Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
your posts that are always nothing more than attacks on conservatives, Christians, etc., and understand that they'll never offer anything of value. Just the biased rantings of a far-leftist.
While I plead guilty for consistently and conscientiously attacking the false statements, obfuscations and outright lies of both Neo-Rightist and so-called "Christians" based upon the responses that I receive for those comments, I would find myself hard pressed to believe that they viewed as valueless, perhaps to you, but not to quite a few others.
As for being biased, this too I plead guilty. As for rantings? Yes from time to time when I find that facts and rational discussion incapable of penetrating the calcified brains (assuming that their are brains to begin with) I, out of frustration, will left off an angry missive or two, but for the most part, I make it a habit to post supporting evidence for my arguments.
There does need to be a distinction made between traditional conservatism and the hybrid imposter that has cropped up over the last ten years or so.
For example: one of the central tenets of traditional conservatism is the belief in keeping the government as small and as unobtrusive as possible. Contrast that with the so called "conservative" Bush administration that gave birth to The Homeland Security Act which ushered in the biggest expansion of government since Franklin D. Roosevelt's "New Deal" policies and work programs.
There is also a strangely irrational anti-intellectual bent to this new breed of conservatism that is not native to the traditional form. As the OP pointed out, some of the leading lights of conservatism were east coast intellectuals like William F. Buckley. In contrast the hybrid breed of conservatism is very suspicious of intellectualism in general and at times appears to worship at the alter of ignorance.
I'm an Army vet and I've always considered my political views to be fairly conservative, but more often than not, when I meet somebody who claims to be a conservative we are speaking two totally different languages.
There does need to be a distinction made between traditional conservatism and the hybrid imposter that has cropped up over the last ten years or so.
For example: one of the central tenets of traditional conservatism is the belief in keeping the government as small and as unobtrusive as possible. Contrast that with the so called "conservative" Bush administration that gave birth to The Homeland Security Act which ushered in the biggest expansion of government since Franklin D. Roosevelt's "New Deal" policies and work programs.
There is also a strangely irrational anti-intellectual bent to this new breed of conservatism that is not native to the traditional form. As the OP pointed out, some of the leading lights of conservatism were east coast intellectuals like William F. Buckley. In contrast the hybrid breed of conservatism is very suspicious of intellectualism in general and at times appears to worship at the alter of ignorance.
I'm an Army vet and I've always considered my political views to be fairly conservative, but more often than not, when I meet somebody who claims to be a conservative we are speaking two totally different languages.
It's strange indeed.
Being an Army vet you should be more concerend over the Communist party that hijacked the liberal base of the democrat party. They are the domestic enemy.
I guess with your logic, Democrat is the party of butthurt fairy prancers, the douche bag collective I trademarked, who eye my salary like it's warm apple pie, with ever aspiring dreams of more govt because like an ass puppet they need that reassuring stiff firm hand of govt to prop themselves up with because you can't do it, life, on your own; like a small child ever in need of the nanny... state.
I pledge to stop punching hippies. 2010 baby, happy nye.
1. I dont know what a 'butthurt fairy prancer' is.
2. As you obviously didnt read my post, Im (obviously) NOT a liberal.
3. Your generalizations of anyone who disagrees with you places your ideals firmly into the 'neocon' catagory I was referring to.
There is also a strangely irrational anti-intellectual bent to this new breed of conservatism that is not native to the traditional form. As the OP pointed out, some of the leading lights of conservatism were east coast intellectuals like William F. Buckley. In contrast the hybrid breed of conservatism is very suspicious of intellectualism in general and at times appears to worship at the alter of ignorance.
I have posted this before, when I was in college, I had little time for my fellow left leaning classmates, not because we disagreed on basic principles but because of the dogmatic fervor and lack of intellectual curiosity. As a result I found myself gravitating to libertarians, and Conservatives who, while I didn't always agree, found to be intellectually challenging. Up until 2000, I could, to the dismay of many liberal friends, find a policy stance being advanced by one conservative or another which I found perfectly sane, well thought out, and some worth pursuing, I can no longer say that this is true.
For example, I am as against corporate influence in politics as anyone, but, as George Will argues (yes I like George Will) it is virtually impossible to reconcile campaign finance reform with the 1st Amendment rights of corporations.
Another example, I would vastly prefer substantial federal funding of jobs rather than welfare, because like conservatives I view welfare as a debilitating program for America's poor. My support for welfare however is unshakeable absent a serious alternative as I suggested above.
In each of those cases, the liberal desire to protect society from the abuse of the powerful and the care of the powerless can find co-existence with conservative values of constitutional rigor and reduction of the welfare state, if only there existed an arena of reasoned discussion. Presently that doesn't exist within the current political climate.
However, before the conservatives were hounded out of the Republican Party, many of the existing programs, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, or Nixon's other proposal for national health care, which looks quite remarkably like the present proposals, there were many areas of commonality between liberals and conservatives.
No, I'm pretty clear in my mind as to whom I am referring to. The Neo-Conservative movement is a well defined political perspective that was advanced by the likes of Sen. Henry Jackson, Sam Nunn, Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, and Palin, Bachamann, Limbaugh et. al. are not Henry Jackson, Irving Kristol, or Norman Podhoretz. And while there are slogans and standards (colors, flags, banners etc) that have been expropriated by the neo-right, they have no understanding of their origin or meanings.
But I agree with this assessment when describing the Neo-right;
...neoconfederate, identity-politics, ignorance-worshiping, cowboy diplomacy - ways have pretty much flushed the heart of the Republican party down the drain. It will be at LEAST a decade before the party can recover.
Its no longer a party about ideals of responsibility, less spending, personal freedom, and American values of equity and freedom, its now the 'white christian club for peoples we dont hate', dedicated to wantonly bashing anyone from any group that these neocons[right] feel should not be included.
Anyone who disagrees with them is deemed 'liberal' and attacked, from goldwaterist to old McCain to Romney. Likewise, anyone from any group they identify as in the opposition, no matter what that individual thinks on issues (Moderates, Mexicans, blacks, mixed people, gays, nonchristians, big city folk), are equally deemed 'not american' and demeaned.
Well I for one appreciate the distinction, regardless of how you or others may feel about your opinions of the ditto heads. (although I agree with this assessment as well.) Equating everyone on the right as being conservative, either Neoconservative or Paleoconservative is not even in the same ball park, and I'm glad some folks realize this.
Indeed Neoconservativism is a valid political philosophy and has a great many supporters today. I am a bit surprised you didn't mention Leo Strauss from the University of Chicago who is consider by many to be the godfather of the Neoconservative wing, back in the days when it was actually an intellectual group. Paul Wolfowitz I believe studied under Strauss and Richard Perle was also one of its greatest supporters. Their philosophy is what I often refer to as Platonist as it is very much rooted in many of Plato's ideas that when one looks at governing a state the following should apply. That only the intellectual elite should govern a state as the average nave is neither fit nor capable of dealing with the nuances of governing. Secondly that it is acceptable and often necessary to deceive the population you govern in order to rule them for the best, as they often pine for desires instead of needs. Lastly, that the protection of the state is often best accomplished through force of arms and the assimilation of client state buffers. (much like Rome) I sometimes call these the Machiavellians as one can see that they must have issued a copy of Machiavelli's The Prince, as a bible for their pockets. Others have called them former Liberals disillusioned with Liberalism, turned militant interventionist. I believe during the 2004 Presidential campaign, William Kristol stated on Fox live that "Neoconservatives should embrace their liberal roots", when it looked as though the election could go either way, so they hedged their bets.
The earlier more intellectual Neoconservative movement later splintered into other factions, with the most notable being what you described. During the Neoconservative ascension during the 80's under Reagan, it was noted that co-opting the religious right, they would gain a strong voting bloc that voted in lock step. Neoconservatives of this early era never really cared about social conservatives needs or wants, so usually just paid lip service to them in order to use them as voting soldiers at the ballot.
In very stark contrast, there are Paleoconservatives which are more like Taft, Roosevelt and to a lesser degree, Goldwater. It was from this more traditional flavor of Conservatism in which your William Buckley's, Raimondo's, Bacevich, etc... have hailed from. Positions of humble foreign policy, strong national defense meaning protecting the state, not necessary all its foreign interest through arms. Personal liberty and the idea that the government shouldn't infringe upon rights and freedoms of the individual, including under the premise of security. In the past there was also the view that our national resources were a treasure and should be managed responsibly, as opposed to simply dominated over. Fiscal responsibility in government was deeper than just yelling "Lower taxes", as no one should borrow and place future generations in debt as it is immoral. No one would engage in two wars without the means of funding them let alone the insanity of lowering taxes while engaging in war. Sometimes, increasing taxes is the most responsible thing to do, even if the people don't like it. I think today this group is much closer to Libertarians since the Republican Party adopted a more militant Liberal position during the 80's.
I would even go so far as to assert that there are three political factions working within two political parties today in America. Left, Right, and Neo-Conservative/Liberal which includes some of both left and right. There are far fewer traditional conservatives like Ron Paul or Chuck Hagel, just as there are fewer Dennis Kucninich and Alan Grayson's out there today. Seems both left and right have so focused on the center that it has all become a simple matter of labeling, absolutist rhetoric, denouncement, etc... instead of about political philosophy.
...by referring to the Neo-Rightâ„¢ as being conservatives.
As far as I can determine, the Neo-Rightâ„¢, epitomized by the Palinistas, Bachmannites, Dittoheads, et.al, - or the socket puppets in the Republican leadership who pander to them - have no relationship to the conservatives in the tradition of William Buckley, Joseph Sobran. Not that I agreed with them either, but at least they were sane, reasoned, and not opposed to intellectual inquiry and discourse.
So, I pledge to refrain from defaming conservatives by applying that appellation when describing my insane, unreasonable and anti-intellectual opponents, their political commentary, and political philosophical(sic) points of view. In the future will simply use the appellation Neo-Rightâ„¢.
Who cares, as they have all hijacked the party anyway. I don't see any true conservative standing up to them and those who do branch off are even nuttier than what's left of the GOP. In short, they all suck, some worse than others.
Who cares, as they have all hijacked the party anyway. I don't see any true conservative standing up to them and those who do branch off are even nuttier than what's left of the GOP. In short, they all suck, some worse than others.
Amen.
The GOP can come back, but its going to take OPEN distancing from the nutjobs, buffoons, and bigots that are getting all the media attention nowadays (Palin, Limbaugh, Cheney, Rove, and the post-fox Tea Partiers).
Seems both left and right have so focused on the center that it has all become a simple matter of labeling, absolutist rhetoric, denouncement, etc... instead of about political philosophy.
On a British discussion forum that I used to frequent the issue of left, right and center was always an amusing discussion for Europeans you like you, could not discern any underpinning ideological differences between the so-called right and the left, it just a hodge-pod of inside baseball arguments about how to fine tune the machine, unlike Europe were there are deep ideological differences between the left and the right. Well at least before New Labor took on the worst aspects of American politics.
As I have mentioned before, being past adherent of the Real Ultra Leftâ„¢, I too find these arguments rather dismaying. Which of course what is amazing about the political utterances from the Neo-Right. Without a strong historical view of American politics or those who advanced the various political philosophies that underpin them the accusations throw at conservatives within the Republican Party much less at Democrats is so wildly absurd as to defy description. Frankly, I don't see how political compromise or even a functional government can arise out of the present quagmire.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
