Posted on 12/29/2002 8:35:58 AM PST by TLBSHOW
I am not really a "fan" of either of them, but they are both very intelligent and are worth listening to.
In this case I think I side with Buchannan. Nixon was not the "evil right winger" some people paint him to be. In fact, I bet he would be called a RINO if FR was around at the time.
I think he's unfairly maligned allot of times.
Kind of like "Monopoly" If it wasn't in the dictonary, you would never know what the word truly means, it's misused so often.
"Historically, neoconservatism has been marked by a strong anti-Communism, a deep appreciation of America, a critical celebration of capitalism, a stress on the importance of religion and virtues, a sense of tragedy about the effects of social action and a cons tant aversion to individualistic heresies - either on the libertarian right or the licentious left."
I view Neocons as being internationalist, interventionist, for a strong military, pro free trade and anti-protectionist, pro civil rights in a color blind way, pro welfare reform, valuing religion even if not religious themselves, concerned about the dysfunction of the educational establishment and pro voucher, and while not against government, or big government, of centralized government per se or a social safety net, desirous of continual engagment in an honest evaluation of its effects, efficicacy and consequences.
I pretty much take a Neocon position down the line in most things I post here. But then I am a Neocon.
Another definition requires that you had to be once a liberal, and it helped to be Jewish as well. That defintion is silly and outdated, and doesn't fit me. In fact, I used to be more traditionally conservative with a moderate amount of libertarian coloration, than I am now.
I hope that helps.
If I could press you further.. that's pretty broad, imo.
What are the points of contention between these "neo-cons" and the non-neo-cons"
I mean, this is so ambiguous as to leave me wondering if I am indeed one of these "Neo-conservatives" or not.
(Actually, I don't even know if they/we are a majority at this point.)
I suppose the Fiscal-conservatives and the Pro-government RINO's and open border types could definitely fall into the "neo" category, but so could many social conservatives and Christian conservatives as well. This is very confusing for me.
It's so broad as to be almost meaningless.
For Pat, it was abolished when he left the Republican party.
Mostly, it is a matter of emphasis. Some traditional conservatives are more isolationist, some not. The Paleos disagree with most of what I listed. Beyond that, traditional conservatives of the WSJ editorial page ilk tend to be more anti-redistributionist, more hostile to a social safety net, more impressed about supply side economics, more concerned about the evils of big government qua big government, more into subsidiarity (the devolving power to states and localities and away from Washington), and more cautious about government initiatives in general.
I wish there were other neocons around here to add their two cents, or disagree with my take on this, but I think I am the only real card carrying neocon on this board. :)
Mostly, it is a matter of emphasis. Some traditional conservatives are more isolationist, some not. The Paleos disagree with most of what I listed. Beyond that, traditional conservatives of the WSJ editorial page ilk tend to be more anti-redistributionist, more hostile to a social safety net, more impressed about supply side economics, more concerned about the evils of big government qua big government, more into subsidiarity (the devolving power to states and localities and away from Washington), and more cautious about government initiatives in general.
I wish there were other neocons around here to add their two cents, or disagree with my take on this, but I think I am the only real card carrying neocon on this board. :)
You had to toss the "paleo's" in there didn't you! (LOL!) Oh my! I am missing in action on that one also.
At some point I would like to see a thread on this.. It's would be interesting to hear the self described "X-conservatives" define themselves and maybe dispute some of the other characteristics attributed to them.
Well, that is only to be expected from a "dysron," i.e., one of normal or even slightly above average intelligence, whose fears and compulsions reduce his analytic abilities to a moronic level. There is no way that any person operating functionally with a "full deck," would think it in the Republican interest to (a) smear Trent Lott; (b) publicly disparage the contributions of Southern Conservatives to the improved Republican prospects since the 1960s; or (c) work with the biased and extremely Leftist New York Times on a project that incorporates "a" and "b."
Kristol is a simpering pseudo-intellectual poseur, without a clue as to how the world is really wrapped.
But the bright side of this, is that it sounds like he is in the process of self-destructing.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
And for Lott?
Oh, I dunno.
Probably when Lott went on BET, and sold out his party, in a selfish and pathetic effort to save his own skin.
Explain this - 90-92% of Blacks vote Dem. But if you poll them on their positions on vouchers, Fed. money for faith-based institutions, and SS reform, they are overwhelmingly for the GOP position.
A growing number - certainly far more than the 10% who don't vote Dem - are against quotas.
What part of the GOP message don't they like? The part that says that if you educate Black kids, they will be able to compete with whites on ability alone?
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.