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.
I have repeatedly questioned such usage. One is either a Conservative--i.e., interested in preserving what he considers essential to his heritage--or he is not. Calling one a neo-Conservative, should imply that he has newly come to Conservatism. It makes no sense to apply it to one who is not interested in preserving his Country's traditions. Indeed, in such a sense, it can only be misleading.
The fact that some Leftists, today, may seek to hide under a "Conservative" umbrella--they got a good scare, when Reagan was elected--is beside the point. We should not adopt or accept the usage. Words are important, and you should never just accept your enemy's distorted definitions.
Beyond that, it is essential that we always look beyond any label, whatever the source, to analyze what is actually involved in any proposal, or in any issue. Magic words, shibboleths and slogans, are the techniques of demagogues. The effective Conservative should always have in mind a dynamic image of the interrelationships of ideas, facts--both of the present and past--and the potential effect of those ideas and facts on all components of the social order. Understanding the dynamics behind alternative paths and positions is essential in both promoting sound thinking and in exposing the fallacies of the Left, etc..
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
#6...satan---already here!
#7...What we started with!
My trendition...
Creation/God...REFORMATION(Judeo-Christianity)---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!
Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc-religion/rhetoric)...
Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-America---
If you want to see magazine contrasts - For Conservatism read The American Conservative that Buchanan launched at the National Press Club Wednesday. For Neo-Con read Kristol's Weekly Standard.
I think jstone78 should referred to as an idiot.
I agree. Before I read your post, I was going to say that I guess I am a real conservative except for point #4. So, I'm 6 for 7.
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?
I oppose anything FDR ever did just as a matter of principle.
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?
Call me a 'bot but Bush is my man.
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.
(1) Yes I would. Every legal imposition upon the American people should be justified Constitutionally. (2) BWAAAHAHAHA...
Score?
I note you have Reagan on your list - but unlike you, I remember the '80s, and how you and the rest of the bluenosed crowd treated him - and it was shabby.
I think it refers to "the fifth column."
I know there are a few interpretive definitions of what a neoconservative is. By true definition, the word neoconservative means:
"a former liberal espousing political conservatism"
And Bill Buckley is no neocon. Buckley is a traditional conservative. Irving Kristol, the father of Bill Kristol is considered the "Father", or "Godfather" of neoconservatism in America.
Neoconservative.com says the following on their frontpage:
A site dedicated to advancing the political perspective known as neoconservatism, which is committed to cultural traditionalism, democratic capitalism, and a foreign policy promoting freedom and American interests around the world
He he. It's hidden in all 3 questions.
1. No FDR New Deal commerce clause, and WoD goes back to the states.
2. Ron Paul would end the federal WoD and send it back to the states.
3. No constitutional justification for a federal WoD exists. 10th Amendment says it belongs to the states.
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.