Posted on 08/12/2002 5:48:59 AM PDT by sauropod
Several years ago, I noticed the term "neo-conservative" come into frequent use. I have grown to hate this word because it gives people who bear the term false credentials as true conservatives.
To me, true conservatives fit the description of what used to be called the "Old Right." These "new conservatives" present nothing that reflects the ideas of the "Old Right," or traditional conservatism. Neo-conservatives see nothing wrong with big, centralized government, as long as they, the neo-conservatives, are in charge instead of liberal Democrats. That's like saying, "It would be okay if America was ruled by a dictator, as long as I was the dictator, because I would surely be a benevolent dictator." But you can't count on the next guy to be benevolent. It's asinine.
There is a saying: "Conservatives never conserved anything." In most ways the saying is true. Leading neo-conservatives of today have very moderate stances when it comes to traditional values concerning marriage, sexual mores, immigration, taxation, property rights, limited government, and religion. These people claim to be leaders in the conservative faction of politics. Quite frankly, if you were to put their views and ideas on paper and lay them beside the views and ideas of a liberal Democrat, you would have a hard time telling which ideas were the liberal Democrat's and which came from the neo-conservatives.
Neo-conservatives are in reality neo-socialists, for they cloak their big government socialism in the ideas of big business and they believe that big, centralized government is okay as long as "conservatives" run it. They are the front men for large corporations. They tout capitalism, but in reality they are advocates of mercantilism. This is a close cousin to the state-controlled economies of communist countries. Yes, those economies: the ones that all failed miserably.
What we have in neo-conservatives is a bunch of liberals who are "pretenders to the throne" of conservatism. Real conservatism is actually traditionalism. In that sense, I am not a conservative, but a traditionalist. A "Southern Traditionalist" to be exact. I cling to the ideals and values of our colonial forefathers, and the people of the South who dared stand against Lincoln and the forces of centralization and mercantilism. These new false conservatives can mouth their platitudes and claim to be for tradition all they want. But when their kind continues to expand federal power, to limit our freedoms and liberties, and to accept as normal the perversions that go on in our society, they had best keep in mind that traditionalists like myself see through this façade, and we have had enough. Our numbers are growing, and we no longer believe we have to vote for false conservatives as the "lesser of two evils."
The loud booming voices of neo-conservatism are false prophets. It is like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain of neo-conservatism and you will see not a conservative, but a socialist. Is it any wonder that many of today's noted neo-conservatives are "former" leftists of the 1960's, or had parents who were members of the Communist Party, USA? Don't two of the Republican's big "conservatives," Orin Hatch of Utah and John McCain of Arizona, spend much of their time "in bed" with Ted Kennedy? When Mississippi's "conservative" Trent Lott was majority leader in the U.S. Senate, did he push a conservative agenda? (The answer, of course, is a very loud "NO.") What has the "arch-conservative" John Ashcroft done since becoming Attorney General? With his help, we are headed toward a police state.
Off hand, the only real conservative, or traditionalist, I see on the national scene is Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. People like him deserve our support. The socialists in neo-conservative clothing need to be spurned. I would rather "throw my vote away" on an independent or third-party candidate and sleep well at night because I didn't contribute to the continuing downfall of our lost republic by voting for a neo-conservative/socialist, than choose "the lesser of two evils" and know that I voted into office someone who was going to go for my wallet and stab me in the back as if he were a common street mugger.
Neo-conservatives are really neo-socialists. True conservatives/traditionalists should denounce these frauds. Just as the original definition of the word "liberal" no longer applies in our society, "conservative" doesn't mean what it used to, not when it comes out of the mouths of the political phonies that man the barricades of the Republican Party. I'm not a neo-conservative, or even a conservative. They've ruined that word. I am a Traditionalist. I hope all who love their freedom, fear God, and know what we have lost, will step up and put on the Traditionalist mantle to help separate themselves from the pretenders who think we will vote for them this election year because they believe we have nowhere else to turn.
© 2002 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted)
What have we got for it? I already delineated above how W. has approved legislation that is abhorrant to any conservative i personally know.
Some choice. No political correctness here, merely an observation.
Paleo-cons and paleo-libs who fall into this trap create these silly debates over who is a Conservative and who isn't.
That said, neo-Cons seem to believe that troop movements in the Middle East is the defining issue of our time. Paleo-Cons and paleo-libs are working to build bridges to topple the current ruling elite that puts on a shell game called democracy simply to serve their permanent ruling status. We look to incorporate Southern state's right folks and embrace Reagan's efforts to restore federalism, even as we were disappointed that he allowed the permanent ruling class to continue ruling while he was in office (different folks blame the assassination attempt others believe a deal was struck when he signed Bush on to the team.)
Actually, I do own several properties. So the "original" term here is apropos.
Otherwise, fair enough.
So, see ya! And I wouldn't want to be ya.
Reagan recognized that a cold war is a war and dealt with it as a conservative would.
That really wasn't my point though. My point is it's easy to rail against neo-cons without mentioning names, then label whoever disagrees on a particular issue a "neo-con". It's like if I wrote an article criticizing "neo-confederates" who wish the south had won and there was no USA. Then I could accuse anyone who opposes any expansion of federal power of being a "neo-confed".
Yeah, 'Pod!! I mean, really!! We all know the latest bits of legislation will protect us and 10 years from now when this 'war' is over will never be used against anyone. They won't add up to one massive amount of legislation that further destroys what's left of the Republic. We'll still have our freedoms. I imagine we'll have a load of choices as to which weekly processing/checkin center we can go to. And here in NC, we even get to pick the backgrounds for our drivers' licenses, so I imagine the same will be said of the national ID cards. Yep as long as you fall in step to the state, you're going to be just fine....
that you bitch everyday about why Bush is a "sellout" when he's trying to eradicate Islamic terror that could revisit with another 9/11
Eradicating Islamic terror is one thing, further consolidation of the general government's power under more bureaucracy is another. Just because this nation is at 'war'(and I won't even go into the fact that the POTUS hasn't officially asked Congress for war except twice in the past 160 years) doesn't mean I'm supposed to close my eyes and be led blindly to the slaughter house habs. If you allow that you're not a conservative, you're a populist statist, no better than O'Reilly
And why shouldn't people be labeled. They persist in labeling us right-wingers. (And I wear that label proudly).
Who said you have to support anyone you don't agree with?
My point is that the stupid label sometimes becomes more important than the ideology behind the label. I've seen it many times on FR. Watch someone disagree with someone else on some specific issue - especially about the Republican party - and the 'neo-conservative' label is too often instantly attached to that poster, like a mark of Cain. All discussion is supposed to cease; they've been 'marked' and labled. Case closed.
It neatly avoids real discussion and puts the recipient on the defensive - over a label. Very liberal-style tactic that I hate to see. It's tempting and routine in political discussions but not very useful.
'Neo-Conservative' can mean whatever the person using the label wants it to mean. A waste of time and a cheesy tactic, in my opinion. The left does this and we can do it back when it fits ('hypocrite' is usually accurate here) but to go back and forth playing the label game with other conservatives is rather pointless.
And yes, it is a bigger threat than Islam. It is not Islamists that are putting cameras atop red lights. It is not Islamists that are insisting on evidence remaining secret. It is not Islamists that are insisting on wiretapping being done without a judge saying it is ok.
We must agree to disagree. If i suffer from a lack of perspective, then so be it. 'Pod
Have to confess that i am not familiar w/ the evidence against Milosevic. Not sure if he should be tried or not. ANd why not Croat leaders or Bosnian muslim leaders? I understand that there were atrocities on all sides. 'Pod
What I have found is that usually the poster labeled a neo-con (or something else) usually says something else that justifies the label (as have several on this thread).
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.