A Conservative Fights Back

I refused to classified. call me what you like, do I follow one party or one path, no. I do believe in free speech.

No matter where you are on the spectrum from far left to far right or somewhere in between, we are human. We rely, much to our detriment sometimes, on stereotypes to help organize our thoughts and knowledge. We are all individuals with our own ideas, but our human brains cannot process that many ideas.

So relax. Often, the shoe is on the other foot! I've put up with the idea of that damned "liberal media" for so long. No matter where you are, someone disagrees!

I have tried making the same point about neocons for many months now David. It is clearly an epithet and I suspect it is used to suggest that we are all so gullible and unintelligent that we could not possibly know what to think in the absence of a wholesale endorsement of the policies of GWB and force fed thoughts from Fox.

Paleolib does suggest a certain quality that those who sling the epithets seem to share. Still, it is far too gentle to reflect my reaction to their insults.

The terms conservative and liberal are frankly misused by both political parties; and the political parties frankly are not representative of the contituents.

If the parties were so representative, we might have a candidate that really gets our blood going and really gets us interested in the election and hopeful of our future; at least the aspect in which they are involved.

Conservative to me is more an economical term meaning taking care of our assets and not wasting them; be it financial, physical, the environment even. It is also a term that I see in which people are allow responsibility for their assets and given more control over where they go.

Liberal to me is a social term and even religious term in which we are called to share our assets to those less fortunate and take care of our environments and not be judgemental of others but help all that we can and live and let live for the most part as long as they let us live and let live.

I know these are simplistic, but if you term me; term me a conlib or libcon. Whatever you term me; don't tell me you know what is best for me; whichever side of the political fence you are on.

David, the libs are still swinging from trees and picking fleas from each others hair as they have yet to evolve......lol

Our "Founding Fathers" were called liberals. Is this the kind of liberals a "Paleolib" is?

By the way, I think of myself as an "Up" since I am neither of the left nor right but have definite opinions based on my own understanding of things. :-)

Thanks for the comments thus far everyone. While on a coffee break, I'll try to react as needed to them.

Linda; the you are neither a paleolib nor a neocon ... congratulations.

Mary Beth; Agreed.

Kat; No, I think that makes you like the vast 80% of us residing in the middle.

George; Thanks for stopping by. I agree, but they paleolibs don't beileve that.

Nanci; I couldn't be too rough .... this is a family article. Email me your alternative! ;-)

Donald; That sounds pretty much conservative to me. Of course the Liberalism of Founding Fathers are mostly espoused by conservatives today; i.e. individual liberty and responsibility, small, limited government, etc.. Thanks for stopping by.

Larry; No ... the Founding Fathers would be conservatives today. Contemporary liberalism is watered-down socialism, in an attempt to make it more palatable to the masses. I like the "Up" idea though! Thanks for commenting.

I'm just a plain old everyday RON PAUL REPUBLICAN

David, nice to see an article by you again. They may as well call all non-Whites, African Americans, and they sometimes do. Not even all Blacks are African Americans, but they'll be politically correct at the expense of being correct except when political terminology as in the word, neocon, is not applied correctly. That's REALLY politically incorrect, but then it's just their way of differentiating between themselves and anyone who thinks to the right of them. (same consistent inconsistency, as per usual) Accuracy, in any case, is obviously not a deterrent to their use of any terms. If you're going to have any discussion with them, you have to declare that axiomatic, or forget it altogether.

And, that's why we like you, Col.! ;-)

Thanks Sue!

David, great to hear from you. Your voice has been missed.

As for me, I am cautious about name-calling. You cannot wrestle with a pig without getting dirty.

Thanks for stopping by Greg. I understand your point, and don;t disagree per se. But, it would seem that conservatives have already been dirties by having myd slung at them. Maybe a little return fire might quell the assaults.

In any event, I appreciate the input. ;-)

Here I am David your friendly liberal. I dont see what accomplished by labeling people. I was in the minority for the better part of the last 8 yrs. Let us have a moment in time. I am not gloating. I still realize that the job has just begun and there much work left to do. With everyones help and input and that means you my friend.

If only more of your collegues on the Left took your approach, Carol, this world would be a better place.

Thanks for stopping by!

not one politcal party or branch of politcal party has all the answers we need to do this job together.

Always a pleasure David

still fighting back David? Take it from the other side of the aisle no one listens. LOL. I know I have tried. Havent given up yet.

David, is this article your idea of a gauntlet tossed at the feet of Liberals? I can handle the label Paleolib, and do it with pride. Jesus Christ was a Paleoliberal. So was Thomas Jefferson, at least in the culture of his day. John Kennedy was too. Anyone who will stand firm for the rights of working men and women in the face of oppressive employers qualifies. Anyone who demands that the resources of a nation, state county or city go to the benefit of all the residents, not just the thieves is one too.

Neo Conservative, means, and is intended to mean, returning to those glorious days of yesteryear when the people belonged to the land, and the land belonged to the oligarch. I believe that you are trying to defend a political philosophy that says the desperate and impoverished deserve to starve. The philosophy of Marie Antoinette, "Let them eat cake."

Karl, thanks for stopping by, and thanks for engaging in the debate.

- Jesus was apolitical from my reading of scripture. Rendering unto Caeser and all that. The Lord was not so concerned with Earthly matters as politics. He was concerned with the spirit of man. In any event, I believe is is highly inappropriate, if not downright offensive, to try and box The Lord into a secukar partisan box.

- Thomas Jefferson would be classified as a conservative he he were with us today and would be appalled by what the contemporary Democrat party has come to represent.

- Kennedy would be a Republican today (and I'm not too sure he wasn't a closet one in his day). His most vorciferous fights were with Southern Democrats, not Republicans during his shortened term of office. He was certainly more conservative that anyone in the leadership of the Democrat Party today.

The Classic Liberal would tell you that relations between the employees and the employer should be left up to the market (the labor market, in this case), bad employers would lose employees to good employers. That relationship was not the purview of the government. I defy you to find any writing of Jefferson, or any other Founding Fathers, that would support your assertion -- because there isn't any.

Necon 101

Neoconservativism, despite what those on the Left would have us to believe, was founded by disaffected Cold War-era Democrats, essentially Liberals who favored aggressive anticommunist policies and an internationalism. The cared little for social conservatism -- restrictions or bans on abortion, the permitting of school prayer, etc. The favor the welfare state, albeit to a limited degree; and they favor an open border and free trade without restrictions.

That's not exactly traditional conservative positions and there is ample evidence available the traditional conservatives have as many problems with neoconservatism as the Left does, just for different reasons.

Perhaps, Karl, it would be best if both sides of the political spectrum stopped using invective and epithets against each other, and just talk about the issues rationally? It might help. And, it might not. One thing is certain, however; hurling "NeoCon!" or "PaleoLib!" at one another is not a way to begin a dialog.

So, if you want to consider that a gauntlet, you're free to do so. I prefer to view it as a plea for reasonableness.

*chuckle*

Thanks for stopping by, Jack!

I believe Winston Churchill said "If you are not a liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart. If you are not a conservative in your 40's, then you have no brain". I guess I am ahead of the curve.

So true, Troy!

Thanks for stopping by.

David, explain the apolitical position expressed in Blessed are the poor for they shall inherit the kingdom. Or The Meek shall inherit the earth, or Whatever you do unto the least of these my brethren you do unto me. Liberal to the core if you ask me.

And Troy, Charleston Heston, a liberal in his youth, and a conservative in old age, and Ronald Reagan, a Democrat and Labor Leader in his youth and a Conservative in his Old age, BOTH suffered Alzheimer's I think there is a connection.

Those are spiritual expressions, Karl. Those things that will come to pass when God established His Kingdom on Earth or for us to treat one another as He would treat us.

I repeat, Jesus was concerned with the spirit of Man ... not our petty political squabbles.

Surely, as a dedicated Liberal, you aren't suggesting that we permit our secular government to conduct its business according to Biblical principles and precepts, are you? Careful, that may mean you have to relinquish your ACLU membership card.

However, if you are; how do you square that with denying children in school the right to pray to the very Entity that you say we should follow in our executing our secular laws?

What if somebody created an epitaph and nobody cared??

"Neo-con" or new conservative is a term now part of the political lexicon and will remain identified with the Bush era and those sycophants who immediately preceded it. Like the Hyster Pryne's scarlet "A" or Lady McBeth's damn spot it will not easily fade or be trumped by witticisms.

SOME of the horde that became considered neo-con was indeed apostate, post WW2 Dems. In the end the neo-con will be defined by the result generated under their name; as ideological buffoons.

Thanks for stopping by, Sam.

If those of you on the Left would leave it at that, I might not have a problem. While I disagree with your characterization, I can see where a somewhat reasonable argument can be made for it, as it relates to political figures and pundits.

However, I stop short of excusing the attempt to turn the term into one of disparagement and derision in an attempt to stifle and marginalize anyone expressing a conservative thought or a scintilla of support for anything this Administration has ever done. That's unacceptable, Sam.

Charleston Heston, a liberal in his youth, and a conservative in old age, and Ronald Reagan, a Democrat and Labor Leader in his youth and a Conservative in his Old age

Reagan and Heston did not change. The party did.

Few Liberals today know how deeply the The Communists (CPUSA) had penetrated the Democratic Party after the war. In Minnesota, Hubert Humphrey, Orvile Freeman and Mondale purged the left from the party and centered it in the causes of civil rights and mainstream unionsim....then the left grabbed the party again and turned it into what it is now, a cauldren of indentity politics and European-style Socialism.

And a weakened military, Greg. That was the impetus for Irving Kristol and the founding Neoconservatives to align with the Republican Party.

For the sake of brevity I simply call them moonbats. They can call me whatever they like... their opinion means little to me.

Thanks for stopping by, Don!

Here is a great article I found in the journal World Affairs

See Neocon Nation: Neoconservatism, c. 1776 - Robert Kagan

The idea that today's policies represent a decisive break from the past would certainly come as a surprise to the many critics of American foreign policy across the generations, for there has not been a single criticism leveled at neoconservatism in recent years that was not leveled at American foreign policy hundreds of times over the past two centuries.

The oldest, and in some ways most potent, critique has always been that of genuine conservatism, a powerful counter-tradition that goes back at least as far as the debates over the ratification of the Constitution in 1787. The supporters of the new federal Constitution—George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison—insisted that the concentration of energy and power in the federal government was essential if the United States was to become a world power capable both of protecting itself and achieving its destined greatness on the world stage. "Let Americans disdain to be the instruments of European greatness!" Hamilton exhorted in the Federalist papers. But Patrick Henry, a leader of the anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, accused Hamilton and his allies, not unfairly, of seeking to "convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire." This, Henry insisted, was a betrayal of the nation's true purpose. "When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: liberty, sir, was then the primary object

Thanks Greg! That does put the whole subject in another light.

That's a very narrow slice of the Federalist debate. The "empire" refered to by Hamilton was restricted to North America and those Carribean islands of economic value, (sugar.) Jefferson adamantly opposed Hamilton and contrived to destroy him personally and politically. Hamilton sought to bring a sound financial basis to an American national economy and with the active support of Washington attempted to create a practical Federal governmental umbrella under a "United" States of America. Henry was an ardent foe of the Bill Of Rights and Hamiltonian economic which he and the other Virginians saw as an expansion of Federal power over states rights, and a precedent from which his native and Virginia and the south might lose the right to slavery. The context of Hamilton, Madison, Henry, Washington, Adams and Jefferson cannot be excluded when quoting them. None of these quotes have a freaking thing to do with wars of imperialist aggression 7,000 miles from home.

Neo-cons, despite the varied roots from which they sprung, are defined by the premise that since the US has ability it has the duty to impose by force "Americanization" upon any land of our choosing, despite the will of the native, domestic and international law and treaty if the target is either a "security" threat, a potential economic asset or both.

The practical expression of the neo-con philosophy is the debacle in Iraq and the 70% rejection by the American people who did not comprehend what they were buying into when they voted Republican. "Neo-con" is indeed a damning epitaph and the potent verbal symbol to paint adherents to this insanity so they might be politically flushed down the crapper of history.

David, "scintilla" is an apt unit of measurment to calculate the postive benefits of the Bush Admin and this last, dark 8 years.

Spoken like a true paleoliberal, Sam. Thanks for exemplfying my point.

Neo-cons, despite the varied roots from which they sprung, are defined by the premise that since the US has ability it has the duty to impose by force "Americanization" upon any land of our choosing, despite the will of the native, domestic and international law and treaty if the target is either a "security" threat, a potential economic asset or both.

You mean like those hippies who demand "democracy" in China and Tibet, or call for military intervention in Sudan?

We all know why the left opposed the Iraq war -- they loved Saddam and his Oil for Food money. Where else would a liberal Congressman get an all expense paid trip to the middle-east?

Now who wants to see that golden goose shot?

Hippies?? Golden goose?? And "paleoliberal?" Is that ALL you guys have??

No. We have the Constitution, the Wealth of Nations ... and most importantly, we have the White House. Given the state of the Democrat primaries, that doesn't seem to be in much danger, either.

It would seem your trumped for a while longer.

Yes, you have the White House. And the longer Bush continues to be Bush the more votes are lost for any Repub running anywhere. I'm not certain your meaning "wealth" of nations but you certainly do NOT have the support of the vast majority of humanity across the globe, INCLUDING 70% of America. As for "having" the Constitution, that David, is a very debatable assumption. The "trumping" of American legal and historical precedents are the shovels digging the neo-con grave for the funeral to be celebrated January 2008. Even, by some incredible miracle McCain is elected he will face an overwhelming Dem congress busily undoing all that is Bush. A McCain Pres will be an exercise in futility.

This we shall see, but it wasn't looking good for the Lib side with the polls released today.

But, it's early ... that could change.

How funny that you overlook the decades prior to the popularity of the term "neocon" during which the right wing made the word "liberal" a disparaging epithet and used it dismiss all liberal political positions without having to bother arguing against them logically.

How typically conservative to ignore that and attribute the tactic of "heaping derision" to the left. One would almost think that Faux News and right-wing talk radio had never existed.

Nice try, David.

"Thomas Jefferson would be classified as a conservative he he were with us today and would be appalled by what the contemporary Democrat party has come to represent.

- Kennedy would be a Republican today (and I'm not too sure he wasn't a closet one in his day). His most vorciferous fights were with Southern Democrats, not Republicans during his shortened term of office. He was certainly more conservative that anyone in the leadership of the Democrat Party today".

David: You have an appalling lack of historical knowledge. You also appear to lack any real intellectual heft...

As Lloyd Benson said to Dan Quayle and this applies to you David: " I knew Jack Kennedy, I served in the Senate with Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a freind of mine, Senator, YOU are no Jack Kennedy"... Jack Kennedy's beef with CONSERVATIVE southern democrats was over civil rights.

Regarding Jefferson, he supported the French Revolution, Blood purge and all. Wouldn't claim him as a conservative.

I think that what makes them, and sometimes me, say that, is your support of neocons. It's really sort of a "who cares what you are, you're ignorant if you're supporting these destructive morons" sort of thing, David. Nothing personal, mind you ,and don't shoot the messenger, but I think this to be true.

You are proof that you don't haver to be a "Neoconservative" to be a confused degenerate!

For seven years, Aron served as an appointee of the Clinton administration at the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD).

Well Jeff, considering the source ... another Soros and Clinton lacky, I'll take your charge of "lacking intellectual heft" for what it is worth ... absolutely nothing.

I'd be more than happy to engage you in an intellectual debate on Kennedy's political philosophy and the Democrat Party's history on race relations both north and south of the Mason-Dixon line. But, you won't accept. You don't possess the testicular fortitude.

"...but I think this to be true. "
Ron & Buddy, white and brown tornado, Apr 17, 2008, 12:49pm EDT

But Ron, you don't think.

"Confused degenerate"?

Coming from a cretin, I'll take that as a compliment.

Come back when you can actually make a cogent argument.

Are you and jeffie related?

Paleolib. I like it David. I hope you do not mind if I use it on occasion! LOL

Though I do prefer the term MORON to describe them.

Oh I'm sorry libs, I guess I am just a bitter American.
I better go cling to my guns & Religeon now.

This is all such nonsense. "Left" and "right" is just a meaningless diversion anymore. What's really important is Up and Down, and right now both "liberals" and "conservatives" are racing downwards on a chute, mocking each other on the way down as if they all weren't going the same direction.

Petty partisanship is what's tearing us apart. People are so wrapped up in the superficial "our side" and "their side" mentality, a la Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken, that they can't see the real duality that's been there all along.

The real "Us. vs. Them" is Us, whose means of income is peaceful and productive, the people who make a living through production, cooperative trade and voluntary contract, who add to the wealth of society; and then there's Them, whose means of income is threats and coercion, the people who make a living parasitically, expropriating the wealth created by others, who subtract from the wealth of society, who flatter themselves that they know what's best for all of us and more than that, they will force us to obey their commands "for our own good."

When we stop with our childish partisan bickering, agree that none of us should seek to use the power of the real threat to society -- the State -- to plunder or impose our ideals on one another; then we'll be back on the track that takes us onward and upward.
Until then, we're just a bunch of dupes pointing fingers and calling each other names, distracting each other while the liars, murderers and thieves in Washington DC laugh all the way to the bank

OK, so which tenets of conservatism do you agree with and which do you abhor?

A neocon is usually a conservative, but not all conservatives are neocons. The Dick Cheneys and the William Kristols of the world are the neocons (to mention a couple).

I was tempted to join into the polarized conflict by first saying that the author claiming to seek a middle road balance in it all is just like his hero GWB saying he is a uniter not a divider ... it is clear that the "conservative" sycophants have been brought out here with the usual bassackwards crap of the guilty being the "other" side ...

But I will say none of that and no more in honor of the REAL and MOST IMPORTANT MESSAGE YET, that of the comment just above by Steve Bachman !!!


But I have written some articles myself about this divide and I see no reason here to revise them in favour of the right.

Amen Steve !!!

David,

Glad you are fighting back!!! Paleolib...I love it!!!!

"...to plunder or impose our ideals on one another; then we'll be back on the track that takes us onward and upward."
Steve Bachman, Apr 24, 2008, 9:51pm EDT

On that we agree, Steve.

It has been my experience that the ones seeking to take my money and impose their ideals on me, and my family, reside firmly on the left of the political spectrum, not the right. It hasn't been the conservatives over the past 80 years pushing to feed and grow the federal leviathan -- no, it's been the paleolibs, with their socialist leanings, that have done that.

-----------------------------------------------------

Thanks Carol and Janie!

ask any 3 progs what a neocon is and you'll get 3 different answers...the one I thought to be the most honest said it's people who disagree with me...Of course that isn't a majority of liberals/progs thank God but it sure is a sizable minority