Semantics are no small matter as I tried to explain - it controls ideas and ideas control actions. All this arguing over who is more conservative than who and variations of labels obscure the real debate of the constitutionality of policy foreign and domestic. Also if the grassroots has one understanding of 'conservative' that differs from the leadership's definition then the grassroots support people and things they actually oppose - or used to oppose. This misunderstanding or a shift in ideology decides our form of government - our very lives. No small matter.
Suppose I accept the thesis of this article - National Review "isn't really conservative", Lew Rockwell are the "real conservatives", and in particular (by implication) the Bush administration's policy of escalating our 12-year-old war against Iraq back into an overt shooting/ground/air war isn't the "real conservative" position.
My question to you remains: So what?
You can't argue against the war with mere semantics. If the war is wrong, it's wrong for reasons rooted in the real world - not "because it's not really conservative". Similarly, if National Review is a bad magazine, it's bad because it's got bad writers who write bad things - not "because they're not really conservative".
Similarly, if Lew Rockwell is a great (online?) magazine, it's going to have to be great because it's got great writers who write great things - not because they're "the real conservatives".
But you have to actually make those arguments - if they can be made, that is. You can't short-cut the argument just by playing word-games.
I didn't say the matter was a small one.
I was just pointing out that arguments between big "L" Libertarians and big "R" Republicans always end at that point, or some other equally intractable position. That's why I usually skip these threads. No offense taken, I hope.