"The conservative movement has passed into history," believes Pat Buchanan. Has it?

As has become normal, I don't agree with Buchanan. I think the problem is that he has slipped into a sort of purgatory, somewhere between libertarianism and liberalism.

As far as those in office who claim to be conservative, it has ended. There is not much difference, as far as spending goes, between either party. From a grass roots standpoint, the movement still lives. The problem, as some see it, is once a person gets elected to office, gets re-elected a few times, he then gets captured by the system. The perks come to mean more than doing what his constituents elected him for in the first place. Power becomes it's own reward. Look what happened to the so called republican revolution of '94. it lasted what, 2 or 3 years? Then it went back to status quo.

It is time for conservatives to switch over just as the neocons did back in the 70s. Would it really be so hard to fit in with the liberals? At least currently, the rhetoric from that side of the aisle is anti-interventionist, fiscally responsible, and against a big intrusive government. A conservative could carry on a conversation with a liberal quite well without them ever even knowing they were talking to a conservative. Call me a neo-liberal or a neo-progressive (a conservative mugged by the neocons & the republican party).

Maybe God sent the neocons and the Republican big governmenters to teach liberals a lesson. He wanted them to relearn words like "constitution," "federalism," "nation-building," "fiscal responsibility," "checks and balances." I have no hope it will stick. Contra Obi Juan, I can't vote for people who are for socialized medicine and abortion on demand.

Wm Clement is right: there are plenty of true blue conservatives out there, even though the political organization and representatives us are almost uniformally big government types. So what can we do?

The conservative movement is not dead but Michael Bruce Ross is!!! It was long over due. Rock on Connecticut!!!

"It is time for conservatives to switch over just as the neocons did back in the 70s. Would it really be so hard to fit in with the liberals?"

Exactly -- I'm glad you've admitted that Old Right conservatives are, on many issues (e.g. opposition to free trade, opposition to interventionism, and opposition to Israel) right on board with the Left. I was reading a transcript of a debate between Pat Buchanan and Natan Sharansky, and Buchanan actually said this:

In my judgment, what happened on 9/11 was a result of interventionism.

Now, can anyone tell me how this is any different from something Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, or Gore Vidal would say? In fact, Gore Vidal's loony recent book was recommended by The American Conservative a year or so ago.

So, yes -- in a sense, Pat is right. His style of conservatism is dead. A person of his nature will never be elected in the United States. This is clearly evident by his abysmal results in the polls. The new debate, as crazy Leftists fall further away from significance while their Rightist parallels do the same, will be between annoyingly big government Republicans and Libertarians.

-ben

If you don't count Presidents like Nixon as conservative (and Buchanan is right not to count him) then there was only one conservative elected President between 1929 and 2000. And though Reagan spoke the conservative language better (and more convincingly), he compromised on just about everything that GW Bush has compromised on. At least Bush hasn't given us a Sandra Day O'Connor yet. Don't get me wrong--Reagan was great. But he faced a very strong tide that he did not turn back but only slowed.

My point is that looking at the long term conservativism (which I define here as the coalition of anti-progressives) in America is stronger now than it has been for at least 75 years. But we shouldn't fight among ourselves. We still face overwhelming odds. Pat Buchanan is a great fighter in the anti-progressive cause but by emphasizing the issues that split that cause (for example, protectionism and a non-interventionist foreign policy (note these were not Reagan's positions))he makes the cause appear impossible.

Many of the Paleocons on this board are convinced that NeoCons are Liberals. This viewpoint would suggest that they are in fact the TRUE conservatives, because A.) They are more conservative and B.) They are more old-style conservatives.

Following this logic, the Conservative movement in the west died when Monarchs stopped being the norm. We get the terms right and left wing from the French National Assembly that was constructed after the French Revolution. And in that Assembly, it was the monarchs who were on the right.

Clearly, the logic is flawed. Paleocons are so insistent on making sure that they are being conservative enough that they have left history and evolution survive. Survivial of the Fittest. Paleoconservatism is no longer fit.

history and evolution pass them by*

I think it all depends on what your definition of Conservative is. Liberals think I am a conservative, and I am conservative by their standards, but Conservatives don't think I am conservative, although no one has called me a liberal yet.

I believe the success of the Republican Party is due to the Democrat Party moving so far left. I cannot vote for a Democrat for a Washington seat anymore even if he/she is conservative. Because the old conservative Democrats that still exist, will still tow the party line and give the Democrat National Party power. I do not wish to live in a disarmed socialist state.

Ben L: I think 9-11 was the result of many things, one of them the US's interventionist policies. Does that make me unpatriotic? a Leftist? Does that make me the equivalent of Noam Chomsky? You're an idiot.

DocMcG says that conservates (qua anti-progressive) should not fight among themselves. Agreed. The problem is that there are large numbers of progressives falsely claiming to be conservatives. (See evolution comment above by Ben T, e.g.; that is the progressive mindset.)

DocMcG, The parallel with Reagan founders on a few facts. What was Reagan's "No Child Left Behind"? What was Reagan's new Prescription Drug Entitlement? What was Reagan's Iraq? Bush is a progressive. Why is he mistaken for a conservative? He is only a moderate progressive, he has a mild dedication to prolife issues because of his Christianity, and a belief that the New World Order is to be brought about by US power, rather than through international government. He is still a progressive.

It is the job of conservatives today to fight Bush's progressive policies at home and abroad, and to try to force him to do a few key conservative things. So far, we've failed.

This instantly brought Paul Weyrich's infamous letter to mind.

To be frank, I'm becoming more inclined to agree with both Buchanan and Weyrich on this type of subject matter. For all our activism and supposed success, why do things just keep getting worse?

Ben L: I think 9-11 was the result of many things, one of them the US's interventionist policies. Does that make me unpatriotic? a Leftist? Does that make me the equivalent of Noam Chomsky? You're an idiot.

DocMcG says that conservates (qua anti-progressive) should not fight among themselves. Agreed. The problem is that there are large numbers of progressives falsely claiming to be conservatives. (See evolution comment above by Ben T, e.g.; that is the progressive mindset.)
Posted by short at May 17, 2005 05:16 PM

If you believe Conservatism is simply the reactionary oppisition to all things Progressive then no, I am not in your image of Conservatism.

To me a Conservative is one who is devoted to protecting the rights and freedoms of American citizens, the right of the Free Market to operate independently of the government, and fierce preservation of the National Interests of the United States abroad.

The conservatism you seem to tout, a mindset that we should immediately set ourselves against all new or progressive mindsets, regardless of what they are, and that we should reactionarilly maintain the status quo at all costs is not the conservatism for me.

Nor was it the Conservatism for our Founding Fathers, and if it was, then we would be singing God Save the Queen, not The Star Spangled Banner.

God, I hope Pat's not right, but he's made some good points.

Sadly, however, weak-minded conservatives and those pretending to be conservative have contributed to the VERY screwed up state our Republic is in.

Fight on!

Ben L: I think 9-11 was the result of many things, one of them the US's interventionist policies. Does that make me unpatriotic? a Leftist? Does that make me the equivalent of Noam Chomsky? You're an idiot.

Brilliant argument, short, as per usual.

But you still didn't address my point, sweetheart. Why do you get all up in arms when people like Chomsky, Vidal, and Zinn say the exact same things? Is it that you're so easily bought with nonsense "patriotic" rhetoric? The substance of their arguments are the same. Oh, so Pat would let you keep a couple of guns. He is still a know-nothing when it comes to economics, just like the Leftists you love to hate. And whether you like it or not, he still blames America first after a devastating terrorist attack, just like the Leftists.

Buchanan should just say that "Reagan conservatism" is over and that there is no real future for conservatism. Cutting taxes, opposing abortion, making the case for less government are all products of the Reagan Presidency and weren't really part of the Republican Party prior to that. When Reagan went so did his brand of conservatism. Of course the people who inherited the conservative label are spiteful, ideological, ruffian conmen. Ronald Reagan reminds me of a great entrepeneur who builds a business and lasting wealth and bequeths it to his children who turn out to be nothing more than immature, cocky, spoiled, drunken, lying brats.

The conservative movement is not dead. It has merely fragmented into three veins -- libertarianism, neo-conservatism, and paleo-conservatism. What Pat means is that the US conservative movement has shifted from paleo and libertarian to neo-conservatism. The neo's are good at getting popular support, but they also help get REAL conservatives elected.

You really are stupid Ben (both of you actually). Buchanan never "blamed the U.S. first" in that he supported the attack on Al Qaeda and condoned the attack of Afghanistan because he *of course* recognizes that they were responsible for 9/11 and must suffer the consequences of it.

What he has repeatedly argued and been completely correct in is that U.S. interventionism and meddling in the Middle East is the main reason that Islamic extremism has been able to grow to terrorist proportions. Now some of this history dates to imperial presences prior to ours, such as the British and the Soviet. But that does not mitigate the fact that imprudent and imperialistic policies have continually exacerbated Islamic radicalism and hurt our national interests in the region and our national security as well. If you want details I will supply them.

And this guilt by association tactic of you and the other Ben are tiresome and petty. Get over yourselves and make direct arguments.

My take on the actual point of this post and Buchanan's article is that he is basically correct in his fundamental point. Note that he is saying the "movement" is dead. This is I think correct at this point. That does not mean that "conservatism" is dead or that there are no conservatives. However, the postmodern approach to politics has destroyed the movement from within by redefining "conservatism" to mean what was always called liberalism, or to some extent, progressivism.

Of course there never was a "conservative party," the Republican party was such basically by default from the 20's on only because it was most welcoming to the right. They are not exactly welcoming anymore and have neverreally had any ascendancy in the party or in American politics in general. This is a liberal modern secular country and conservatism will always be fighting a losing battle here, as it always has been.

For there to be much of a conservative movement again there would have to be a disruption of the stranglehold on power that the two major parties have by the rise of a legitimate conservative third party. But that is a practical impossibility given our political establishment.

Brian, old pal, you're the dumbass, not I. I was well aware of Buchanan's argument. It is the same as Chomsky's. None of these intellectuals come out and explicitly blame America first; it's always packaged with the disclaimers and justifications you presented. Don't lecture me.

"And this guilt by association tactic of you and the other Ben are tiresome and petty."

Guilt by association? Practically every post of mine and Mr. T's is lambasted for its supposedly "progressive" nature and oh-so-nefarious neoconservate undertones. All I'm doing is using your tactic against you.

Eric,

Cutting taxes, opposing abortion, making the case for less government are all products of the Reagan Presidency and weren't really part of the Republican Party prior to that.

...Goldwater? (except for abortion)

Also, Bush pushed for the ban on partial birth abortion. And if I'm not mistaken, opposition to abortion is not only still around, some polls suggest it is increasing.

When Reagan went so did his brand of conservatism.

False.

Firstly -- Reagan did send American troops into foreign countries. I'm not suggesting there was any ground war comparable to Iraq, but this myth of Reagan's being a non-interventionist is just incorrect. He supported freedom fighters in Latin America monetarily and otherwise, and he believed that America had a unique role in the world -- in other words, that it was exceptional. Unlike paleoconservatives (as I'm sure you know, Reagan was a former liberal who "saw the light" -- sound familiar?), he didn't believe that America was just another country looking out for its self interest. Of course we do that as well, but that does not sum it up. Here's the conclusion of his "City Upon a Hill" speech:

We cannot escape our destiny, nor should we try to do so. The leadership of the free world was thrust upon us two centuries ago in that little hall of Philadelphia. In the days following World War II, when the economic strength and power of America was all that stood between the world and the return to the dark ages, Pope Pius XII said, “The American people have a great genius for splendid and unselfish actions. Into the hands of America God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind.”

We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on earth.

I forgot to add in my reply to Eric that, as he should know, Bush cut taxes across the board in Reaganesque fashion.

Wow, Ben T: "If you believe Conservatism is simply the reactionary oppisition to all things Progressive then no, I am not in your image of Conservatism."

I didn't define conservatism that way, so you're either dishonest or an idiot. I was merely repeating DocMcG's working definition. As a working defintion of the conservative political coalition today it works well; as an defintion of a political world view it is idiotic. Good thing neither I nor DocMcG did the latter.

Ben L, Reagan appealed to US leadership in that speech. The new interventionism is not leadership; it is utopian busibodyness. The only action of Reagan's that is remotely similar to Iraq is Grenada... do you eally want to compare this to Iraq? The myth, rather, is the neocon matra of Reagan's interventitionism.

The difference between Buchanan and the lefties here is an assignment of blame. If I get killed because I went walking in Detroit alone in the middle of the night for fun, I am not to blame for my death. But don't you think that my stupidity was one of the causes? Basic distinction: cause of an event vs. justification of an action. 911 was partially caused by our interventionalism; the leftist say, "justified by." See the difference?

Were there neo cons in the 1970s. I'm still not sure what one is, but I'm called one a lot.

I'm aware that tax cuts and opposition to abortion are still part of the Republican Party platform but they didn't really become centrally Republican features until Ronald Reagan's presidency. Goldwater was never elected. The pro-life platform, making the case for less government, cutting taxes reflect Reagan's influence on the Republican party. While the Republican party platform still makes gestures in favor of the pro-life cause, it's not really an on-going concern. Did any prime time speakers at the latest Republican convention speak out against abortion? The leading speakers, in fact, all supported abortion.

Ronald Reagan was not a Paleo but he showed more wisdom and discretion in the use of military force than his successors have. Supporting free-radio broadcasts, arming freedom fighters, and providing moral clarity between American freedom and Soviet Communism has no connection to a utopian foreign policy that seeks to spread an ideology all over the earth.

I saw Pat Buchanan on Hannity and Colmes tonight and was suprised -- well, not really -- to see Hannity suggesting that Reagan would've supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Well, he didn't. In 1982 the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the list of states that sponsor terrorism. In 1983 he sent Donald Rumsfeld as a personal envoy to build better relations with Iraq. He authorized the transfer of weapons and weapon systems to Iraq. He didn't call for the overthrow of Hussein's regime when Iraq was developing and deploying WMD against Iranians. So Hannity needs to learn his history.

George Bush is Reagan's evil twin on most important issues -- Reagan was one of the most fiscally prudent presidents we've had, while Bush is the most extravagent. Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War; Bush is trying to start a new one. Ronald Reagan created 18 million new jobs; Bush hasn't created one net private sector job. Reagan was prudent in the use of military force; Bush has been silly, outlandish, and reckless. Ronald Reagan got the United States out of UNESCO, Bush has rejoined UNESCO.

Republicans have a future if they play up the social and cultural issues, but the influence of the Neocons want to keep this out. So Republicans are left to exploiting America's fear of 9/11 for electoral success. With 9/11 and war, I doubt the Republican Party has a future.

Ben L,

Describing some particular political stance or view as "progressive" or a "neoconservative" one is offering a description of it in readily defined/able political terms. That is not akin to your constant arguments by insinuation through dropping in names from the left. As Short points out you don't seem to understand any of these peoples actual arguments. Instead you simply assert that one person (Buchanan's) argument is the same as Vidal, Zinn, Chomsky, et. al., as a means of sophistry. We are supposed to react "man, I don't like Chomsky so since Ben says Buchanan makes the same argument as him I better not like Chomsky either!" This is sophmoric and if you actually think I have engaged in such attacks against you (maybe I have, I can't recall specifically but if I was in a bad mood it is possible) then we have now reduced ourselves to my emitting a "two wrongs don't make a right plea" in order to possibly get back to having a reasonable debate.

So for the purposes of this thread lets try and agree to argue directly the merits or demerits of our respective positions.

On a related note, I didn't call you a "dumbass" I said you are "stupid," which means that you are arguing from a position of ignorance of which you are oblivious to. I was being descriptive of you based on your prior posts above not derogatory towards you. This is a Platonic distinction, the "ignorant" don't know something, which is the case we are all in for many (maybe most) things or questions. The Stupid think they know what they in fact do not know, they lack the intellectual humility or critical self-awareness of their own ignorance on something. Above you demonstrated to my satisfaction your ignorance of Buchanan's argument regarding causes of 9/11 as well as traditionally conservative positions on economics, etc., and their relationship to the contemporary Left.

Actually you reminded me of something you will be pleased to hear. My girlfriend regularly reads a socialist girl's blog and she pointed out to me this blogger's comment a while back on that Sharansky-Buchanan debate you mention. (I saw that debate and also read the transcript and Buchanan annihilated that guy.) Anyway, the socialist girl wrote something to the effect of "when did Buchanan start channelling Chomsky?," so as to indicate that she took him to be agreeing in substance w/ Chomsky. But, of course, this socialist girl (as most socialists I suppose) is actually rather stupid and she doesn't understand either Buchanan's or Chomsky's views in any serious way. That is how she could be struck by an apparent superficial similarity. As, I maintain, you are also.

If you actually want a workable ana-logy on the right you should look up Jerry Falwell's reaction to the 9/11 attacks. He read it as divine punishment for American liberal evils such as rampant sodomy, promiscuity, abortion, etc. He later modified his public stance, but that reaction, that we somehow "deserved" such a manifestly unjust attack as divine retribution more closely resembles the extreme views on the Left. Short above ably explains to you the difference between Buchanan (or her or my) claim as regards Islamic fanaticism and the Left's claims.

Those who fault Newsweek for the deaths of 16 Americans are blaming America first also and thus standing in the tradition of people like Chomsky and Zinn.

Great point Eric!

At the risk of being called "idiotic" I will defend the viewpoint that conservatives are best defined as the coalition of the anti-Progressives and that, given the Progressive domination of education, media, and the courts, conservatives should not be overly distracted by what at base are often tactical disputes.

FDR stated "the day of enlightened administration is here." This encapsulates the progressive creed. It implies that bureaucratic direction will provide superior solutions. Libertarians oppose this because it leaves little room for individual freedom. Paleocons see the destructive potential of bureaucrats unconnected to the organic life of a community imposing their cramped, small minded, rationality on the community. Neocons, using reason against itself, scoff at the presumption that bureaucracies can be "rationalized" enough to be enlightened. I feel strongly all three ways.

What separates conservatives into the three camps are different default views on what constitutes the primary problems facing society and different primary modes of ana-lysis. But this kind of diversity is not fatal. In fact, it can be a strength, as long as we focus on the true danger and don't start attacking each other.

Brian & Eric

Newsweek ran with a story before they could verify that it was true. If we are to judge their actions by their results as opposed to their intentions, the results were at least 16 people were killed. I think more have died since. Newsweek is not dumb. They should have had some inkling, given the nature of Islamic Extremism that something like this would happen, if they ran with this story. Not only this, but they have significantly hurt us in the battle for the hearts and minds of the Arab world. So yes we should blame Newsweek. To think that people who will riot over an event, such as this, are the people the Bush administration wants to "democratize." It kind of causes me to question the wisdom of this policy. Bush's opponents have failed to articulate a better policy so I hope and pray this works out.

Eric

You refer to United States support of the former Iraqi government. It is important to consider this in the context of Iran. The leftist talking point you quote fails to do this. Iran was correctly deemed as the greater threat at this time much like Nazi Germany was a greater threat than the Soviet Union during WWII. This all occurred before the invasion of Kuwait and before Saddam Huessein allied himself with Al Qaeda. Please understand this is not to say that America has no culpability here but the primary supplier of weapons to Iraq including WMD was Russia. Iraq's biggest weapons suppliers were Russia, France, and China. Iraq actually received very little from us in the way of actual weapons and actual weapon systems. Given the change in the situation on the ground, I find it highly unlikely that Ronald Regaen would have continued any support being given to Saddam Huessein. Of course neither you, I, nor Sean Hannity know for certain how he would have chosen to handle the situation.

Brian

You mention Jerry Falwell. These kinds of sermons condemming America to judgement have gone on for quite some time from behind various pulpits. The United States, while it does have Christian influences, is most definitely not a Christian nation, at this time in its history. Given some old testament passages this gives me some cause for alarm. I pray everyday for God's mercy. From a policy point of view Jerry Falwell and the rest of the so called "religous right" are irrelevant. They have no influence over the actual policies of the Republican party. Their only use to the Republican party is to the extent that they participate in the get out the vote campaign.

Best Wishes
B.Poster

DocMcG: No Child Left Behind, the Iraq war and occupation, Prescription Drug Entitlement, etc, are not "tactical disputes." They are precisely the things that a true anti-progressive coalition would oppose. So why hasn't the antiprogressive coaltition opposed them univocally? Is it because, as DocMcG sugggests, the libertarians and the paleos and the plain old fashioned pre-neo-conservatives won't stop fighting with the neocons? No.

Rather, it's because these aren't the "tactics," but the substance, of Republican party-liners and of the neocon pundits. They are not antiprogressive. They are moderate progrssives with a more realistic view of what's accomplishable bureaucratically. They can be a useful part of the coalition when they are being realist opponents of the more progressive parties, it is important -- for the survival of conservatism -- that we not let them take over the meaning of the word. I'm afraid it's already too late.

Ben L, Reagan appealed to US leadership in that speech. The new interventionism is not leadership; it is utopian busibodyness. The only action of Reagan's that is remotely similar to Iraq is Grenada... do you eally want to compare this to Iraq? The myth, rather, is the neocon matra of Reagan's interventitionism.

The difference between Buchanan and the lefties here is an assignment of blame. If I get killed because I went walking in Detroit alone in the middle of the night for fun, I am not to blame for my death. But don't you think that my stupidity was one of the causes? Basic distinction: cause of an event vs. justification of an action. 911 was partially caused by our interventionalism; the leftist say, "justified by." See the difference?
Posted by short at May 17, 2005 11:21 PM

Please provide one shred of evidence to suggest that the War in Iraq did anything BUT preserve US interests abroad.

Utopian? Hardly.

These Arab Governmenets have been messing with us since the late seventies. We made an example out of Saddam Hussein, and in the process we A.) Gave ourselves a central base of operations in the Middle East and B.) Opened a vital new Oil Market.

Wow, Ben T: "If you believe Conservatism is simply the reactionary oppisition to all things Progressive then no, I am not in your image of Conservatism."

I didn't define conservatism that way, so you're either dishonest or an idiot. I was merely repeating DocMcG's working definition. As a working defintion of the conservative political coalition today it works well; as an defintion of a political world view it is idiotic. Good thing neither I nor DocMcG did the latter.
Posted by short at May 17, 2005 11:07 PM

I was questioning what your definition of conservatism is, I was not labelling it.

If you took the time to try the practice of reading WHOLE sentences, you will find I said:

"IF you believe Conservatism is simply the reactionary oppisition to all things Progressive then no, I am not in your image of Conservatism."

Those who blame Newsweek for the riots and the deaths are no different from Leftists who blame "America's" foreign policy for 9/11 and other terrorist attacks. So attributing blame to Newsweek rather than the Muslim rioters and killers is taking a cue directly from the anti-American left.

Ronald Reagan's policy was never to free Iran or Iraq so it wasn't based upon the Neocon premise that freedom in this country depends on freedom in other countries. If context is crucial then there is a much greater case to be made for overthrowing Hussein during the Reagan years than now. Back then Iraq was producing WMD, deploying WMD, and repressing its people. After the long and cruel U.N. embargo Iraq lost its ability to produce WMD, it hasn't gone to war with another country and wasn't a threat to anyone. (I disagree that Nazi Germany was a greater threat than the Soviet Union during the 1930s.)

Iraq was not cooperating with al-Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission Report said they were not cooperating, the State Department said they were not cooperating and Michael Scheuer author of Imperial Hubris said they were not cooperating and he has been an anti-terrorism expert for over twenty years. He was also against the war in Iraq. So all the official sources are against the idea that Iraq and al-Qaeda were cooperating just as all the official sources have verified what I've already known -- Iraq had no WMD.

The war in Iraq was a clear break in American foreign policy and one that didn't eliminate a single threat nor improve our national security.

Ben T -- Since I never gave that definition of conservatism, why would you suggest -- even hypothetically with the "if" -- that I did? This is silly.

Equivalent: "Ben T, if your defintion of conservatism is someone who plays the harmonica while playing drums and the cymbol with peddles, then I won't fit you defintion." That sentence is true, but once I admit that the IF doesn't apply, then what's the point?

As for your other post -- you're just changing the subject. My shred of evidence: the US soldiers and Iraqi innocents who have died.

Libertarians and Neocons are not conservative because there is no conservative ideology. Libertarians and Neocons are pure ideological specimens and do not belong to the Conservative Mind.

So a thread about the death of the conservative movement has become a dispute over whether a true conservative could support the war in Iraq. I am convinced by Reagan's rhetoric, his actions while president, and his Democratic background (his middle name was "Wilson" and he always remained an admirer of FDR in the foriegn policy area) that he would have. But the burden of proof should not be on us who say support for the war can be considered just a tactical dispute. The burden of proof should be on those who would throw us out of the conservative movement.

There is no liberty outside the rule of law. If anarchy beyond our borders can be technologically stretched to shape my life then preservation of liberty and conservation of the traditions of my community require either a technological countersolution or an attempt to establish the rule of law beyond our borders.

Those of us who say the dispute is tactical have this justification. We need not prove it--to be both supporters of the war and conservatives we need only believe it. To throw us out of the conservative movement would require a definitive repudiation of the argument combined with our continued support of the war. I have not seen even a competent attempt at s repudiation of the argument.

DocMcG: I listed three examples, and added an etc., of progressivist policies pushed by Bush and cheered by party-liners and neocon pundits. The Iraq war was only one. So I hardly said that those who supported the war are, by that fact alone, not conservatives. Touchy, touchy.

It seems rather obvious to me that neocons are a type of progressive, just a "realist" type. (In fact sometimes they define themselves this way -- they are conservative in x, y, and z because they are pragmatic; but they are also proudly progressive, not backwards like the old cons. The elder Kristol talks like this, for example. And I think he's right.)

So don't get touchy: it is your definition that is throwing them out of the conservative movement. So I guess to settle this you will have to argue that neocons are not merely "realist" progressives. Good luck.

As for your other post -- you're just changing the subject. My shred of evidence: the US soldiers and Iraqi innocents who have died.
Posted by short at May 18, 2005 05:26 PM

US soldiers and innocent people have died in every war the US has ever taken part in. Soldiers and innocents have died in every war EVER.

That doesn't mean some things aren't worth fighting for. How exactly would you suggest the US pursue a practical policy in the Middle East while the status quo remains?

How can we combat terrorism when we are dealing with a system of economic and religious repression that acts like a veritable terrorist factory?

Ben L, Reagan appealed to US leadership in that speech. The new interventionism is not leadership; it is utopian busibodyness.

What are you talking about? No one is suggesting that we send our military to every Arab country to repeat Iraq. It is a strategic move, and one whose results will not be fully known for at least another 5-10 years. As far as I understand, you're not in possession of a crystal ball of some kind, so stop acting as though you are 100% sure of the outcome.

The only action of Reagan's that is remotely similar to Iraq is Grenada... do you eally want to compare this to Iraq?

You ought to read the entirety of posts before going on a witless rampage. Here's what I said earlier: I'm not suggesting there was any ground war comparable to Iraq. In other words, NO I don't want to compare Grenada to Iraq. However, paleocons are inherently opposed to foreign intervention, and if Reagan adhered to those beliefs, he would not have even sent the small number of troops into Grenada.

911 was partially caused by our interventionalism; the leftist say, "justified by." See the difference?"

In my view, there is only a short leap from one to the next.

suggesting that Reagan would've supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Well, he didn't.

He also didn't have an unimaginable terrorist attack which killed 2800 civilians occur during his presidency. Before you douches go crazy -- no, I am not suggesting Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. All I am suggesting is the obvious -- something had to be done to combat Islamic extremism. You clearly don't agree that Bush did the right thing. That's fine, I couldn't care less. You're all utterly blinded by your ideology, anyways.

Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War; Bush is trying to start a new one.

You made this specious claim earlier, and I rebutted it earlier. Bin Laden declared war on us in the mid-90s. Bush is simply the first President to acknowledge the threat that loony Muslims pose, and he knows we need to defeat them.

Describing some particular political stance or view as "progressive" or a "neoconservative" one is offering a description of it in readily defined/able political terms.

Hmm... kind of like when I describe your foreign policy views as "isolationist" and your economic ones "protectionist"? No, I must be just engaging in narrow-minded, ignorant slander.

That is not akin to your constant arguments by insinuation through dropping in names from the left.

Of course it is. Arguments between us often come down to you and short yelping, "You're not a real conservative! You're just a progressive in Republican's clothing! I know this because Pat Buchanan said it in his new book!" The implication, of course, being that since we neocons (and free trade supporters, for that matter) are all really Leftists at heart, our ideas are incorrect. Superb reasoning skills.

So for the purposes of this thread lets try and agree to argue directly the merits or demerits of our respective positions.

It's funny that you say this, but follow it with a couple more paragraphs of the usual nonsense. I am perfectly willing to engage in an actual debate (how about economics for a topic?). It would be entertaining enough to see if you're able to write a post or two without suggesting that neocons are leftist, progressive, and/or threatening to the Republic.

On a related note, I didn't call you a "dumbass" I said you are "stupid," which means that you are arguing from a position of ignorance of which you are oblivious to. I was being descriptive of you based on your prior posts above not derogatory towards you. This is a Platonic distinction, the "ignorant" don't know something, which is the case we are all in for many (maybe most) things or questions.

And here we see, in all their glory, the perils of a college education.

That is complete pseudo-intellectual BS. If you meant "ignorant," you would have said "ignorant." Plato played no role in this, jagass. Yours was a simple, low-brow insult, and I have no problem with it -- I can readily respond with my own.

But, of course, this socialist girl (as most socialists I suppose) is actually rather stupid and she doesn't understand either Buchanan's or Chomsky's views in any serious way. That is how she could be struck by an apparent superficial similarity. As, I maintain, you are also.

Paleocons are some of the most pompous, self-flattering people I've ever had the displeasure of dealing with. Could it possibly be that it is you who doesn't understand? Not everything is so complex. Both Chomsky and Buchanan believe the policies of the United States caused 9/11. I think this is craziness. You don't. Again -- I don't care. I'm simply pointing out a similarity in the thinking of those on the Old Right and those on the far Left. Another, as I've stated previously, is their love of protectionist economic measures; Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan have views on globalization that are barely distinguishable.

it is important -- for the survival of conservatism -- that we not let them take over the meaning of the word. I'm afraid it's already too late.

Take the word! You care far more than anyone else about it. The label is simply not that important to me. It's the ideas behind the labels that matter.

My shred of evidence: the US soldiers and Iraqi innocents who have died.

I was going to ask how you believe those tragic deaths represent evidence for why the war is not in our interest, referencing all of the soldiers who died during WWII. But then I realized that true Conservatives don't even think World War II was "in our interest." They don't think the Civil War, which preserved the Union and led to the upholding of Constitutional guarantees for all American human beings (not just the white ones), was "in our interest." Therefore, of course they will not grant that this war is in our interest. Apparently, nothing, aside from the South breaking off into its own country, or the price of steel increasing for everyone in America in order to save some jobs in the steel-working industry, is "in our interest." What a wonderful way to see the world.

-ben

Hi, Ben L -- I'm not a paleo, although I wish I were, because it's a really cool name. Neither is Brian, as far as I know.

Hi, Ben L -- I'm not a paleo, although I wish I were, because it's a really cool name. Neither is Brian, as far as I know.
Posted by short at May 18, 2005 11:55 PM

pa·le·o·con·ser·va·tive Audio pronunciation of "paleoconservative" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pl--kn-sûrv-tv)
adj. Informal

Extremely or stubbornly conservative in political matters.

Yes you are. As opposed to a Neoconservative:

ne·o·con·ser·va·tism also ne·o-con·ser·va·tism Audio pronunciation of "neoconservative" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-kn-sûrv-tzm)
n.

An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s: “The neo-conservatism of the 1980s is a replay of the New Conservatism of the 1950s, which was itself a replay of the New Era philosophy of the 1920s” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

There is no reason to be ashamed of it, it isnt an insult, its a political alignment.

Moving on, you and Brian do seem more concerned with finding out who is more conservative than in battling it out on the free market of ideas. You at least SEEM to be under the impression that, by proving you are more conservative,or are being more true to the traditional tenets of conservatism, you thereby win any debate you have involved yourself in. This is hardly exclusive to this discussion, it appears to be a standard practice.

I find that your claims that you are not economically protectionist are almost indefensible. As for your views on Foreign Policy, I would modify something from Ben L's Post.

"However, paleocons are inherently opposed to foreign intervention" -Ben L

I would say:

"However, paleocons are inherently opposed to the very concept of foreign policy"

Ben L.

You are right I would have used the word "ignorant" if that is what I meant, but I didn't. I used the word "stupid" instead since that was what I think you are on these matters. The diff is explained above. And sadly (I know I am not cool) Plato did have much to do with my usage.

Anyway, I apparently have to give up arguing with you again since I was wrong in thinking we had come to an understanding about our disagreements in arguing over the Civil War a while back. However, you are again stuck in total pompous a-hole mode of calling people who disagree with you from the right cazy racists.

B. Poster,

I don't disagree at all.

Eric,

you rock!

Eric

Thank you for the comments. Newsweek has admitted they were at least partially repsonsible for the riots and killings that have occurred as a result of their publishing false information and they have officially apolgized for the loss of life that occurred because of it. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/15/AR2005150065.html This article among others is an admission of guilt by Newsweek. The bottom line is Newsweek ran with a story that had no basis in fact and they have damaged American efforts at peace making with the Arab world. So yes Newsweek is to blame. Before the Newsweek story was found to be false, I think the left would have been pleased with it. Anything that will make America look bad seems to please them.

George W. Bush's policies are different from what was done previously. He understands that excusing tyrany in the name of stability will not work for the long term. This policy gave us 911. Having said this, the policy will be hard to change cold turkey. In the short term, we may to work with some less than perfect governments. 911 taught some of us that the previous foreign policies simply did not work and they needed to be changed. Whether or not the current policies will work remains to be seen. I hope and pray they do.

As discussed previously, we worked with Iraq because of the need to oppose Iran. As for what happened we are not completely innocent. Saddam's primary suppliers of weapons were Russia, France, and China. The USA actually contributed very little to Iraq's weapons. Concerning UN sanctions, I'm skeptical as to how cruel they were. The pro-Saddam/anti-war left cannot get their figures straight on any innocent lives lost because of them. These numbers seem to be whatever the left needs them to be to meet their propaganda needs. Any and all deaths, as the result of sanctions, are the responsiblity of Saddam and his henchmen, not of the Americans or their allies. He could have ended the sanctions any time he wished to do so. If Iraq had not gone to war with anyone, this was because the USA was in his way. Besides I'm not enttirely that the statement that he went to war with no one is true. He financed terrorism against Israel and he harbored members of Al Qaeda. This includes at least one person who participated in the 1993 WTC bombing. Al Qaeda described their relationship with the former Iraqi government as "successful." The only thing holding him back were the sanctions and the United States military. As Chrales Duelfer stated, the sanctions were not sustainable. Both Charles Duelfer and David Kay have stated the removal of Saddam Huessein has been beneficial to the world. America is part of the world. The main threat posed by Saddam was the threat that he might transfer WMD to other terrorist organizations. David Kay has stated this.

As for WWII I don't know if Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union was the greatest threat. I may have been premature. It is quite easy to make these decisions in hindsight. As they say, hindisght is 20/20.

There are a number of problems with the 911 commission. This is detailed at www. nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406170840.asp Suffice it to say this commission does not resolve the issue. I might not be so quick to base a conclusion on just this report. Besides the former and current Iraqi governments disagree with the notion that there was not an alliance between the former Iraqi government and Al Qaeda. All the state department has said is that Iraq did not directly engage in an attack on the United States. Their Al Qaeda allies whom they aided and abetted did attack America and American interests.

Quoting Michael Scheuer is an interesting choice. This man believes that Israel is a theocracy. This is like saying 2 + 2 = 1,0000. Israel is not a theocracy. If he can't get something that simple right, I cannot trust him to ana-lyze more complicated issues. He would not seem to be a terrorist expert. On his watch, the USS Cole was bombed, American embassies were attacked, the Khobar Towers were bombed, the WTC was bombed in 1993, and 911 occurred. This man was supposed to be tracking Bin Laden. At one time he was in charge of the task force to track him. He seems to have failed miserabley. I assert that the man did not do a very good job. The fact that he no longer has his job lends credence to my assertion. All official sources have not been against the idea that Iraq and Al Qaeda were cooperating. All that has been stated is Iraq did not directly attack the United States. His Al Qaeda allies, who he provided substantial support to, did. There is a wealth of information on this. I document in a previous thread, under the "Iraq support drops" thread dated 5/4/05.

"Iraq had no WMD." This would not seem to be correct. The following links document incidents of WMD found in Iraq http://cshink.com/sarin_mustard_gasdiscovered.htm
www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040517-sarin-iraq.htm
http://cshink.com/ignoring_the_wmd_find.htm
These among others establish that Saddam did have WMD. As for the stockpiles of WMD that the main stream news media is convinced do not exitst, they were may have been moved to Syria. Charles Duelfer was never able to establish exactly what was moved to Syria, in the run up to the war. Saddam did have WMD and I would not be so quick to conclude that he did not posess stockpiles of WMD.

The war in Iraq may represent a change in American foreign policy. The previous policies of being too soft on Islamic Extremist terrorists led to 911. Those policies needed to be changed. I think the war in Iraq has enhanced American national security and it has enhanced the security of the western world. It is the goal of Islamic Extremists to "raise the flag of Islam throughout the world" (paraphrase) and to "slay the unbeleiver wherever you find them." The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have, I beleive, caused the terrorists to divert their resources to these areas and away from the USA. According to www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/41587.htm Osama Bin Laden has sent a message to his henchman Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi to shift focus from Iraq to America. al-Zarqawi has been unable to carry out attacks on the American homeland because of a lack of "willing martyrs" according to www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1037626,00.html This and the fact that there have been no more 911 style attacks would tend lend credence to my beleif that the war front in Iraq has prevented or delayed another 911 style attack.

Best Wishes
B.Poster

My point about Newsweek is that those who blame Newsweek for the subsequent rioting and mayhem are blaming America for Muslim violence. Newsweek may very well have provoked this Muslim outrage just as our foreign policy intervention in the Arab/Muslim world might've provoked 9/11. If Buchanan is joined at the hip with Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn for saying 9/11 was a response to our foreign policy that is no different than those who are now saying Newsweek is responsible for Muslim violence.

Blaming 9/11 on the regimes of the Middle East is an excuse for regime change not an explanation for terrorism. Do regimes foster terrorism or is it radical Islam combined with a U.S. foreign policy creating very real grievances? Osama bin Laden dislikes almost every Arab regime -- the Saudis, Saddam Hussein -- and has long sought to have them overthrown.

The numbers of Iraqis lost during the U.N. embargo is not known because no records were kept. Estimates can and do vary. There is no accurate number of the insurgent operating in Iraq but that doesn't mean the numbers are being fabricated out of whole cloth.

Iraq did not finance terrorism against Israel but provided the families of suicide bombers with compensation. This is not supporting terrorism, at least according to our own State Department, because the Saudis did the same thing and they are not on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Besides if we went to war to stop terrorism against Israel then we shouldn't have invaded Iraq but the PLO. Iraq was a political miscalculation of tremendous proportions.

The State Department never said Saddam's regime had an alliance with al-Qaeda. The State Department mentioned that the two regimes with a possible tangential relation to al-Qaeda were Pakistan and the Sudan. In fact, the 9/11 Commission held that Iran had closer contact with members of al-Qaeda than Iraq. Gerald Posner's book implicated Saudi Arabia as having greater ties. It's easy to confuse "having ties" with al-Qaeda and "having ties" with members of al-Qaeda. While the former might suggest some degree of cooperation the latter does not. The State Deparment had ties with members of al-Qaeda because they processed their visa applications and granted them visas, even posthomously. So our State Department had connections with members of al-Qaeda but that doesn't mean they cooperated with al-Qaeda. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iraq might have had connections with members of al-Qaeda but that doesn't mean they were cooperating with al-Qaeda.

The WMD is story is done and over but you seem to keep beating this dead horse. The links you provided didn't show that Iraq was producing or stockpiling WMD; it just illustrates that some of Iraq's old stockpiles weren't entirely destroyed. The binary sarin shell wasn't even technically sarin because binary shells don't form sarin until the precursors mix properly after being fired from an aritillery device. Since this sarin shell was exploded an an IED the precursors didn't mix and no live sarin was formed. Chemical weapons don't have an indefinite shelf life so WMD found dating back from the 1990's are not WMD. I believe the v-x nerve gas Iraq produced in the 1990's had a shelf life of seven weeks, which means Iraq's only incentive to produce them would be when it was fighting a war. There is no reason to stockpile these weapons because they are useless in a few months. So technically these WMD weren't even WMD anymore than milk that's been sitting on the shelf for six months is still milk.

David Kay said in an interview in April of 2004 that he had no reason to think Iraq shipped any weapons to Syria. Since there was no evidence of any weapons production you can't conclude weapons were sent to Syra. Charles Duelfer also said it was "unlikely." Of course no one can prove a negative but all the evidence weights against it.

Calling a Sunni insurgency as part of the War on Terror is trying to sell a failure as a success. The conflict in Iraq is a response to our presence and those we are fighting are not fighting in cause of global jihad but in the cause of parochial self interest -- getting the United States out of Iraq. No one in the Bush Administration said that Iraq was a hotbed of terrorism prior to our invasion, haboring possibly 20,000 terrorists. And that's because it wasn't. Our invasion created the insurgency. Zarqawi's failure to find martyr's for his cause only further proves that the insurgents in Iraq want the U.S. out and they aren't interested in global jihad.

Condoleezza Rice recently said that we need to train Iraqis to manage their own security. So clearly the violence in Iraq is internal to Iraq and not something that threatens our country. If your statements had any merit to them then when we withdraw our troops we should expect to see 20,000 terrorists in the United States. There is no reason to think this will happen. Creating a Sunni insurgeny only gives us more problems to deal with and doesn't do a thing to eliminate terrorism.

Eric

Newsweek has already admitted responsibility for their false reporting. The false reporting led to rioting. This should cause someone to question the wisdom of the policy of trying to "democratize" thses people. Especially if they are so impulsive as to riot over this. Newsweek is responisble, not American foreign policy. Newsweek leveled accusations against our people that were false. Our foreign policy has been too soft. Whether or not the Bush policy will work remains to be seen. American foreign policy, while not perfect, is to a large degree a reaction to what others do. America does not exist in a vacum. When they are willing to honestly examine themselves and their role in all of this diplomacy may become possible. Until they do, we can only defeat them.

"Do regimes foster terrorism or is it radical Islam combined with a U.S. foreign policy creating real grieveances?" American foreign policy while not perfect, is not the primary culprit here. American foreign policy has long been to soft. Softness in the face of bullies will only lead to more attacks. Actually they have long complained about Israel. The "Road map to Peace" addresses their last grievence. This policy treats the Israelis and the Palestinians as equals. I think it is foolish to treat terrorist thugs and the only democracy in the middle east as equals, nonetheless, that is what our government is doing. The Islamic Extremists no longer have any legitimate grievances.

Saddam Huessein and Osama Bin Laden had reached an agreement not to attack one another, furthermore, Iraq allowed Al Qaeda to set up bases in Iraq. Iraq provided money and WMD help to Al Qaeda this was documented previously and it occurred prior to 911.

The point I was trying to make about Israel is that it is incorrect to say Saddam was at war with no one. I think we have been too soft on Saudi Arabia for a long time. The "political miscalculation" has probably prevented or delayed another 911 style attack. The information I provided previously lends credence to my belief. Al Zarqawi lacks "willing martyrs." Bin Laden has asked him to redirect his focus. Foreign fighters are going into Iraq, if they were not they would be carrying out their dastardly deeds elsewhere. I think, in order to properly understand this, it needs to be viewed on a global basis.

Al Qaeda was in fact cooperating quite closely with Al Qaeda. They may not have always cooperated against us but they were prior to 911. I don't think the status quo was going to be sustainable. I documented this previoulsy. I think I included this link before but I will include it again. www.huesseinandterror.com Authors such as Stephen Hayes and Laurie Mylroie have written extensively about the ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

"Technically these WMD were not even WMD anymore than milk thats been sitting on a shelf for six months is still milk." I'm not sure what to say to this other than when these devices were used the commanders in the field disagreed with what you wrote. They discussed this extensively on Fox News. The soldiers had to be treated for the exposure. While it would seem to be true that the components did not mix, had they have done so it would have been more deadly. This statement you wrote would seem to be more leftist spin. In any event, the soldiers who are risking their lives don't agree with that assesment. While both Duelfer and Kay have stated that they don't think stockpiles of WMD were shipped to Syria, they were not able to explain precisely what was. Why they are so optimisitic is a matter of speculation. Duelfer's primary source for his conclusion was based on interviews with former Iraqi officals. These are probably the least reliable and will need to be verified from other sources. Other commentators are not so optimisitc. I quote them because they both agree with the wisdom of removing Saddam Huessein, they are official sources, and they are not Bush hacks. I do not think the issue is a dead horse. No one has been able to rationally explain what was transferred to Syria. I simply think we do not know enough yet. The investigations need to be completed. It is premature to be overly optimisitc.

"Calling a Sunni insurgency as part of the war on terror is trying to sell a failure as a success." I disgree. The foreign fighters who were rounded up or killed during the recent "Operation Matador" also would disagree. The foreign fighters who were captured or killed in Fallujah would disagree. Former Iraqi officials have said that Iraq was sponsoring world wide terrorism. Saddam's former henchmen want their base of operations back. Financing and equipping the insurgency is less money and time they can spend on global terrorism. This was all documented previously.

Yes we do need to continue training Iraqi security forces. Any government that will not cooperate with the terrorists will need to be able to defend itself. We need their help. If we left now, I believe the terrorists would follow us here. This is why we need to defeat them, so they can't. They have not been defeated yet. I think the so called insurgency has forced the terrorist organizations and their state supporters to redirect resources that would have been used elsewhere. As stated previously, the links I have provided throughout this thread and the other one tend to lend to credence to this. Again, whether or not the current policies will work remains to be seen. I hope and pray they do.

Eric

Paragraph 5: should be "Al Qaeda was cooperating quite closely with Iraq."

I don't think I addressed the sanctions you mentioned. Saddam ran a police state. I find it highly unlikely that he could not have produced detailed records of any and all deaths from the sanctions. His leftist allies can't get their figures straight. I will reiterate any and all deaths as the result of sanctions are the fault of Saddam and his henchmen. America is guilty of many things but, unlike Newsweek, I will only focus on the things we are guilty of. As I think I wrote once before, the sanctions are gone now. If the leftists really gave a wit about the Iraqi people, they would be the most enthusiastic supporters of "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

Ben T: There are a few paleos who comment here, and I enjoy their insights, but I'm not one of them. You clearly don't understand paleocons, or many people on this board (like Brian), because otherwise you wouldn't repeatedly and instistently call us paleocons -- even after being corrected several dozen times. To quote Arthur Schlessinger is insanely ignorant here. As a matter of coutesy, please don't refer to me as a paleocon.

This whole Vidal/Chomsky/Buchanan linking session is pointless and yes I think it is, to a certain extent, "guilt by association." If Chomsky and Vidal say the sky is blue am I obligated to disagree simply by virture of their left-of-center political credentials? I don't think so.

I think, as rational individuals, we should take Vidal, Chomsky, and Buchanan's arguments and scrutinize them on their merits instead of simply dismissing them out of hand.

Now, it can be argued that I am guilty of using a similar "guilt by association" tactic because I have an attempted to show the utterly unconservative nature of neoconservatism by linking it with its self-proclaimed statist heroes - Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR. The difference is that I'm merely pointing out what the neocons believe and who they venerate while on the other hand they wage a character campaign against Buchanan and go into near convulsions at the mere suggestion that US policies were contributing factors to 9-11 (note: not justifications for). It is interesting to me that Buchanan is a "blame America firster" for his suggestions that we seek a more non-interventionist role in the Middle East, yet neocons are "patriots" (in their minds) for blaming America for not being interventionist enough (i.e. "we have not been aggressive enough", "we ignored Islamic extremism for too long", etc.).

Question: If they hate us for "who we are" (National Review/Sean Hannity) and not for "what we do" (Scheuer/Buchanan) why is it necessary that we change our policies by attempting to spread democracy around the Middle East? Answer: If you support the nation-building schemes in Iraq and Afghanistan you are tacitly admitting the veracity of Buchanan's thesis - that policies, not "values", Britney Spears, or girlie magazines are largely responsible for the predicament we find ourselves in. The major difference between Buchanan and the neocons - as both believe policies are the major issue - is that neocons believe the United States should be more interventionist in the Middle East with socialist redistribution programs like foreign aid and "humanitarian" miltary interventions.

Ben T: There are a few paleos who comment here, and I enjoy their insights, but I'm not one of them. You clearly don't understand paleocons, or many people on this board (like Brian), because otherwise you wouldn't repeatedly and instistently call us paleocons -- even after being corrected several dozen times. To quote Arthur Schlessinger is insanely ignorant here. As a matter of coutesy, please don't refer to me as a paleocon.
Posted by short at May 19, 2005 11:48 AM

You would not consider yourself to be, quote:

"Extremely or stubbornly conservative in political matters." ?

Could have fooled me.

PS: The quote from Arthur Schlesinger was not mine. The definitions of paleoconservative and neoconservative that were posted both were direct copy and paste jobs from www.dictionary.com

Ben T: According to your definition anyone who still believes in the possibility that Saddam had WMD stockpiles is a paleocon. In fact, according to that definition, you, David Horowitz, and Dick Cheney are all paleocons. Now look up "reductio ad absurdum."

Get a clue, buddy. Also, cite your sources properly.

Ben T: According to your definition anyone who still believes in the possibility that Saddam had WMD stockpiles is a paleocon. In fact, according to that definition, you, David Horowitz, and Dick Cheney are all paleocons. Now look up "reductio ad absurdum."

Get a clue, buddy. Also, cite your sources properly.
Posted by short at May 19, 2005 11:46 PM

My definition? It is the dictionary's definition. To be found at www.dictionary.com

The definition is clearly speaking in a more broad context, not on single issues like the Iraq War. To be a paleocon one would have to be "extremely or stubbornly conservative" On many different issues over a much longer period of time.

But how could you make that charge in the first place if you believe NeoCons are just liberals in conservative clothing? According to said logic, Cheney, Horowitz, and myself would all be being stubbornly LIBERAL.

Then again you have always taken the one two punch of ad hominems and out-of-context arguments to an art form.

Moving on, you at least generally seem to favor economic protectionism, social conservatism, and foreign policy non-interventionism. Those are three common defining characteristics of Paleocons.

PS: What do you consider yourself to be? You purport yourself to be on the right, and you do in fact seem to be on the right. However you claim you are not a Paleocon, or one who is on the Old Right, but you seem to have a special rancor for the New Right, or Neocons.

Ben T: I am a conservative. No modifier is necessary, I think. I like Aristotle, Thomas, the founders, Burke, R.E. Lee, Leo XIII, Coolidge, Hayek, Voegelin, and Kirk; I don't care for Rousseau, Locke, or Marx, the French revolution, socialism, the income tax, welfarism, modern statism, modern warfare, FDR or Wilson or LBJ. What there makes me anything but a plain old conservative? No prefix needed, except maybe for "American Catholic."

According to the dictionary.com definition, stubborness -- and not beleifs -- determines paleoconservativeness. I find that very silly. So if you have all your same beliefs but believe them stubbornly, then you become a paleo?

I know this is hard to think, but dictionaries can be wrong. They were written by people. This entry was written by somebody who doesn't know what paleoconservatism is. Perhaps The New American Heritage Dictionary (which is the source here) should have checked with Wikipedia first, because their entry is actually rather good on paleos (not on conservatives generally, though).

B Poster,

I don't think you undersood my point about Newsweek since your comments are not reflective of what I wrote. So I'll let that slide.

WMD stands for weapons of mass destruction and not weapons of minute destruction. A WMD that results in very little injury and zero fatalities is not a weapon of mass destruction. Treating a soldier for exposure only shows the weapon wasn't a weapon of any sort, much less a weapon of mass destruction. Both David Kay and Charles Duelfer said it was from a very old stockpile and possibly was a dud that Iraq had already fired. Did we really go to war over one sarin shell? Was it worth it to lose 1600 Americans over a WMD that causes less fatalities than lightning?

Trying to tie al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein is now part of a shrinking and increasinly irrelevant cottage industry of Bush propaganda. The 9/11 Commission Report looked into this and said that Iraq and al-Qaeda did not cooperate and they made the additional point that no state provided financing to al-Qaeda and Iraq never permitted al-Qaeda to run training camps in their borders. The only country with a partial link to al-Qaeda was Iran's Hizbollah.

You mention Stephen Hadley as a defense. However, Mr Hadley is just a writer for the Weekly Standard , a magazine that has been a long time proponent of regime change in Iraq. His arguments were based on the discredited Feith-memo who established the propaganda organ, the Office of Special Plans. All the official sources, all the intelligence community, and the consensus (reluctantly) of the Bush Administration does not maintain that Iraq and al-Qaeda were cooperating. It's interesting that you can only cite a very propagandists for the Bush Administration and ignore the entire corpus of official investigations. But that's just the point. THe case for the war in Iraq has evaporated so you cannot defend the war by citing official sources, so you must cite journalists with an agenda. That's hardly convincing.

Moreover, you are wrong in saying that interviews with Iraqi officials was the basis for saying no WMD were shipped to Syria. In fact, when David Kay first started his investigation an Iraq official came forward and said WMD were sent to Syria. What do you expect when David Kay was providing such a nice financial incetive to anyone who would tell us the fate of WMD? David Kay later learned the testimony was unreliable.

David Kay based his conclusion that no WMD were sent to Syria on actual forensic evidence, not interviews. David Kay said if WMD were sent to Syria then there must be facilities, factories or some kind of enterprise that was engaging in WMD production. So the inspection team investigated anything that could conceivably have been involved in WMD production and concluded no such production facilities existed. So it's based on solid evidence and logic. Before you can claim Iraq sent weapons to Syria you must establish the prior fact that Iraq had facilities in which to produce WMD. Since there is no evidence Iraq had any facilities to produce WMD there's no reason to conclude any went to Syria. So arguing weapons were sent to Syria is a conclusion that has no prior, supportive evidence.

The conflict in Iraq is a Sunni insurgency. In Falluja less than 10% of the people we captured were from foreign countries. Creating a Kurdish/Shia government has turned the Sunni Triangle into a hotbed of insurgency and this insurgency creates a natural environment for real terrorists to thrive in. So we're not draining the swamps of terrorism; we're creating them.

Sectarian violence in Iraq is now something that we must manage and trying to train Iraqi security forces is just a further admission that we are not fighting "terrorism" but acting as a police force on behalf of Iraq. Our presence in Iraq is not part of a War on Terror, but more aptly the Pottery Barn Rule: we broke it, we own it.

I don't think we should look to dictionaries for our political insights. Here is a dictionary definition for liberalism:

"a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard."

Does this sound like Ted Kennedy? I can't remember the last time a politican agitated for a gold standard.

Libertarianism, Neoconservatism, Marxism, Objectivism are all ideologies and thus do not belong under the rubric of conservative. The Conservative Mind (CM) stands in opposition to ideology whether Marxist, Libetarian or Neoconservative.

A doctrinaire Libertarian believes in the same set up axioms whether he lives in the United States, England, Asia, or South America. Doctrinaire Marxists or Objectivists are both atheists whether they are in Europe, the United States or wherever.

A conservative believes presciption, the living and traditional institutions and norms that define a culture and provides it with meaning. A conservative can be a Protestant or Catholic. A conservative can be a defender of the old Confederacy or a supporter of Abraham Lincoln. A conservative can support democracy in Switzerland, or monarchy in France. Since there is no ideology conservatives can tolerate contradictions.

Neoconservatism isn't a new form of conservatism, but an old form of liberalism, either "hard-Wilsonians" or Jacobins.