Posted on 09/26/2002 2:36:29 PM PDT by 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.
But, to repeat the questions I asked the original poster, do most conservatives really want to abolish all of what remains of the New Deal? Do we really think this possible? Do people expect that such a program will ever come close to winning the acceptance of a majority? When we seriously consider the question, do we think getting rid of Social Security or collective bargaining or Nixon's EPA or TR's FDA or Grant's National Park Service will make America better or stronger or our lives better and more secure? We all have differences with how such agencies operate and we all know agencies and programs that should be done away with, but has anyone shown that the country would be better off with out Social Security or the EPA or federal pharmaceutical testing?
Most GOP voters of past decades had lived through the Depression and weren't apt to support an across the board rollback of government programs to what existed in 1964, 1933 or 1913 or 1860 or 1787. Now we're more able to contemplate such a rollback as an ideal, but are we really willing to accept all the consequences, and if we are, are the rest of the American people?
I would think a lot of the talk here about neo-cons as Trotskyites, misses the point. The neo-cons -- those who don't relapse and rejoin the Democrats -- moved to the right from the 60s to the 90s. The younger generation, whatever their faults, never were leftists and never had the enthusiasm for social democracy, the Great Society or the 60s that their parents may have had 40 years ago. On the other hand, since GWB came on the scene, neo-cons do appear to have a renewed enthusiasm for big government programs, and they do seem to be sliding back to the left. Meanwhile conservatives have learned after Reagan and Gingrich that there isn't going to be any full-scale return to Eisenhower or Coolidge, and some question whether such a rollback would be all to the good or that it wouldn't be accompanied with the same complaints we have against the present order.
There's still a difference between neo-cons and others, but I don't think it revolves around a rollback of government programs, but on the "rollforward" of government power associated with the war. One reason for continuing suspicion of the neo-cons is their enthusiasm for war. One might have prefered the neo-cons to mainstream Republicans in the 70s and 80s because they were more solidly anti-Communist than Nixon or Ford or Dole or Kissinger. But today, when the wars in question are different, there's more reason to distrust the neo-conservatives.
You are the poster boy for what I described. You are loopy, irrelevant and suffering from every psychosis known to man.
It was the perpetually ridiculous John Kenneth Galbraith. Kind of a funny way to out yourself, though...
I think the distinction is not enthusiasm for war but with whom. The paleo-cons have always had a deep and abiding distrust for the state of Israel. They view any war in the Middle East through that lens. They see such conflicts in terms of Israel and the "Jewish lobby" as being not in our interests but in the interests of Israel. The Neo-Con "clique" is the mirror image of the Paleo-cons. It is not surprising that, over-time, the far-left and the far-right have finally reached the same point in their views of Israel and that conservatives have been fairly consistent in their views of our relationship with Israel and our strategic national interests in the region. The extremes of both the left and the right view the Middle East "problem" as Israel and the Palestinians. Conservatives view the Middle East as the entire region and its impact on the interests of the United States.
This may shock you, but I can't identify with any of the above. Cheers.
WRONG this is what the sensible members of the hard right( like Rush and Rush is hard right he ain't no Bush Bot) believe( as well as the objectivist libertarians among other groups of libertarians pacifism and pie in the sky isolationism tend to cloud their reason). If Neocons believed this I would give them more credit. The left is evil its agenda is totalitarianism and they should be ruthlessly exterminated before they do it to us. Well I wouldn't say all Arabs I would say all who wouldn't convert. As for liberals most are just sheep only their leaders need to be executed.
Do unto others before they can do unto you.
Neo-cons were, as you say, real anti-communists when the Evil Empire was all we worried about. I'm not sure if they advocated pre-emptive strikes against potential enemies, though Buckley and Steve Allen -- no conservative of any stripe -- proposed such against Red China's nuclear facilities as I recall.
And since the Cold War ended, the neo-cons have been staying up late trying to think of new enemies that would justify another great military build-up. David Brooks and Bill Kristol whacked a hornet's nest with their "national greatness" escapade, and at exactly the wrong time with Clinton in the White House and few conservatives wanting to see him with the power to ruin even more lives worldwide.
But since 9/11 I'm not sure that the neo-conservatives haven't been overtaken in their bloodlust by what we used to think of as "traditional" conservatives, in the mold of Barry Goldwater and Carl Curtis and John Tower. By the numbers, there have to be more traditionalists than neos, wouldn't you say?
Yet the neo-cons are seen everywhere on the TV as commentators, anchors and "specialists." Their influence surely extends through the administration as well as the media. About the only place they don't have a foothold is in academia, it would seem (unless Hillsdale College counts).
Raimondo by his affection for Pat Buchanan shows hes lying about being a libertarian.
Rockwell I think is a genuine libertarian and a Paleo but farther out there then most. He advocates anarcho capitalism rather than strict minarchism and I think anarcho capitalism is unworkable. The 1st couple weeks you'd be paying tolls to leave your house because ALL land would be privately owned. Then since there would be nobody to enforce any laws criminal gangs would quickly form set up their own law and everything would go to hell. My ideology selector test rated me as a Paleo libertarian.
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.