Why Neo-Conservatives Are not Real Conservatives

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.

"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."

In that one paragraph is the entire difference between the old Republican Party...and that new piece of trash they now call the Republican Party.

No wonder I have a difficult time even trying to vote for them.

redrock

Point taken on the size of the old parks. Some were immense, some were small, and some were both at the same time (like the Polo Grounds).

I'd estimate that steroid use in baseball is somewhere between the obviously exaggerated numbers than Canseco threw out a couple of months ago (70%+) and the 2%-4% figure that Selig's minions like tell us. Anyway, it's a problem. Bonds' round face and 35 lb weight gain just happened to coincide with his renaissance? No coincidence. The guy's balls are probably the size of peas by now.

1. Do you agree with FDR's New Deal interpretation of the commerce clause, and all subsequent government powers/court rulings that have sprung from it?

No. It turned our nation from one of limited government to one of essentially unlimited government.

2. There is a hypothetical election with no Democratic or third party candidates. The person who wins the Republican nomination wins the election. The candidates for nomination are Ron Paul and George Bush. Who do you vote for?

Ron Paul.

3. Would you approve of a law that forced Congress to cite a specifically enumerated constitutional power before it can pass a law? Also, apply this to every law already on the books.

I think this is a great idea.

--A Republican is for tax cuts first and never criticizes Bush. Lott is a Republican.
--A RINO is for abortion first and never criticizes Kerry. McCain is a RINO.
--A Neo-Con is for Israel first and never criticizes Sharon. Kristol is a Neo-con.
--A Conservative is for America first and criticizes both Bush and Sharon. Buchanan is a Conservative.

And I'm a Jewish paleo-con. Go figure.

Imo, a far greater factor in the ungodly power #'s put up these days than the new training techniques you mentioned is the diluted pitching (due to super-expansion). I see guys out there today pitching with $3 million+/yr contracts that wouldn't have made triple-A a couple of decades ago.

People tend to forget - and mind you, I wasn't in favour of the 1990s expansions at all - that a) to the extent that pitching is or isn't "diluted," any such dilution tends to balance out and recuperate in a very short time. At this writing, for example, there is a chance that the season will end with (you can look it up) eight 20-game winning pitchers, and the league ERAs are down considerably enough from the last few seasons. The National League ERA as of today: 3.78. The American League's: 4.03. Both down enough from last season. (The split is just about right, considering the American League's DH rule.)

What no one cares much to address is one of the actual factors that did cut into pitching for a long enough time: the insane takeaway of the inside part of the plate, which I notice enough umpires this year are trying to do again after a period of enough pitchers taking the inside part of the plate back. That began well enough before the 1990s, I'm afraid. There are umps who will run a pitcher if all he does is paint the inside black, never mind go so far in as to almost nick a batter. Take away the inside strikes and you might as well give the hitters nine-inning batting practise. But that is what has been done long enough, even with no few pitchers this year doing what they could to take the inside part of the plate back.

You're sooooooooooooooooo out in left field, with this garbage, that it's a wonder you can even imagine that you're a Conservative.

Okay, smarty, Ronald Reagan is a neo-con. Now, tell me how he fits your ridiculous mold.

Maybe it's long past time, for some FREEPERS, who delusionally imagine that they are Conservatives ( as welll as the only arbotors wof WHO is and WHO is not a Conservative or a Republican ) to realize that they aren't Conservative at all and that they neither know, nor understand politics .

. . membership of approx. a million.

In Texas, maybe.

Never more than 50,000 nationally. (But who can say, since Robert Welch is dead and he's supposedly the only one who had the list.)

I think you've been reading too many pamphlets from the SPLC and the ADL, Tex.

In the real world of politics, which I was a part of for many years, the JBS had about squat influence over the Republican Party, even though two or three JBS-ers have held elective office in the past. John Rousselot was one I remember, and by today's standards he'd be an extremist I'm sure. He actually thought we should abolish the IRS, get out of the UN and stop all foreign aid. What heresy to the party of Lincoln!

Oh, and don't forget Larry McDonald.

Since you don't live in Georgia maybe McDonald is not on your radar screen.

He most definitely was on the Soviets'. He was a passenger on KAL flight 007 shot down over Sakhalin in 1983. I'm sure the Urinal-Constipation will publish some kind of a tribute next year on the 20th anniversary. After all, he was their kind of Congressman -- a Democrat.

even with no few pitchers this year doing what they could to take the inside part of the plate back.

Heheh... I watched the Yankees-Devil Rays game the other night, when Clemons was pitching. I don't recall who was up to bat, be he tried to bunt on Clemons. Clemons got this pissed-off expression on his face, and the next pitch was a fastball inside, forcing the batter to jump back. There are still a few old-school pitchers around! ;o)

You should be described as a CINO , who doesn't know enough, to even begin to attempt to write such a vanity; ridculous and full of holes, as it is.

Ronald Reagan IS a neo-con. He was singing the praises of FDR, when he was still making public speeches. Yet, YOU saw fit to put him in the Conservative patheon, at the same time, that you claimed that fruads and liberals ONLY praised FRD and the " New Deal " .

Alan Keyes, on several ( many ) occassions, has used the " racists " label / pulled the race card, claimed " victimhood " and yet, you say that only PC brainwashed garbage uses such terms. REALLY ?

The crazy Libertarians named. are NOT Conservatives and are so far from your descriptions, not all of which are credible, for TRUE Conservatism, that one has to wonder at the level of your ego / hubris, that you should ever imagine that you have the intellect to write such a vanity at all. You don't know enough facts, about the people nor the topic, that you have delusionally decided that you are " expert " in. You aren't even a bantum weight, yet you are pontificating . THat's really too, too funny for words. LOL

Before YOU start vcalling anyone a " pseudo-conservative ", you'd best learn factual history and stop relying on your " feelings ", dear.

Oh, and before you even begin to assume that I am a neo-con, pack that in. I was a CONSERVATIVE, before you ever got out of diapers, I bet. I also know history, facts, and polictics better than you do.

There are still a few old-school pitchers around! ;o)

For which this baseball fan is grateful eternally, even if he also acknowledges there are those who periodically cross the line between old school and eternal dementia. Roger Clemens, occasionally, is such a line-crosser, but then I thought Bobby Valentine was a wimp for utter failure to have his Mets give the Yankees what for the inning after Clemens tried to shish-kebab Mike Piazza with that jagged-ended broken bat barrel. I would have had my pitchers instructed before the game that any rough stuff from Clemens and I want the hottest hitter in the Yankee lineup and the DH (since it happened in Yankee Stadium) going on their ass immediately, and if the ump is fool enough to run you we will pick you up a hundred percent.

I still thought how delicious it was earlier this year, in an interleague game, when Shawn Estes - under enough pressure for a fortnight to be ready to put Clemens on his ass hitting in Shea Stadium - split the difference and threw it behind Clemens. It drew the usual warning...but it took the weapon right out of Clemens's hand, and the Mets went on to drub the Yankees in that game, 8-1. (Hell, Estes himself practically started the bombardment, going yard off The Rocket himself shortly after pitching one behind him.) Unfortunately, Valentine is baseball's ADD manager: He never remembers what works from day to day. If he'd had his Mets playing that kind of sound, hard, balanced, take-no-prisoners ball all the time and not just when Roger Clemens was in the yard, the Mets might have been the NL East winners.

I went to Dodger Stadium in May to watch the Cubs play the Dodgers. Kevin Brown pitched for the Dodgers and dropped Sammy Sosa twice in the same at bat, for whatever reason. First one was just bending Sosa back, but the second one dropped him faster than an elevator on the hundredth floor snapping its cables. I'm guessing it was ancient payback, since Brown hadn't pitched much over the previous year. And, since he was fool enough to rush back from last year's elbow surgery and injured his back playing with his kids at home, Brown didn't pitch much this year, either.

Hell, Estes himself practically started the bombardment, going yard off The Rocket himself shortly after pitching one behind him.

Which was probably a more effective retaliation than the behind-the-back pitch was.

And, since he was fool enough to rush back from last year's elbow surgery and injured his back playing with his kids at home, Brown didn't pitch much this year, either.

Which is one of the reasons the Dodgers are sitting in third. Hard to win down the stretch with three starters out. The NL seems to be completely up for grabs this year, but the Giants have been the hot team the past few weeks. We may see another Bay series this year.

I totally agree with your observation concerning the inside of the plate. Hitters are all too aware of this of course, and are crowding the plate like never before because of it. I've seen actual strikes thrown - ball travels over plate - where the hitters have a cow about being thrown at and the ump issues a warning. This development (of taking away the inside strike) may very well have begun before the 90's, but the hitters' crowding of the plate didn't seem to become a common occurence until the mid-90's (when, coincidentally, the power #'s skyrocketed).

It's easy enough to forget, but the hitters were actually beginning to crowd the plate back to the early 1980s. As a matter of fact, no less than Greg Maddux to this day talks about how amazed he was when he first pitched in the National League, in 1987, to see how many hitters were all over the plate and able to drive the outside ball, with the umpires all but ready to fan the pitcher's behind if he even thought about coming inside.

Rickey Henderson, for one, was choking off the inside part of the plate from the word go. At least, he did until he got a little message at the beginning of the first exhibition game of spring training in 1989: the Yankees visited the Mets for an exhibition game, when Henderson was still in the Pinstripes. He led off against Dwight Gooden and took his usual plate-crowding, almost-a-catcher's-crouch batting stance...and Gooden zipped one right under his chin, snapping Henderson practically to attention. On the first pitch, yet. Even the Yankees were impressed at that kind of nerve. Said Don Mattingly: "You want to talk about wake-up time!"

Gooden, by the way, threw the single most surreal knockdown pitch I have ever seen, against his old buddy Floyd Youmans, when Youmans was pitching for the Expos. Youmans had been brushing a few too many Mets back, so he got a little message from his high-school pal his first time up at the plate. The Doctor fired one that dropped Youmans so fast his loose-fitting batting helmet was still aloft when the ball flew over the falling Youmans's head.

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.