Why Neo-Conservatives Are not Real Conservatives

self

[jstone78]

I have always tried to figure out how real conservatives differ from neo-conservatives. I have listed a few points, with which you should feel free to agree or disagree with, and if you like, you can mention other ways in which you feel real conservatives and neocons differ.

1. Real conservatives (whether Old Rightists or New Rightists) are motivated by high moral principles and deep conviction, that the role of government in people's lives should be minimized, and people should be allowed to run their own lives. But Neo-conservatives are actually liberals and Marxists who pretend to be conservatives, and are motivated by nothing more than opportunism and hypocrisy, and have no moral principles worthy of mention.

2. Heros of real conservatives include individuals such as Gen. Douglass McArthur, Gen. George S. Patton, former Sen. Robert Taft, Robert E. Lee, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Alan Keyes. Heros of the neo-cons include Harry Truman, FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Leon Trotsky, Nelson Rockefeller, Henry "Scoop" Jackson, and Sen. John McCain.

3. Real conservatives always put the interests of America first, ahead of other nations. They also believe that institutions not elected by American voters, have no right to make decisions affecting the lives of Americans. But neo-conservatives support globalization, mass immigration, the WTO, the United Nations, and most other forms of globalism.

4. Real Conservatives often win elections on fundamental moral and constitutional issues like defending the lives of the unborn, the restoration of school prayer, the right of ordinary citizens in a democracy to defend themselves through protection of Second Ammendment rights, and the rebuilding of the Christian foundation that made America a great nation. Neo-cons win elections on materialistic issues like government entitlements, tax privileges for some, and whining about the dangers of the "religious right" and other "extremists" in an attempt to discredit real conservatives.

5. Real conservatives oppose New Deal policies which resulted in big government. Neo-Conservatives support the New Deal.

6. Real conservatives oppose political correctness and victimology. But neo-conservatives are the greatest promoters of victim politics in America, as a result of finger-pointing habits they developed when they were still marxists and liberals. Neo-cons are fond of slandering their enemies using liberal buzz words such as "sexist", "racist", "anti-semitic", "homophobe", "isolationist", "bigot", "nativist", "xenophobe", etc.

In 1981, neo-conservative attack dogs ganged up and destroyed a prominent Southern conservative, the late M. E. Bradford. Bradford, a highly distinguished scholar, had been nominated by Ronald Reagan to be chair of the NEH, and smears by vicious and hateful neo-conservatives forced Ronald Reagan to withdraw the nomination. Many other real conservative scholars and columnists have had their reputations destroyed by hateful and vindictive neo-conservatives. Ironically, one common smear used by neo-cons, the "anti-semitic" smear, disregards the fact that many defenders of the old right are Jewish. Men like the late Murray Rothbard, Howard Phillips, and Paul Gottfried are strong defenders of old fashioned conservatism.

7. Liberals and Marxists hate old fashioned conservatives, whether in America or Europe, because they see real conservatives as a huge obstacle to the imposition of their socialist one-world agenda. Have you all noticed how European conservatives who oppose the European Union and the EU's liberal immigration policy are treated by the media? On the other hand, Liberals, Socialists, and Marxists, love neo-conservatives, whom they see as allies. Maybe the "ex-liberal" and "ex-Marxist" labels that neo-conservatives are often given, are nothing more than a sham (i.e. the "ex" part).

8. There is broad intellectual diversity among real conservatives, and they express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Some are Old Rightists, while others are New Rightists. Some are paleo-libertarians who are very anti-statist, while others are less hostile to the state. Some support Israel, while others do not. Some support free trade, while others are protectionist. Some want the IRS abolished entirely, while others favor reform of the IRS. But almost all oppose New Deal policies, and are strict constructionists in the various ways they interpret the US Constitution. Neo-cons on the other hand, do not tolerate dissent in their ranks, and all match in lockstep. The dictatorial nature of neo-conservatism can be traced to the authoritarian style of one old neo-con hero, Leon Trotsky.

[Torie]

Yep I qualify as a Neo per your litmus test (which test is silly and beside the point, and item one tendentious since I support the modest cut back in SCOTUS's interpretation of the reach of the clause under the Reinquist court (but to cut it back to its roots would invite economic chaos in a modern interdependent economy and will never happen), but then I have never shyed from that term, because I am a neo and proud of it.

[NeoCaveman]

See #179 Torie, your more neo than me.

Cheers.

[Torie]

site = cite. Cheers.

[weikel]

You and fporretto tend seem and come across as perfectly rational I think you should team up. Though I still don't understand your view on the 14th amendment( well its ratification was dubious) I don't want the states to be able to pass anything they want. Local collectivism is still collectivism and states are too big to really be local either.

[logician2u]

And all along I assumed you were an American. In what country do you claim citizenship?

Citizens of the world, unite!

Ooops, that isn't quite right, is it?

(Didn't put in the </sarcasm> tag, but thought it unnecessary. Nobody but J.R. would catch it anyway, and he's probably on another thread. :^|)

[NeoCaveman]

Fair enough, it's too late on the eastern timezone for proper spelling :-)

[Phillip Augustus]

You strike me as more of a liberal than a neo-con; however, please don't be insulted by that observation, as I candidly would prefer the former to the latter, were I forced to choose.

[jwalsh07]

Keep your left up and your chin close to your shoulder.

Good luck.

[Torie]

If I am a liberal, and liberals agreed with all my views, this land would be a better place. Alas it is not so. :)

[weikel]

Cutting back the FDR commerce intrepratation would just get rid of a lot of dead weight.

[logician2u]

Whew!

If forming long unpuncuated sentences in reply to freee's litmus tests is indicative of a neo-conservative like Torie weikel and I had better take a lesson or two from BluesDuke and show our paleo/libertarian colors with an occasional comma or better yet period.

Do they teach that in law school?

[Torie]

I opposed number 3 because it was so ineffectual and naive. Anyone can cite anything in the constitution as supporting any law, and it doesn't matter squat, because SCOTUS is where the action is (not that my view of the Constitution would be popular here, but then it would be ever less popular with DU denizens or partisan jihadists like Leahy). A certain segment around here doesn't seem to care much about who will be on the court per their tantrums. Don't you find that odd?

[BluesDuke]

Btw, and now completely off the subject (of neo-cons), a buddy of mine told me a Cobb-tale the other day and I was wondering if you can vouch for its validity. Supposedly he was so tired of hearing about Ruth's homerun prowess that he temporarily switched his reverse bat-grip and lit up the bleachers for a few games just to show how easy hitting homers was. Then, when his point was made (to both the fans and the media), he went back to hitting his standard singles and doubles fare.

Myth?

Believe it or not - it's a true story, almost. Cobb genuinely did dislike Babe Ruth, but it wasn't the hoopla over Ruth that dismayed him as much as it was the emerging emphasis on the long ball in general. Cobb finally did decided for a couple of games to go for the long ball just to prove he could do it, and he did in fact prove his point, but he never changed his batting grip to do it, so far as I can determine. (Cobb's batting grip, by the way, wasn't a reverse grip - he merely spread his hands wide apart on the handle. The only hitter I've ever known who ever did hit reverse grip was Henry Aaron, who came up batting with his left hand over his right and kept it that way for awhile. There could have been others, but I don't know who they were or how long they batted that way.)

The Georgia Peach Pit (let's face it - Tyrus wasn't exactly a prince among men, but neither, really, was Babe Ruth)wasn't the only one of his time to be dismayed by the emerging emphasis on the long ball. For years it has been assumed that Ring Lardner was driven out of sports journalism by his disgust over the Black Sox scandal. And it is true that the legendary writer was disgusted over the scandal (it's also true, as he was portrayed in the film Eight Men Out, that Lardner did sing a lyric he called "I'm Forever Blowing Ballgames" aboard the White Sox team train to the tune of "I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles"). But the real reason he withdrew from sports journalism was, he couldn't stand the advent of the lively ball. (His long-lost column enunciating that disgust, "Br'er Rabbit Ball," is a classic.) He believed to his soul that the live ball era meant the end of "legitimate" baseball.

[Torie]

The joy of being a practicing lawyer is that we get to edit our first draft. My final drafts I think are quite excellent. At least that is what judges tell me. And I agree with them. :)

[BluesDuke]

Horowitz was a genuine and sincere conversion Kristol never left the left. Hes just a double agent and 5th columnist thats why he supported the Manchurian canidate McCain.

Are you sure you're not mistaking William Kristol (Irving's son) for Irving Kristol? (And, say what you will about John McVain, but there were an awful lot of men and women on the right who were dumb enough to believe McVain viable.)

[inkling]

First, I believe inkling was quoting exsnook.

I demand an apology!!!

If this is the case, my words were indeed misadressed; inkling, please accept my sincere apology.

Well! That's more like it! :-)

Let me assure you, TopQuark, I am a HUGE fan of Israel, although more of a Netanyahu fan than a Sharon fan. I loathe Buchanan and am glad he's been exposed for the anti-Republican, anti-Semitic, pro-Gore, paranoid fantasist that I've known him to be for a decade.

My earlier comments focused on the fact that since no one can agree what the heck "neo-con" means, it is irrelevant to continue arguing if neo-cons are good or bad. In the last presidential election cycle, I originally supported Kasich (I sure can pick a winner!), then when he dropped out I voted for Keyes in the primary (adding to his powerhouse showing of 3% in Arizona), then became a huge Dubya fan. Based on the above list, various FReepers might classify me as a neo-con, paleo-con, RINO, religious rightist, moderate. I'm unclassifiable.... just like the vast majority of thinking voters.

[weikel]

I think their both leftist posing as conservatives.

[Torie]

Kristol pere is a hopelessly orthodox conservative at this point. Fils is a bit of an opportunist and political entrereneur. I am not sure he has too many core beliefs, but I don't really know.

[jwalsh07]

Don't you find that odd?

No, there are loads of freepers running around without noses because they were po'd at their faces. So many in fact that I don't find it odd at all.

[BluesDuke]

At least that is what judges tell me.

Judge: A law student who grades his own examination papers. - H.L. Mencken.