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)
Well said. You get the gold star.
You just gave the reason why so many people, including myself, despise the Perot/Buchanan type polititians.
They want to 'wreck the system' and hope they can make something good from the rubble. And they are willing to make any compromise to make it happen. [Examples: Pat Buchanan teaming up with Lenora Fulani and asking pro-choice Jimmy Hoffa to be his running mate. Or certain freepers supporting Traficant, in spite of his liberal voting record and his conviction on fraud charges.]
Sorry to disturb you out of your slumber with my "paranoia."
Pleasant dreams. 'Pod
I DO favor a law that says sodomy is illegal to be practiced in the street or on children etc.
Perhaps I do differ than most socio-cons. I would tell you though, that our current Family Law does nothing but destroy family values and I do think that "family values" are A Good Thing.
You nailed it w/ your 1st sentence regarding my ostracism point.
AFA voting for a candidate that wants to make Sodomy illegal, you could certainly do that (as is your right). Whether it is hypocritical would depend on several things. 1) Are you a single issue voter? 2) is this the only thing that you and the candidate differ on? etc.
AFA Enimem and other crap like Murphy Brown is concerned, I would say that Gubbermint has no business regulating this, but Society does have a vested interest in opposing propaganda like this. I oppose it at every opportunity.
TV is dangerous for the slop it spews out. I have 2 young children. Let me tell ya, you become really attuned with what is being force-fed the kids once you have 'em.
Thanks again for your thoughtful post! 'Pod
So because the Democratic party has taken over most of the black vote, conservatives are to soften their stance on the issues to win back some of that vote?
(I'm in no way wanting to take anyway anyone's voting rights.) Just stating facts. You can't act like the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the New Deal, the Great Society, and the New Frontier never happen. Would you rather the GOP nominate Herbert Hoover's ghost and lose every single election?
No you cannot act like those didn't happen. But instead of embracing the New Deal and Great Society as good things, touch that 'third rail' of politics. It's got to be done sooner or later, and for the posterity of this generation and for my future childrens' lives, grab hold of it and break it down!! The original intent of the Founders was that running for political office was not meant to be some kind of popularity contest yet that is exactly what it has turned into. The people elect the lesser of two evils. Except for a scant handful of elections within the last 20 years, everytime I stepped into the booth I told myself I was voting for the lesser of two evils. And within 20 years it has only gotten worse. No more. I will vote only for the fiscally conservative candidate, but they must be morally conservative as well. If they can't hold up, well I won't vote for that person. I will vote my conscience. I will not vote for a pro-abortion, anti-gun 'conservative' no matter what the outcome. If that makes me 'fringe' well heck, I guess I have too much of my ancestors' pride and blood in me to know any different
I resemble that remark. 'Pod
Clarify please. I daresay you are not suggesting that Southern heritage has anything to do with the other qualifiers you have mentioned. If so, you are sadly mistaken and the proof is easily attainable to suggest otherwise.
I think conservatism in America is not nearly as navel-gazing as the typical poster to our forum or the typical conservative political writer of any flavor.
Thanks for your link to my post at #30. R. Kirk points out that he was refered to as a Neo Conservative in the 50s...albeit by the America First crowd and the Taft gangs left over from the first half of the century.
While the younger Kristol wears the mantle proudly, few are as self-promoting as he. Is Horowitz a NeoCon? Who cares as long as he keeps writing as prolifically and speaking as voraciously as he has.
I saw this thread earlier today prior to your first post and frankly, I'm a little weary of discussing mere labels. Perhaps, if we had an issue other than the Big NeoCon Three (Big Government isn't All Bad, Globalism is Our Friend, and Projecting Power is Fun) to define NeoConservatism beyond the application of power while in office as a conservative...say a real thought process, I would delve into it. But honestly, they bore me.
The high visibility paleos have come to put the cart before the horse, demanding fragmentation of the country or some kind of devolution of power as a prelude to greater freedom and morality. In fact it's a diversion, a red herring. It's a bit like other conservatives who tell us that we don't have to worry about immigration if we can just abolish the welfare state. Dismantling the welfare state looks like a much harder job than reforming immigration policy. Similarly, taking the country apart looks like a harder job than reducing federal budget or bureaucracy or promoting moral conduct. But there is a certain logic: split up the country and will all have our hands full dealing with the consequences and little time for other things.
This isn't true though:
"Social conservative" is a contradiction in terms, and people who proudly wear that label are hypocrites.
"Social conservatism" is conservatism. It's the old fundamental or traditionalist preservation of social institutions and rules. It's the ur-conservatism, love it or hate it. It's libertarian or free market conservatism that is the hybrid form. That doesn't make free market conservatism illegitmate, and indeed, it seems more popular than older "throne and altar" or Catholic peasant or Calvinist-Puritan conservatisms, but it's a wise child who can recognize its father, and a wise student of politics who gives credit where it's due.
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.