Posted on 04/26/2002 12:36:50 PM PDT by ForOurFuture
I hear the term used more and more, but am not sure what exactly differentiates Neo-Cons from ordinary Conservatives. The one difference I've gleaned is in foreign policy: more agressive, warhawkish. Anybody?
While most people here will rail against some of the sypmtoms produced by this, many will sidestep taking a stand against the root cause. Most, or all of these will be the "NeoCons". The breakpoint for many is the War on Drugs. The DEA's authority is established under, and wholly dependent on FDR's interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
Lighbringer eh? What's another word for that? Wouldn't that be.... Lucifer?
No no........far from it. My "paleo-con" description was fairly accurate, if a bit tongue-in-cheek. Paleo-con's are staunch Constitutionalists. This represents a far, far greater percentage of Conservatives than what you choose to portray as some "fringe" group. If you choose to view, as the liberals do, the Constitution as a (what'd they call it?) "living, breathing document" that is to be selectively enforced or modified according to the whims of the day, then you and I are definitely on opposite sides of the fence.
In fact, I think you'll find the Constitution and its strict following to be the best gauge of where a "conservative" stands: neo- vs. paleo-. I'll stand with the paleo's on this any day.
ANother similarity to Sharpton."
To associate Horowitz with Sharpton in any context is rediculous.
John McCain
While I probably should have reported your post for some not-so-veiled anti-semitism, I won't. Written by someone who makes an issue of his being a "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male," your post carries limited legitimacy in the eyes of anyone that has read Horowitz before. While the majority of people on the right are content to pick some off-the-wall topic to protest like abortion, if even that, he takes on the Left directly on its core issues like the race card. He is a true "conservative activist," something I dare say most of the people here are probably not even close to being.
That you even call his opponents liberals shows your ignorance. They are not liberals, they are leftists. Any educated man or woman knows the difference. A liberal is an adherent to the philosophies of Locke and Mill, a leftist to Marx and Trotsky. I am a liberal, they are not.
You are guilty of directly playing the race card once again (besides the first offense being your username) by stating that he is a demagogue that collects angry white men to further his cause. I take it you have not bothered to check out Frontpagemag.com on a continual basis. You would see that Larry Elders and David Yeagly, a black conservative (which in your mind is probably an oxymoron) and a Commanche Indian, are both regular commentators.
Buchanan has publically stated his opposition to much of the free market. He is not merely anti-globalization, he is anti-global trade. His ilk would return us to the days of protectionism that created the smoot-holly tariff, the cause of the Great Depression. Buchanan is a paleo-conservative and Goldwater would be the neo-conservative. Buchanan is stuck in an era of knee-jerk, reactionary politics whereas most educated, true conservatives are definitively progressive by comparison. Buchanan is no friend of civil liberties; he mentally hails from the age of absolutism, not liberalism. Buchanan is an anti-semite that looks upon Israel with disdain because its government does with a great deal of raw efficiency, what every western welfare state does not, defend its people from slaughter by belligerent factions and nations. He is a utopian who has come out recently stating that he thinks that the Israelis must be pushed to the negotiating table. More proof that he is an anti-semite. The Israelis have been to that table more times than any other republican state in the past fifty years and all that their enemies have done is jeer at them from the other end of it.
The golden rule for government is that it must do the most good for the most people while maximizing liberty to the fullest without undermining basic social institutions. Neither Buchanan, nor you acting as his political cheerleader in this forum would give us a state that embodies that creed.
One last attempt.
The difference between Horowitz and Sharpton is that Horowitz's rhetoric, whatever the "heat", is based on facts, history and law. Sharpton's is based on myths, half-truths and outright lies.
If you can't see the difference you are in a sorry state.
No other takers either. Perhaps no one believes I said it.
The simple definition of liberal and conservative stems from the general belief that conservatives protect the status quo and tinker around the edges, and liberals want to trash the status quo and change everything. I like the simple definition better than all this complicated gobblegook!
Remember: join the conspiracy of your choice, while you still can.
How is that again? LOL.
The one thing I know is that the neo-cons have far more influence in this country that the paleo-cons. I don't anticipate that will change. Cheers.
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.