Playing Name That Con Is Getting Old, Not Neo

Donald Douglas at American Power wants to have a discussion, unfortunately, beyond clearing up some misunderstanding and making a point or two, I can't help him very much.

I've been reading Dan Riehl's posts the last couple of days. Dan's fleshing out what it means to be conservative in our new age, and in the context of Ross Douthat's appointment to the New York Times, he's got some particularly pointed words for neoconservatism,....

The misunderstanding comes from the fact that it is the word, which has always struck me as something of an oxymoron, and not neo-conservativism that I was criticizing most. That, and as Donald acknowledges, the conversations around the term have been almost exclusively focused on foreign policy. Combined with a mishandled war or two, it's severly damaged the conservative brand in America.

The Times has misrepresented conservatism by elevating a term of art, neo-conservative, that has damaged conservatism more than anything the Left has ever done.

I voted for Carter, was more politically liberal as a young man and have a range of political beliefs that could justifiably be characterized as anything from liberal, to libertarian to conservative on any given day. And I reserve the right to alter my view on this or that bit of foreign or domestic policy based upon a range of assumptions and variables that often change.

Does that make me a neo-con, a paleo-con, conservative or libertarian, or do I even care? The fact is I don't. These terms of art are of the chattering class that has never interested me all that much as my primary interest has always been in the people on the ground. Take for instance this great many people on the ground in Cincinnati yesterday via Glenn. 

What do you think they would make of this below from my friend Donald via link above? My guess is not very much.

Indeed, the future of the right will depend on some sort of strategic alliance between "hard classical-liberals"and socially-traditional neoconservatives.

I'm not trying to diminish or impugn Donald here. The constructs and terms he and so many bloggers and pundits like to discuss are important to them. But whatever convenience or even entertainment they might provide, they just aren't important to me. I'm more interested in trying to make sense to and have discussions with people like those on the street in Cincinnati should some few of them ever happen to read or comment here, than I am interested in finding a niche within the chattering class.

I don't care how people define or otherwise label themselves - progressive, or liberal, neo-con, or not - just tell me what it is you believe in and are wiling to stand for and I might get a sense of who you are and what you're about.

Personally, I'm for the least powerful government we can afford while being able to retain order on our streets, efficient commerce and project power abroad on a case by case basis as some need might warrant. I call that conservative, you may not. Beyond that, I've no strong desire to lock myself into some preconceived concept of a psuedo-ideology that might only constrict my good judgment, or give political opponents another term of art they will try to use to mis-characterize me and misrepresent my thinking.

Frankly, in some ways the Right seems to be becoming as pre-occupied with labels and hyphens as is today's Left. My instincts tell me that can't be good. But I'm not going to dwell on it as my primary interest remains what's small d democratic and most common denominator forms of communication aimed at the average Jane or Joe.

I belong to them, I suppose. And find them far more interesting, fun, and often more intelligent than today's so-called chattering class. And for the record, none of this should be read as some slap at Donald, as that is not my intent. He has his views and priorities and I have my own. The two simply don't match up in this particular regard. That doesn't mean we might not agree on a whole host of issues and priorities in the end.

Comments

[William Teach]

One of the things the left has managed to do was create a negative connotation by calling all those on the Right neo-cons and fundies, in much the way we turned liberal into a dirty word, after which so many on the left started calling themselves Progressives.

I'm proud to call myself a conservative. Or, a neo-conservative, which is just another label for classical liberal. I very much believe in the 3 core beliefs of classical liberalism, that government should stay out of them (moral, economic, and political) as much as possible. Government should be there simply as a way of binding us all together as a country/state/city, provide for the common defense and for safety from crime, as well as performing basic infrastructure. It should not be getting involved in all sorts of moral issues and our lives, it should not be getting so involved in business, and it should allow free politics, as set forth in our Constitution.

I think there is a problem on the far left and the far right: way too much interference in our private lives, such as with gay marriage. As long as what gays do doesn't interfere with my life, hey, I don't care, and it's none of my business. And government should not be getting involved in these issues. But, if the People want to, so be it.

[SacTownMan]

It's very simple for me. I believe this country was founded on liberty and freedom. The great experiment our fore fathers created here has brought freedom and hope to so many for more than 200 years.

I have consvervative morals and values. I believe that the government is here primarily to protect and defend me from those that would do me harm. I don't care if those threats come from abroad or from home! Second a government should do nothing to deter or threaten my individual freedom.

The current group of 400 or so socialist liberals in power in Washington have no idea how much their actions are impacting "common" folks. There is such a disconnect in this country between those in power and the people. They toss around the term "trillion" like it's Monopoly money!

The Tea Parties are still being largely ignored by the MSM in an attempt to enable this socialist takeover of our society. But this won't work in the long run. The elections of 1994 were all about the people wanting to flush the crap out of Washington and it is unbelievable to me that the current bunch in Washington are too stupid to learn from that recent history!

[seekeronos]

I would probably be considered a "Ron Paul Republican", or perhaps more accurately, a "paleo-conservative" Constitutionalist.

Though some here who have read my various comments will consider me to be "religious" (I reject that term, since plenty of people have "religion", but far fewer actually have a firm faith in their beliefs), I also believe that the federal government really should have nothing to do with squabbles over whether evolution or creationism or any mix thereof are taught in schools; nor should it quibble over whether gays should be given permission to marry.

In fact, no government should have the right to dispense permissions for marriage (which is what a marriage license actually is)... the government should merely be a witness to, and a custodian of records for the legal contract binding the partners to a marriage (man and wife) or a civil union (regardless of gender identity or orientation).

Gays and Lesbians should be encouraged and permitted to serve in the military, so long as they respect and submit to the same standards that (should) govern all military members under the UCMJ - no fraternization between officers, NCOs, and junior ratings/enlistees, and like mechanisms in place that serve to restrain sexual harassment or abuse between men and women, as well as the avoidance of behaviours contrary to a professional military bearing.

And our military should be confined to a defence-only role - just as stipulated in the Constitution, with no activity beyond our coastal sea and airspace except in times of Constitutionally declared war by the US Congress.

Furthermore, the budget should be reduced, taxes lowered, and all current financial and EPA regulation on manufacturing and business be relaxed or put under a moratorium, for any corporations and businesses willing or able to relocate their manufacturing to the continental US.

The top bracket for corporate taxes should not exceed 10%, capital gains taxes should be reduced to 5% for short term trades, and eliminated entirely for long-term securties (held over a year)... and the top-tier of income taxes reduced to 10%.

Wasteful activities such as the National Endowment for the arts, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the BATF, and so many more alphabet-soup internal security police apparatuses should be closed down or severely reduced in scope.

[anon]

I agree with most of that, though I think you should have to hold investments longer than 1 year to avoid cap gains tax, I'd say at least 3 years, maybe 5.

I also think that protecting the enviroment is critically important and that it is a federal job because states are too wedded to the short term economics of jobs vs. wetlands, forests, animals, open space, pollution. History is pretty clear that long term enviromental protections have almost always been subservient to short term economic needs.

Most of what the feds do, though, should devolve to the states, especially education.

We definitely need to cut and streamline most regulations because...as we march on toward socialism, regulations have become the excuse for failure..if you follow the rules and you still fail, it isn't your fault. When we tried to take OUT any level of subjectivity and tried to institute a totally objective criteria that would be the 'same' 'fair' 'equal' across the board, what we did intead was to take away people's willingness, even ability to use their own judgement. So, instead of the regulations empowering everyone and making everything equal and happy, they have disempowered everyone and dragged the country down to the point where following orders is more important than success.

Lastly, I'm okay with the U.S. having a robust military because it protects U.S. interests in the long term, but 'robust' and 'starting crazy wars we can't finish' are two separate things.

[ajacksonian]

"A principal explanation of why Jacksonian politics are so poorly understood is that Jacksonianism is less an intellectual or political movement than an expression of the social, cultural and religious values of a large portion of the American public. And it is doubly obscure because it happens to be rooted in one of the portions of the public least represented in the media and the professoriat. Jacksonian America is a folk community with a strong sense of common values and common destiny; though periodically led by intellectually brilliant men—like Andrew Jackson himself—it is neither an ideology nor a self-conscious movement with a clear historical direction or political table of organization. Nevertheless, Jacksonian America has produced—and looks set to continue to produce—one political leader and movement after another, and it is likely to continue to enjoy major influence over both foreign and domestic policy in the United States for the foreseeable future."

- The Jacksonian Tradition by Walter Russell Mead (http://www.denbeste.nu/external/Mead01.html)

"Jacksonians don't have any interest in spreading their philosophy around the world. It isn't evangelistic; indeed, the entire concept of trying to actively spread that or any other philosophy around the world is deeply repugnant to pure Jacksonians. Jacksonians are anti-imperialistic.

The whole point of Jacksonianism is "You leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. You play fair with me and I'll play fair with you. But if you fuck with me, I'll kill you."

To Jacksonians, it is entirely possible to create an adequate world framework of consistent and fair behavior, sufficient to support trade, through vigilance and the threat of reprisal (military or otherwise). Going beyond that to a world government as such is neither necessary, desirable nor even possible, and the best case is where there is as little international framework and governance as can be: only the bare minimum required but no more. Anything beyond that will eventually be abused by someone, so it's better to do without it."

- SDB (http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/08/Jacksonianforeignpolicy.shtml)

Tea Parties are an expression of social values on a large scale spurred on by the way people live their lives. That spur is the intercession of government into areas where it does not belong and asking for far too much money spent in ill uses to benefit the few over the many. We are not being left alone by government.

Government deserves what it will get.

Conflict is a lightswitch affair, you either do it or do not do it, there is no dimmer switch in conflict. When government determines that it can set the way of society, there will be hell to pay as that is not its job nor function.

[John Skookum]

90% of those who use the term "neoconservative" have no idea of the term's history and etymology, and use it as a trendy all-purpose term of abuse.

The other 10% are dog-whistling "filthy Jew".