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)
This is the proper definition of the word.
Since I was once a lefty who "saw the light," if you will, and became conservative, I am by definition a neoconservative. David Horowitz is a neocon. Even Dr. Thomas Sowell is a neocon. He used to be a Marxist just like Horowitz used to be.
A lot of disdain is shown here for the so-called "neocon." Let it continue, please. As for this "neocon" not being really a conservative, let's just say that I don't prove negatives. I can only tell you what I am as opposed to what I am not.
But if this makes you and others feel better about yourselves, let it ride.
They'd rather have the whole loaf or none at all - if they can't have it all, they'd rather be schismatics who insure that the libs take the whole wad, rather than settle for partial measures or half-steps.
Stupid sniping from the sidelines about who is and isn't a conservative - how about we argue about this junk after the libs are run off the field?
If this is true then "Old-conservatives" are old-racists.
Or is that too general of a statement for anyone??
It makes it kind of hard for me to find someone to agree with, but easy to find someone to blame.
tcostell
Reagan recognized that we needed a "big government" to fight world communism. He also recognized that there were some things big government did well -- like fight a highly technological war. And he realized that having government engineering social policy was idiotic.
And Ronald Reagan was a better "conservative" than any paleocon nitwit that ever lived.
Cincinatus
Thank you both for summing up the neo/paelo nonsense that is used by some to justify their positions and denigrate everyone else's. Labels mean nothing. I can tell a liberal without a label and I don't buy this 'my way or no way' defeatist attitude some cling to while pinning their pointless little labels on everyone. If you need a name tag to know who you are, you aren't ready for hardball politics.
THANK YOU! I forgot to mention Reagan in my previous post.
It's like this. Man is imperfect, and by extension, any philosophy that the imperfect man creates is by definition imperfect.
Therefore, I will subscribe to no man's dogma. But these types who say that they are the true conservatives are just as dogmatic and rigid in their mindset as the dyed-in-the-wool Leftists are in theirs.
I reject such rigidity of thought out of hand.
If I escaped the mental plantation of the RATS, what makes anyone think that I'm going to enslave my mind yet again to another ideology?
I don't think so. I'm a free-thinker who views issues through the lenses of free (fair) trade, deregulation, tremendously less taxation, overwhelmingly strong defense, and liberty. How to attain these are up for debate to me, but apparently not for others. To them, it's their way or the highway.
Real conservatism is not so simple minded, and never has been. Traditionalism is part of conservatism, and an important part. But that is hardly the whole story.
I much prefer Russel Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles to the shallow description of conservatism above.
One of the problems with conservatism today is that it continually attacks "Neo-conservatism," but fails to define it the same way twice. The term originally referred to a clique of predominantly Jewish Democrats from New York who switched their political affiliation to the Republican Party primarily over the issues of strong national defense and anti-communism. These days the term is tossed around to label anyone judged insufficiently conservative - a variable definition, dependent on the frame of reference of the accuser.
Let me say this for those that are apparently hard of hearing, WE'RE NOT THE FRINGE!!!! We are the ones that keep the party going, the ones that still hold to what it is to be a conservative, and not planning on giving any ground. Unfortunately there are many true conservatives that are willing to vote for the lesser of two evils just because they dislike Democrats more than they dislike the Republican being offered to them. Look at the Republicans of today and compare them to the Republicans of 20 or even 40 years ago. Then compare them to the Democrats of a century and a half ago (that's the line today's Republican comes from, not the Socialist Whig Republicans of the latter half of the 19th century). Every year conservatives give more and more ground and it's about time it stops. You can hardly tell the parties apart except for a few fiscal policies
WRONG! I'm not separating myself from anything like that. But those of you who would love to hurl that term around as an insult, feel free. All I can do is laugh.
Well besides being an inane comment yes it is too general
Ouch! But you know, I could make that argument. I won't though, since in 2002 it's nothing more than shibboleth.
It's not worth the energy or space.
I don't think the labels are important, but I think there are some core issues that are, and those issues are going to be divisive along those lines.
Is FDR's "blank check" interpretation of the Commerce Clause wrong? Are we ultimately shooting ourselves in the foot by saying "Well, it isn't really right, but as long as we've got it, let's try and use it to our advantage."?
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.