:::What's Your Definition Of True Conservatism? Bush Or Buchanan?

[Edmund_Burke]

Barry Goldwater, Robert Taft, and Howard Buffett.

[Edmund_Burke]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

There is one thing I don't like about Goldwater. He was against the Civil Rights Act. One major reason I have issues with him.

Goldwater integrated in his personal life and supported a late 1950s bill that would ended Jim Crow.

[OuttaTheLouBurbs]

I chose Buchanan, but it doesn't matter because a) I'm not a conservative and b) this poll is incredibly biased and skewed.

[NDL]

I find this incredible.

My query (The Poll), was admittedly put up with little thought. I took two people who many Americans consider "conservative," and attached characteristics associated with each one.

G.W. Bush is widely recognized, having been the President. And Buchanan is still somewhat relevant, since his columns appear in conservative publications, and he makes regular appearances on TV commentaries.

That's it.

The idea behind my query, was to use people that mainstream Americans are familiar with.

Most people don't know who Dr. Alan Keyes is, they aren't familiar with Barry Goldwater, nor are they familiar with Russell Kirk.

Mainstream Americans are more familiar with Charles Krauthammer, than they are Paul Craig Roberts.

I'm glad to see that thread participants are thoughtful people . Gives me some hope...

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by FabianS

You forgot:
3) Bill Clinton(1995-2000 version): Moderate centralized government with mild support for conservative ideas like welfare reform; unbridled capitalism and NAFTA trade agreements. Wide open support for immigration. Moderate support for socially conservative issues like the Defense of Marriage Act.

He was a far left liberal who only tacked to the center due to the Republican revolution of 1994 and the pressure put on him by Speaker Gingrich.

He had to be something that he was not in order to have any relevancy.

[malamute]

Originally Posted by Harrier

He was a far left liberal who only tacked to the center due to the Republican revolution of 1994 and the pressure put on him by Speaker Gingrich.

He had to be something that he was not in order to have any relevancy.

Yes, both Clintons are far left liberals. They will pretend to be whatever however in order to gain power.

[Kreutz]

Originally Posted by FloridaPirate355

1776.That is true conservativism.

The conservatives of 1776 were called "loyalists".

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by NDL

Most people don't know who Dr. Alan Keyes is,...

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

Yes there are, they have largely dominated the GOP for decades.

You obviously have no idea what a Neo-Conservative is. Why don't you get your degree in Political Science and then get back to us.

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

Joe Liebermann is a center left liberal that on occasion shows good sense. He is in no stretch of the imagination a NeoCon or any other type of conservative.

Again, you don't know what a Neo-Conservative is.

Why don't you cite a Pukiepedia "article" so we can all get a good laugh.

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

Trotsky a right winger? LOL. He was to the left of Marx/Engels/Lenin/Stalin and advocated endless revolution. This is conservative??

I'm sure this material was never covered on your GED test, but Democrat does not equal Liberal. You can be a Conservative and be a Democrat. In the same way, Republican does not equal Conservative. You can be Liberal and be a Republican.

When you take Intro to Political Thought or Political Ideology, you will discover that Communists are very Conservative.

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

They do, but a regulated one, not totally free market. Their fondness for "Crony Capitalism" has put them at odds with PaleoCons, who advocate far less government controls and restrictions.

No doubt you prefer to be part of the Sheeple-Class and drink the Kool Aid. These very informative Neo-Conservative works espousing Neo-Conservative doctrine can be found here...

The Cultural Contradictions Of Capitalism: 20th Anniversary Edition: Daniel Bell: 9780465014996: Amazon.com: Books

Two Cheers for Capitalism: Irving Kristol: 9780465088034: Amazon.com: Books

...and "used" they're only a $1.50 plus shipping and handling.

Why don't you read them, and then you'll finally have a clue as to what Neo-Conservatism really actually is, and then perhaps you can engage in intelligent discourse, without looking silly.

Then maybe we can have a round-table discussion the Carter Administration, and in particular two of several Neo-Conservatives Carter appointed to his White House Staff, specifically, Gary Sick and Zbigniew Brzezinski (the latter was National Security Advisor to Carter), and how their policies still have negative ramifications for the US and the level of harm and damage done.

Originally Posted by NDL

A little harsh.

Deserved.

Originally Posted by NDL

I chose G.W. Bush and Pat Buchanan, because both individuals are the poster children for the ideologies they represent.

No, you are confusing political parties and political ideologies....they are often inconsistent.

Bush was never a Conservative and positively absolutely not a Neo-Conservative. Bush is a Neo-Liberal Institutionalist, just like his daddy is, and just like Clinton and Obama are.

Liberals love Collective Security. It works. Sorry, the UN is not Collective Security. Read the UN Charter. The problem is, what happens when Collective Security organizations like ANZUS, SEATO, OAS, OCS, Warsaw Pact, NATO and others become defunct or ineffectual?

You have a vacuum, and Nature abhors a vacuum...you need something to fill that void; take the place of Collective Security organizations.

Many people believed that Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs -- like the UN) could effectively fill the void.

Many Liberals jumped ship to this new ideology. Many Conservatives....like George H. Bush.... jumped ship, too.

This new ideology that emerged is Neo-Liberal Institutionalism, or Neo-Liberal for short. The "Institutionalism" part refers to the use of MNCs and NGOs as a means of establishing and pushing US hegemony and influence, instead of using the military.

For that reason, Neo-Liberals love Free Trade Agreements.

Using Corporations to gain control, to influence or push hegemony in a given State is cheaper and more effective than using armed force.

What did George W. do in Egypt?

He used NGOs to push US hegemony. How? Look at the amount of money Bush demanded and got to pump into political groups ostensibly to empower women in Egypt and get them into elected offices and more involved in government at all levels.

Look at the amount of money Clinton, Bush and Obama have funneled into NGOs in Ukraine.

You need to do a lot more research...

Mircea

[BlackShoe]

Originally Posted by Mircea

You obviously have no idea what a Neo-Conservative is. Why don't you get your degree in Political Science and then get back to us.

It is beginning to appear that you have no idea what any American political ideology is. Just about all PolySci 101 classes are taught by far left professors, many of whom are out and out Marxists. They do not teach, they indoctrinate.

I'm sure this material was never covered on your GED test, but Democrat does not equal Liberal. You can be a Conservative and be a Democrat. In the same way, Republican does not equal Conservative. You can be Liberal and be a Republican.

I'm sure this material was never covered in the junior high school civics course that you flunked, but most Democrats are not conservatives and most Republicans are not liberals.

No doubt you prefer to be part of the Sheeple-Class and drink the Kool Aid.

Why don't you read them, and then you'll finally have a clue as to what Neo-Conservatism really actually is, and then perhaps you can engage in intelligent discourse, without looking silly.

Not likely with you, since your viewpoint on geo-politics, is, to put it mildly, bizarre. It would appear that you may have been mostly educated in Europe, quite likely under Romanian Communism, thus the distorted analysis of the American political system.

Then maybe we can have a round-table discussion the Carter Administration, and in particular two of several Neo-Conservatives Carter appointed to his White House Staff, specifically, Gary Sick and Zbigniew Brzezinski (the latter was National Security Advisor to Carter), and how their policies still have negative ramifications for the US and the level of harm and damage done.

Brzezinski is not a NeoCon, he is a globalist, part of "The New World Order" crowd. Have long regarded him with hostility.

You need to do a lot more research.

You need to update your distorted views of American political systems. The indoctrination you received under Ceausescu was propaganda, and has no basis in reality.