Ellington

Michelle Goldberg reports in Salon: "Neoconservatives are very sensitive people. Even those who've attained stature and power are exquisitely attuned to insults hurled from obscure quarters of the left as well as the barbs of French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin. It's not only bombastic blogger Andrew Sullivan who trolls Web sites like Indymedia.org, hunting for evidence of moral relativism. No less a personage than Richard Perle, the neocon kingpin who sits on the Pentagon's Defense Advisory Board, bristled with irritation when mentioning Talking Points Memo, the blog of liberal Washington journalist Joshua Micah Marshall. To answer the criticism directed against his movement, Perle appeared with Marshall at a panel on Monday in Washington called 'Is the Neoconservative Moment Over?' Perle's answer: Not even close."

Previous Comments

ID

136819

Comment

of what? the neo-cons? it's only a part of the conservative movement, and not the most important part IMHO I'm a conservative, but not a neo-con - maybe that's why I'm not afraid as for sensitivity - well, "liberals" seem to be fairly sensitive about people pointing out faults in their ideology - strange how the shoe fits when on the other foot...

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-12-18T11:22:10-06:00

ID

136820

Comment

of what? the neo-cons? it's only a part of the conservative movement, and not the most important part IMHO. I'm a conservative, but not a neo-con - maybe that's why I'm not afraid That's a very interesting response, Fielding. I agree with you that many conservatives of your apparent bent do not agree with the neo-cons on many points. So why be so supportive of an administration whose foreign policy is dictated by neo-cons? I'm a little surpised that more traditional conservatives aren't more worried that these former "liberals" are up to a scheme to re-write the long-term goals of the Republican Party. So far, they're doing a pretty good job. Are Republicans paying close enough attention to their own party?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2003-12-18T11:29:17-06:00

ID

136821

Comment

Bush 43 policies are not just neo-con policy driven - there are other types of conservatism being espoused, for example, traditional fiscal conservative policies - tax breaks, religious conservative policies - allowing religious organizations to participate in certain activities they were barred from earlier, etc etc. I will freely admit that the 4 year old and one year old twins keep me from focusing on intra-party politics as much as I used to, but all political parties go through similar cycles - look at the Democratics as an example - Clinton brought in the DLC and their priorities, now Howard Dean and others want other focuses for the party - I'm not worried at this time, no - but I do try to keep up with what's going on

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-12-18T11:45:19-06:00

ID

136822

Comment

What activities have religious groups been barred from in the past? Controlling the Senate? Practicing medicine?

Author

Nia

Date

2003-12-18T12:13:32-06:00

ID

136823

Comment

Bush 43 policies are not just neo-con policy driven - there are other types of conservatism being espoused That is absolutely true, of course. But there is a point where these very different philosophies are going to bleed into each other, and they don't always coalesce very well. And many of the domestic parties are more driven by neo-con thought than you might think, although Perle et al. certainly throw bones to the fundamentalist conservatives to keep them happy. The American Enterprise Institute and the Project for the New American Century, for instance, aren't simply about foreign policy, you know. It strikes me that conservatives who support Bush no matter what (and that includes libertarians as well as religious conservatives) should get in touch with what the neo-con wing of the Republican Party is up to, before it's too late to do anything about it. Clinton brought in the DLC and their priorities, now Howard Dean and others want other focuses for the party - I'm not worried at this time, no - but I do try to keep up with what's going on Certainly, the DLC is a very good point here. The Democratic Party (and non-Republicans such as myself who are not Democrats) has to reckon with the DLC and what it's done both to the Democratic Party and what it's allowed to happen nationally (empowered ultra-right wing, for one). I think that's exactly what we're seeing happen with the Howard Dean campaign; it's so incredibly naive to say that his campaign is about a shift to the "left"; it's not about that all. It's about a re-ordering of priorities and, if anything, a shift to a smart centrism over both no-holds-barred liberalism and the fake Republicanism of the DLC. Conservatives will try to obfuscate that fact all to hell during this campaign, but that does not mean it isn't true. It's a really good idea these days to pay close attention to the neo-cons and what they're convincing the Bush administration to do. That way, their ideas for foreign policy -- which go far, far beyond protecting the U.S. from the threat of terrorism -- won't come as a surprise, no matter where you choose to sit on the political spectrum.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2003-12-18T12:15:46-06:00

ID

136824

Comment

Donna, no specific school of conservative or liberal thought will ever control all that a political party does - yes, there is "bleed" from one policy to the other within certain spectrums, but politics is the art of compromise... the center of the political spectrum is where elections are won, and there is no ideology that completely encompasses that middle - that, to me, is one the things that makes the political process interesting by the way - I never thought of the DLC as "Republican lite" - though I've heard it mentioned as that before - heh heh

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-12-18T12:52:44-06:00

ID

136825

Comment

Donna, no specific school of conservative or liberal thought will ever control all that a political party does - yes, there is "bleed" from one policy to the other within certain spectrums, but politics is the art of compromise... Of course, it is. But compromise is not going to work or happen if large swaths of people are unfamiliar, for whatever reason, with what the actual ideological goals are. It's a good idea to seek out a lot of information before making those decisions -- and I get the feeling that a lot of Republicans these days don't seem to know what other Republicans are up to. The same, as we've alluded to, was true for the DLC glory days -- but I think those are probably over. And greed on the center of the political spectrum, as long as you're talking about the reasonable center -- that's why so many extremists keep trying to move the so-call "center" toward them, so they can claim the centrist voters. But, alas, once you move it so far either direction, it's going to snap back, perhaps farther than from where it started.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2003-12-18T13:16:51-06:00

ID

136826

Comment

" the center of the political spectrum is where elections are won" Where they are lost also, and that location on the spectrum where Miss Hillary is deathly afraid her Party is straying too far afield from. Well, maybe she is okay with that for this election. I'm perfectly happy with the Bush II administration and I'll gladly vote for the GOP candidate in 2008 also.

Author

RanchHuevos

Date

2003-12-18T14:51:35-06:00

ID

136827

Comment

If Hillary is as self-centered as you say, Ranch, why should she care what happens this election? She's not running. And it's not like she is as "liberal" as the media makes Dean out to be. Dean supports many socially leftist positions that Hillary doesn't seem to support, so a move to the center, or at least away from Dean's so-called liberalism, would be good for her.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-12-18T15:01:03-06:00

ID

136828

Comment

I'll gladly vote for the GOP candidate in 2008 also. Now, that's a seriously partisan attitude. How can you say that not knowing who the candidate will be? What if, for instance, it's a hardcore neo-con and you're a hardcore isolationist? (to bring us back on-topic)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2003-12-18T15:07:55-06:00

ID

136829

Comment

Sorry for my part in the side comments. :-) I'm struck by the tendancy among traditional conservatives to defend the neo-cons, with whom you'd think they'd disagree, by pointing out failures of previous Democratic administrations. It's as if it's too painful to admit that the GOP isn't what it used to be. Neo-cons have taken over the GOP in much the same way that the fund-raising party machine has taken over the Democratic party, which may explain why there are so many undecided Democratic voters. If traditional conservatives aren't also habitually partisan, why aren't there more undecided conservatives. Bush43 has certainly strayed far enough away from traditional lib-con philosophies and policies that they should be wary--if not alarmed.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-12-18T15:18:30-06:00

ID

136830

Comment

"If Hillary is as self-centered as you say, Ranch, why should she care what happens this election? She's not running." Did I say she was self-centered? I can find that anywhere in my post. Oh well, to answer your question, she sure does care what happens in this election because she doesn't want to wait until 2012 to run herself and it would be next to impossible for her to win the nomination of the Democratic Party in 2008 if there was a incumbent Democrat in the White House running for re-election. There is a fun discussion of that here. "How can you say that not knowing who the candidate will be?" That's easy, because I always vote for the GOP candidate, even if they aren't a perfect match with my personal moderate to moderate-conservative politics. I did stray and vote for John Anderson in 1980 but that was the only time. I've never found a candidate put forth by the Democratic Party to be a better match on my scorecard. I love partisanship. While it can get awfully uncomfortable, I think its healthy for a democracy. If the Greens can find a way duplicate and export around the nation their successes in the recent SF mayoral election, even though they lost, in 10 years or so we'll have at least three Parties at each other's throats. That's good for the country.

Author

RanchHuevos

Date

2003-12-18T15:56:51-06:00

ID

136831

Comment

we'll have at least three Parties a definite improvement at each other's throats. status quo -------- To shift slightly, does it terrify anyone else that this American citizen, or any American citizen, could be held for a year-and-a-half without being allowed counsel? The neo-cons may think this type of extra-constitutional treatment is good policy, but Charley Reese and I are real sick of this kind of anti-American justice. Fortunately, so are some judges out there. http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/12/18/enemy/index.html AP reporting: "President Bush does not have power to detain American citizen Jose Padilla, the former gang member seized on U.S. soil, as an enemy combatant, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday. The decision could force the government to try Padilla, held in a so-called "dirty bomb" plot, in civilian courts. In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Padilla's detention was not authorized by Congress and that Bush could not designate him as an enemy combatant without the authorization. ... "As this court sits only a short distance from where the World Trade Center stood, we are as keenly aware as anyone of the threat al-Qaida poses to our country and of the responsibilities the president and law enforcement officials bear for protecting the nation," the court said. "But presidential authority does not exist in a vacuum, and this case involves not whether those responsibilities should be aggressively pursued, but whether the president is obligated, in the circumstances presented here, to share them with Congress," it added.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2003-12-18T18:39:06-06:00

ID

136832

Comment

Fielding, I would like to bring this back to the question Nia asked way above: What activities have religious groups been barred from in the past?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2003-12-18T18:47:26-06:00

ID

136833

Comment

I jumped up and down when I saw that headline this morning. The guy may very well be guilty, but THAT'S WHY WE HAVE COURTS! (Sorry for the yelling.) Our courts and judges--and sometimes juries--are charged with weighing these kinds of decisions. No one person--especially not the president--should have the right to just hold people in jail without access to an attorney and without due process. This single act is by far the scariest thing the Bush administration has done and is exactly the kind of thing traditional conservatives should be up in arms about. Where are the libertarians when you need them? Where did all the lib-cons go?

Author

Nia

Date

2003-12-18T19:11:43-06:00

ID

136834

Comment

The guy may very well be guilty, but THAT'S WHY WE HAVE COURTS! (Sorry for the yelling.) That's OK. It's perfectly appropriate to yell about attempts to eat away at the very fabric of Americanism. Now, to their credit, there are many conservatives, and certainly libertarians, who are up in arms over these very issues and working hard to get the administration to re-focus on the principles of American freedom. One I admire is the Rutherford Institute (yes, of Paula Jones fame). John Whitehead is going some hard-hitting work against Ashcroft's idea of "freedom": Read his response to the Patriot Acts: http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/legal_features.asp?article_id=65 I don't agree with Whitehead on absolutely everything (for instance, his interpretation of the religion separation clauses), but boy do I admire his work on issues like search and seizure, free speech and against zero tolerance policies in the schools. You're right, Nia, that Americans should put aside certain differences and form alliances to protect our individual freedoms. If we don't do that, it may be hard to get them back, and the abuses aren't always going to be aimed at the guy we don't agree with. Sometimes it seems as if the conservative narrative is simply being re-written into a defense of corporate freedom, with people who consider themselves "conservative" no longer worrying about individual rights. I fully realize that is an exaggeration -- but I wouldn't be so inclined to kneejerk in such a way if I heard more card-carrying Republicans standing up and challenging Bush/Ashcroft on cases like Padilla's that challenge our very foundation. Sorry to be dramatic, but this is serious.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2003-12-18T19:31:13-06:00