I personally think it is *very* damaging to the C movement for you to say that. Because you are labeling one group as real "Conservatives", and relegating (wrongly) the others to 'neo-' and 'lib'. Realize that many of the other type of C say that they are the "real conservatives" because ya'll believe in using the power of govt to do social engineering things they believe are not a function of govt.
I believe that's not a useful argument to have. We can all be "conservatives".
Besides, 'socially liberal (meaning "live and let live") and politically conservative is *not* 'libertarian. Libertarians believe in many things (like, "non-initiation of force") that we do NOT believe in.
I only use the 'gay' issue here because it is so instructive. We could also use 'victimless crimes', as you point out. Or one of a host of other issues.
Marriage licenses(i.e.'public recognition'), legal child adoption, even artificial child conception, are all matters of reasonable public policy, both because of the public concern about the social impact, and the public concern for the well-being of children who can't vote and have little power to defend their own interests.
Let's just say, I disagree with you. And when ya'll push the R party to fight for this kind of thing, then you lose me, and most 'Political' conservatives.
So I would think it would be best if we keep discussing/debating those kind of 'social' issues, but not yet move for any govt action. Unless you want to split the R party asunder.
I have a gut feeling that this is what has happened here . . . Bush is a social C, political L. He is the leader of the Social Cs, but has completely ignored the political Cs.
Which, I think, is why his approval rating has tanked.
The winning political issues are all 'political'. The contract with america was all 'political' issues like corruption, taxes, etc. Fighting for govt action on social issues will only ruin us.
I personally think it is *very* damaging to the C movement for you to say that. Because you are labeling one group as real "Conservatives", and relegating (wrongly) the others to 'neo-' and 'lib'.
No, it's mostly just one of the usual designations because of the chronology: 'neo-conservatives' really did emerge around the mid to late 1970s, cite Irving Kristol- podhoretz-nathanGlazer etc.. And before them there really were Conservatives from Burke to Kirk.
"Neo-" has been the neo-cons preferred designation for themselves. And Libertarians have always preferred to distinguish their approach from 'Conservatism'. We could apply the prefix "paleo-" to Conservatives to distinguish them from "neo-"s, but why bother? The advent of the "neo-" camp shouldn't oblige anyone else to change their own name. And, no, the conservative movement has not been damaged by these terms.