I try very hard to have all of my opinions based on the ideas that we must have as small as possible government at all levels, that every person (or company) is responsible and accountable for their actions, and a true conservative would never utter the words "there ought to be a law", unless it was absolutely proven to be necessary.
Keeping this is mind, I set forth a few working definitions for terms I'll be using in future writings.
Conservative (classic definition): One who believes in small fiscally responsible government, especially limited at the Federal level to defense and necessary infrastructure, and is socially concerned, with answers for those concerns coming from the private sector. Examples are: Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan, & JFK (surprised).
Liberal (classic definition): One who believes that government has all of the answers both politically and socially. One who wants to expand government at all levels. Examples: FDR, LBJ, Hubert Humphrey, & RFK (though he had many instances of conservative thought).
Moderate (Middle of the Road): One who is afraid to take a stand on issues, and usually resides in the middle of the road with the carcasses of the dead animals. Examples: None Living.
Neo-Conservative (Neo-Con): One who believes that his/her "Conservative" ideas are correct for everyone and wants the government to exist to make the people conform to these ideas through legislation, and therefore insists on big government to insure this. Pretends to be socially concerned. Examples: George Bush I, George Bush II, Ashcroft, and the Extreme Right.
Neo-Liberal (Neo-Lib): One who believes that his/her "Liberal" ideas are correct for everyone and wants the government to exist to make the people conform to these ideas through legislation, and therefore insists on big government to insure this. Pretends to be socially concerned. Examples; Pelosi, Murtha, Clinton I, Clinton II, Obama, and the Extreme Left.
Neo-Moderate (Neo-Mod): Still dead in the middle of the road, and as yet does not realize it.
As you can see the difference between the Neo-Cons and the Neo-Libs is how they insist we should live our lives.
The Classic Liberals are now considered Conservatives by the Neo-Libs, and the Classic Conservatives are considered Liberals by the Neo-Cons.
What a screwy world we live in, and we had better start correcting things ASAP. Obviously being a classic conservative I believe in the right for people to chose their on lives, spend their own money, and make their own decisions.
Speaking of politics and life, keep the facts, not the faith.
The Hammer
Copyright Crickard Publishing 2008. All rights Reserved
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 17
I disagree that the administration has been liberal because of where the expenditures are going. A true liberal would want the government to benefit the most people. Very few people are benefiting from government spending today.
There are no true liberals today. The Neo-cons only want power and control, over the government and our lives. Those of which you speak are long dead.
Everything else is the state's responsibility. And, I don't want them in my bedroom or most of my life.
The main problem with big government and it's solutions is the drag on the economy. If we send a $1.00 to Washington for whatever reason, say education, road, etc. (the things not allowed by the constitution) maybe, if we are lucky, .62 comes back. Some bureaucrat ate the rest. Federal employees, especially, are a massive drain on the economy, 100's of times more than any war. Their jobs are mainly non-productive (i.e. they produce nothing). This is the true definition of a government liberal.
It might surprise you (maybe not if you have read my other articles), but I am a social liberal, a conservationist, and, if I do say so, a damn nice guy. I am pro-choice (with a few caveats), pro-legalization of alternative marriage contracts, and pro-legalization of prostitution and some drugs (with a lot of caveats).
Do you really think the Neo-Cons would back me for office. Not is this lifetime.
Believe me I am not sold on any of the last administrations. Our last great president was Reagan. I am still proud of the American people, but I really have problems with our governments, national and state, especially taking our money, privacy, and individual freedoms.
How can you call them partisan? What is your definition of a Neo-Con, or Neo-Lib?
They certainly aren't the classical definitions.
They are both out on the fringes!
2. It is the republiCON party that has expanded the size of the federal government over the past 30 years, not the democratic. Also, while a liberal does see a very real, substantive role for government in a given society, he by no means sees that all things should eminate from that government.
3. Moderates are the largest segment of voter block. They swing towards one party or the other based upon specific issues of the day that move them. They have deeply strong opinions, but have found that neither party accomodates them 100%, and are smart enough to not marry themselves blindly to an ideology.
Neoconservatism rose from neoliberalism. They believe in a global American empire, massive expansion of the federal government, massive debt spending, massive handouts to corporate millionaires, and severely hampering and damaging the effectiveness of government at all levels, in order to "prove their point" that government is bad.
They also believe in massive intrusions by the government into personal lives, and want all citizens to think and act alike, marching in lock step to the "state."
Neoconservatism is so close to a fascist government that, by the father of fascism's own definition, they are one and the same. This is the movement that snatched the body of the GOP in 1981, and has been controlling it ever since.
Want ever-larger, ever-more intrusive, ever-more corrupt, ever-more incompetent, ever-more wasteful, ever-more fraudulent, ever-more fascist government? Vote republiCON today.
4. There isn't a neoliberal movement anymore. It metasticized into the neoconservative movement decades ago.
5. There is no such thing as a neo-moderate. Approximately 40-50% of the population is either solidy democratic or solidy republican. The other 50-60% are moderates that will swing to either party, depending upon the issue of the day that they feel moves them the most. Probably about 20-30% of these will generally tend to vote with republicans or democrats, even if the candidate isn't 100% in line with their particular values. The other 20-30% are truly swing voters.
The moderate voter is the largest voting block in the country. They comprise, imo, the brightest among all voters, because they're smart enough to realize that neither party was built for them. They are the third party voter block.
I disagree about there being no neo-lib movement any more. I think it disappeared for a long time but unfortunately is experiencing a revival. To them I am a neo-con and to the neo-cons I am a damned left liberal. Both thrive on trashing and putting down anybody who does not agree with them 100 percent.
I could name a few members of the media who I think are close to being neo-libs, as well as a few Gather members who qualify. They even have a candidate who they adore, but I do not think the candidate, himself, is a neo-lib. At least I hope he isn't and hasn't been pulling a con job on us. The revived neo-lib movement is still in it's infancy, I hope it never reaches the terrible twos, because if it does Obama will have his hands full trying to get many of his own supporters to agree that achieving unity will not be achieved by expecting everyone else to shut up and take whatever he and his supporters decide is necessary for our own good.
The method is to divide and conquer for control, they purchase their people to do their bidding, including, via donations, the candidates we are supposed to think that we freely selected ourselves ... and along with that money comes the "advisers" that actually determine what the issues will be and how to handle them ... the president then rubber stamps their decisions and plays the role of president to impress we the voters into believing the buck begins and stops with him ... him and the rest of them, the puppets ...
Puppets who's strings are pulled by very wealthy folks preferring anonymity, the greatest conspiracy yet because it is only seen to be a stupid theory of liberals in the fringe ... at least that is what is parroted by the right and peer pressure does the rest, with nobody wanting to be "labeled" a kook, so no one dares to really look hard for the truth ...
So as the people, egged on by the right, name call across the divide of the silent majority, everyone gets ever more polarized and blames each other rather than those actually controlling it all ...
Look up the words conservative and liberal in their normal meanings and you will find why they are called what they are politically, and the truer traits back up what I have here said. The right is fearful and selfish, very militaristic, generally, there are always exceptions, the left is easy going and accepting, peace loving, and they get a bad rap from the right who claims everyone to their left is a liberal kook, and some argue back, on and on it goes and the folks at the tip of the hierarchical pyramid of control get exactly what they want, caring less about party loyalty then wealth and the power and control it affords them.
End of story.