over the last year or so about American power and its place in the world differs not just from what the paleoconservative fringe says, but also from what one had long heard from the conservative grassroots. It may be that the conservative and Republican mainstream has been entirely swept up in the new current, but for some observers the change has been striking and impossible to ignore. Some vocabulary is needed to characterize the difference, though one may certainly criticize the actual terms chosen.
I just got a look at Ramesh Ponnuru's article in the latest National Review on this topic. It's worth a look, though I think quite mistaken. To me, it seemed to be a lot of clever hair-splitting aimed at concealing currents and trends that may be hard to pin down and characterize, but are nevertheless real.
I think the fissures on the left are deeper, and more prevalent. How many are jockeying for leadership of the Democrat Party as we speak?............you'll need two hands to count them.
Don't believe any BS about conservatives being on the defensive...............quite the contrary; Achilles had a heel to show, the Democrats are presenting you with the whole leg.
I was fairly non-interventionist before 9/11, and still have some qualms, but I also think that the United States has to defend itself.
This man is not stupid............he is poised to seize the platform of the Democrat Party; he can portray himself as being 'patriotic', yet still satisfy certain leftist requirements.
I'd vote for a "free marketeer".
or the 3 musketeers? or maybe a mouseketeer?
Well, I can live with that.
And which are you?
Well, if they don't get the votes, they aren't going to enact anything, conservative or otherwise. And if the Democrats get the votes, we know nothing conservative is going to happen.
"Hi, my name is Joe Lieberman. I voted for the war in Iraq. "(maybe tempers his support with a little spin here to pacify certain elements in his party)
"I'm all for a strong military. The United States has an obligation to project its power to defend the rights of the powerless" (again, I'm making a naked point to Free Republic, the spinmeisters will try to be a little more deft.....will appeal to more 'patriotic' types in liberal circles. If there is such a thing.)
"However, I still believe in the populist message of the Democratic Party.......we are all Americans (fill in your favorite Democrat talking point here)...........and all have a right to (blah, blah, blah).........
You get the idea.
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.