« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Can We Finally Agree Neoconservativism = Liberalism?

It seems the so called "hawks" are always the ones with the wrong ideas.

With the possible exception of former Vice President Dick Cheney, whom every conservative would agree is as tried and true as they come, I am as convinced as ever that neoconservatives are really displaced liberals trying to remold the GOP into it’s image.

Let me explain.

Before the peace movement of the 1960s and 1970s and, to an extent, The Franklin Roosevelt Administration, the foreign policy position of liberals within the Democratic Party and Progressives in the Republican Party was one of interventionism.

So where did all those hawkish liberals go? Well, they went to the Republican Party. And while some of the current interventionists may have started as conservatives, they have gradually adopted liberalism of their formerly liberal forefathers.

John McCain. Lindsey Graham. David Frum. Bill Kristol. Susan Collins. The Wall Street Journal.  These are all people and publications who have advocated the GOP surrender to higher taxes, compromise on spending plans that dramatically increase our deficit and have the federal government intervene on issues there is no constitutional right to intervene on, like education.

The neocons invaded the George W. Bush administration – and it got us two wars that were incredibly expensive and a Middle East that is worse off now than it was when we first went in. Yes, Saddam Hussein is gone, but so is the secular government he’d ran, replaced by an Islamic Republic (allowed by Bush), that has elements of radicalism seeping out. To make matters worse, we’ve now had five years of the worst elements of hapless liberalism and neoconservativism working together to “keep our country safe.”

It’s time we dump the neocons and replace them with traditional conservatives. Full throated isolationism? No. But we need leaders who recognize keeping our military strong is keeping them out of conflicts they don’t need to be in. We need the world to know that if anyone threatens our security we will not be tied up, we will be ready to take the fight directly to them. We need to make sure that if our men and women are fighting for us, they’re fighting for us for a good reason.

President Reagan had US Armed Forces ready to go in case the Soviets wanted to try and start anything, but it was always a last resort for him. He fought the Cold War and won it, as former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher so eloquently put it, “without firing a single shot” (Lady Thatcher also had a big part to play in that.)

I am grateful to the men and women who bravely defended our country during these two wars. But they deserve better than fighting useless wars or defending a country that doesn’t acknowledge our Constitution. If neoconservatives are truly committed to the defense of this country, if they are committed to shrinking the size of government, and keeping powers within the bounds of the Constitution, they have a place in our movement, otherwise, they should go elsewhere.

COMMENTS

  • westcoastpatriette

    Good points, J. Leg. And it’s good to hear from you again.

  • gmat

    In terms of foreign policy, yeah.

    Well, not quite “equal”, the distinction being that liberal interventionists like international institutions and neocons don’t.

  • kentucky

    The 2016 Republican Presidential Primary could permanently shake up the foreign policy establishment in the GOP. That is the reason the foreign policy establishment has been marching in lockstep for the past several days in an attempt to discredit Rand Paul. There is palpable bewilderment in this country at the excesses of the Bush (foreign) and Obama (domestic) administrations. To the extent Sen. Paul can offer a break from both, he will be a formidable candidate in both the primary and, especially, the general election.

  • Viet71

    Agreed.

  • electconstitutionalists

    I argue that Republicans must adopt a mixture of what Walter Russell Mead would classify as the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian schools of foreign policy:http://www.lts.com/~cprael/Meade_FAQ.htm

    • theodysseus

      I would rather have us straddle the line between Jacksonian and Hamiltonian on foreign policy. If we can leverage our economic might to keep potential and active threats (who we are not yet at war with) weak, we may not even have to send in the troops. That way, our military, which should be employed to gain victory, can be reserved for instances where nonviolent defensive measures (such as trade restrictions, sanctions, and denial of access to new capital) have failed.

    • midwestconservative

      I’m a Jacksonian I guess, if we could get a foreign policy like we had under Reagan we’d be in good shape, I would argue that Bush is a Wilsonian
      I detest Wilsonian ne’er do wells more than anything else in this world

  • joshinca

    Before the peace movement of the 1960s and 1970s and, to an extent, The Franklin Roosevelt Administration, the foreign policy position of liberals within the Democratic Party and Progressives in the Republican Party was one of interventionism.

    The Ur-NeoCon was Lyndon Johnson, big government at home and abroad. It was his ideological compatriots that were purged from the democrat party in the 70s by the pacifist-socialists. It should be remembered that Charles Krauthammer, one of the faces of neo-conservatism today, was Walter Mondale’s speech writer.

  • midwestconservative

    Oh I think there is some place in the GOP for Neocons, just as surely as there is for “principled” moderates, just as long as the follow the lead of traditional limited government free market conservatives, if not we will dump them to the side of the road
    the Tent can be big as long as the “sinners” mind their manners and let the Circuit ridin’ preacher speak