Is conservatism dead? No, it's just been lulled into a sleep by the ballot-box success of Republicans. Surely conservatism's prospects are directly connected to electoral outcomes for the Grand Old Party? The truth is they aren't. The experience of the last four years proves this. The No Child Left Behind Act, the gargantuan prescription-drug giveaway, nation-building experiments, McCain-Feingold chipping away at the First Amendment, a nationally-mandated ID card linked to a federal database, a federal takeover of airport security, the bailout of mismanaged airlines, a push for amnesty for illegal aliens, billions for the global AIDS fight, tsunami relief, a mission to Mars, etc. In other words, the government is more powerful and you are less free.

But don't fret, conservatives (and Republicans) are waking up. The Senate making a stand for conservative judges, citizens patrolling the Southern border, and the president threatening to wield his veto pen all are signs of life. Conservatism isn't dead. It's just been sleeping--and repeatedly hitting the snooze button for the last four years. And if conservatives don't rise from their slumber soon enough, they'll certainly leap out of bed when Democrats win back the White House.

Well, I wouldn't say it's been sleeping, it has just encountered variation. Unfortunately, the most successful variations are those that the minority already has a buy in as well.

They are going to get beat up in MSM when they try to put a stake in the ground. Let's just hope they're strong enough. They are going to be called unreasonable when they don't bend toward the democrats.

The dems have never had this problem. I watched enough of the Judiciary committee on CSPAN when Biden presided, to recall his cursory sing-song refusal of every motion the minority party made. "The motion will be put to a vote--all in favor signify by saying 'aye'--(aye)--all those opposed--(nay)--it is the opinion of the chair that the nays have it....[back to business]" Substitute other words for democratic motions. Although it was clear to me that the debate was one-sided, the media never seemed to notice. They now promote "dialog" and "reasonability" and talk about how unfair it is that the minority doesn't have a "voice".

If we get a couple of conservative Supremes (say, in the Scalia-Thomas mold) with the tax-cuts we've already received (and I wouldn't mind some more), I'll be content.

I like the Mars mission idea. Discovery isn't practical, it's just what we do.

Concerning mismanaged airlines, you've failed to mention the declining number of passengers (due to terrorism) and the rising costs of fuel (perhaps also due to terrorism)?

I also failed to mention that several airlines--JetBlue, Southwest, AirTran, America West--experienced a post-9/11 surge in profits. Some companies adapt to changing circumstances, some don't. Why should government reward the failing companies--the ones that don't adapt--with subsidies?

Brad: Considering how greedy for tax cuts you are, I think it is insane that you go along with the Mission to Mars BS.

Being serious about low taxes requires being serious about minimal spending.

Short -- that's not necessarily true. Reagan cut taxes in the 80s and it led to record high revenues.

I am hoping to see the republican party start to get something done! I mean we voted in the President and a majority in the house and senate, so whats the problem?

Of course it seems the republicans in office are just as guilty of loving poprk as the democrats. Not good folks.

If they do not make a huge turnaround from the way they have behaving you are going to see people voting for democrats again. I know it's stupid since the dems have had absolutely no ideas, but they will anyway.

BTW they have ideas, they just cannot tell anyone what it is because, it involves more taxes. With the government already sucking up about 35% of our income we are already slowly drifting towards socialism. Slowly but surely.

Why don't we start voting for Libertarians?

Ben: Your statement doesn't contradict mine. The Lauffer curve would operate well above what I consider taxes that are low enough. Being serious about really low taxes requires being serious about not spending money on stupid crap. The Mission to Mars counts there, unless your a scientologist.

"Conservatism" (Read: Paleoconservatism) Is dead in the Republican party I would say, and the GOP is now the party of Neoconservatism. It would be good to remember that Ronald Reagan is considered by most to the be the Messiah of the Republican Party, and the Reagan administration was the Republican party's first Neoconservative administration. As long as the GOP seeks to shape itself in Reagan's image, it will seek to shape itself in the image of Neoconservatism.

It also would be good to remember what few do: Neoconservatism is not a political doctrine, it is a foreign policy persuasion. Instances where Neoconservatives are unified on issues not pertaining to Foreign Policy are few and far between. I can find an example of this right in this post. I consider myself a Neoconservative, though I agree with Flynn that the Mission to Mars was silly tripe, that a National ID card is probablly a bad idea, throwing money at the global AIDs fight was not an appropriate thing to do considering the other challenges we are facing as a nation today (Flynn would probablly say it is a bad idea at any time, but I might as well, not sure.) I thought amnesty for illegal aliens was a bad move, and I believe that the Minutemen have the right idea in patrolling the border. Ben L also considers himself a Neoconservatism, but on domestic policy he is one of if not the most Libertarian person I have ever met. (Total Anarchists not included in this.)

I would however, as an honest assessment, recommend that Paleocons, or as they deem themselves, the only true Conservatives, begin voting for the American Libertarian Party, as that seems to be the Party that truly caters to their interests.

“Reagan of course was not a Neo-con..."
--William Kristol

No the libertarian party hardly caters to any conservative interests at all. The Constitution Party is the 3rd party that should get our support.

What does this mean Ben-T: "Neoconservatism is not a political doctrine, it is a foreign policy persuasion"?

Ben L., for the Laffer curve to have that sort of impact the marginal tax rates had to have been extremely high and then reduced to an optimal rate as happened under Reagan, so it worked that way b/c of peculiar circumstances. I just read a good article on this topic but I can't remember where. If it occurs to me I will share it with you. Suffice to say that the economists in the 80s doubted what Laffer predicted but that doesn't actually mean that with *any and every* decline in tax rates we will see an increase in total revenues.

But this doesn't matter that much to conservatives since their arguments about taxation are probably 75% moral and 25% economic.

In real terms Reagan's tax cuts didn't return to their 1981 level until 1986, so tax cuts didn't trigger the revenue windfall some supply-siders seem to suggest.

Bush is a Neoconservative and Reagan was not. In fact, it's hard to find two different Presidents as Reagan and Bush. Reagan took measures to slow the growth of government, Bush has taken measures to push it to new heights. Reagan ended the Cold War; Bush is trying to start a new one.

Paleoconservatism has never been part of the Republican Party and Libertarianism doesn't represent Paleoconsevatism. Even plain-vanilla conservatives like Phyliss Schlafly have come out against large measures of Bush's agenda, and none have to do with the war in Iraq.
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2005/jan05/psrjan05.html

At least five of her six planks run in direct opposition to President Bush.

"Being serious about really low taxes requires being serious about not spending money on stupid crap."

haha I agree with you, short. I don't know enough about the goals of the Mission to Mars thing, so I can't really say how stupid this particular piece of crap is. But my inclination is to ask why can't this research be done with private funds?

"I just read a good article on this topic but I can't remember where. If it occurs to me I will share it with you."

Thanks, Brian.

"arguments about taxation are probably 75% moral and 25% economic."

Right, exactly -- my main concern is that people get to keep as much of the money they earn as possible. The potential booms in revenue are just an added bonus.

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

Incorrect. Osama bin Laden declared war on us in the mid-1990s. Bush has been the first President to acknowledge that we are in a battle with these Jihadists. Clinton looked the other way when the USS Cole was attacked, and numerous other terrorist acts were essentially ignored by previous administrations. Most rational people would conclude that, after these thugs took down two of the most massive buildings in our country, murdering 2800 innocents, something had to be done. Whether or not that something involves overthrowing Middle Eastern regimes is, of course, entirely open to debate. But we couldn't risk ignoring it any longer.

One more thing...

"No the libertarian party hardly caters to any conservative interests at all."

I don't agree with this at all. What about economics, for one thing?

Ben,

I wasn't talking about Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda or jihadists.

"Whether or not that something involves overthrowing Middle Eastern regimes is, of course, entirely open to debate."

Iraq had no role in 9/11 according to President Bush. This implies two things: either you know something no one else in the world knows; or you have malignant sense of justice that sanctions indiscriminate bombing and killing.

"I wasn't talking about Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda or jihadists."

The only working ana-logy to the Cold War is the overall War on Terror, not this one fight in Iraq.

"Iraq had no role in 9/11 according to President Bush. This implies two things: either you know something no one else in the world knows; or you have malignant sense of justice that sanctions indiscriminate bombing and killing."

I didn't claim Iraq was involved in 9/11. Also, our military doesn't go around indiscriminately killing people. We take more precautions than most nations in the world ever would consider to protect the lives of innocent civilians.

“Reagan of course was not a Neo-con..."
--William Kristol
Posted by short at May 11, 2005 11:08 PM

His administration however was.

What does this mean Ben-T: "Neoconservatism is not a political doctrine, it is a foreign policy persuasion"?

-Brian

Quite simply there is no unified NeoCon point of view on any real domestic Policy.

NeoCons are unified only by their common belief in the agressive protection of US interests abroad. NeoCons will also often subscribe to Supply-Side Economics and Socially Conservative view of the world. However Many NeoCons disagree vehemently about many different things. Aggressively protecting US Interests abroad is the core tenet of NeoConservatism. Beyond that there is not much unification.

Sorry for the third postin a row:

"Bush is a Neoconservative and Reagan was not."

Bush isn't a NeoCon. Neither is Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Rice. Neoconservatives influence the Bush administrations foreign policy, but he isnt a NeoCon.

Neoconservatism is the most widely misunderstood political view in modern America, maybe even in the history of America. Anyone wanting to learn more about it may check out "The NeoCon Reader" It's a collection of essays by Tony Blair, Robert Kagan, Condoleezza Rice, George F Will, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Adam Wolfson, Irving Kristol, William Kristol, Margaret Thatcher, David Brooks, Max Boot, George L. Kelling, Kenneth R. Weinstein, Joao Carlos Espada, James Q. Wilson, Karlyn Bowman, Michael Gove, Irwin Stelzer, John R. Bolton, Robert L. Bartley, Joshua Muravchik, and Jeffrey Gedmin.

The Book is Edited and Introduced by Irwin Stelzer.

Ben L., found the article, but you won't be thrilled at where it was published. The May 9 issue of The American Conservative (cover story on JPII) had an article by W. James Antle III entitled "The Taxman Cometh" in which he makes the point that w/ marginal tax rates at the relatively low level they are at now that reductions won't yield much of a laffer curve at all. I am no economist but from what I know of why the Laffer Curve worked so well in the 80s this seems reasonable.

Ben L: so... Bush is not a neocon (I am prone to agree), but Thatcher is? And Tony Blair evidently is the inheritor of the Thatcher neocon mantle in England?

Excuse me, uhg, ... I was just throwing up in my own mouth for a second.

No Blair and Thatcher aren't NeoCons. Not everyone who has an Esay in the NeoCon reader is a NeoCon. The book however, I feel, paints a good picture of what NeoCons ARE.

I am Ben-T, not Ben L, btw.

Thatcher is generally looked upon by British historians as a "neoliberal" which is the Brit equivalent for what we call neocons here. Of course, neoliberalism exists here as well so it is actually a bit confusing going from the Euro and British context to the American.

But her economic policies made her a "neoliberal." Maybe it would do better to just stress how contemporary conservatism in both contexts has grafted economic liberalism onto itself.

Brian: question-- is Hayek therefore a "neocon"? And the reasons you offer for applying this term to Thatcher would apply to Burke, too.

Mr.Litchman, you speak as a teenager. Clean and articulate expression does not hide the naive sentiments in your contributions to this blog.

Just to ask (even though I have little doubt you were just out of diapers when Reagan was first setting up the circumstances leading to what we know today as the 'war on terror') how old are you?

An honest reply, perhaps I'm wrong,might surprise me, but I don't think so.

Bush and his one-eyed cannon master agenda, including all his Reagan era minions (most most receding into to the background this second term, good riddance Ashcroft, how did this man ever win any election? Let that Eagle Soar!)are about as sound and objective as the argument that Micheal Jackson has not mouthed pre-teen pee-pencil.

Ben, misinformed opinion, based upon echoing and regurgitating things you have read or misunderstood from 'adults of experience', does not qualify your assertions.

I wonder what kind of taxes you paid last year?

Not to worry however, as reality will present itself to you soon enough and you will begin to see that your sock-puppet idealism will be replaced by the obligations of day to day existence in this new USA. God help us all.

Good luck.

Ambastieu