“Lets Grow Up, Conservatives Progressives!”
Filed under: Barry Goldwater, Conservatives, Liberals, Progressives, United States — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on May 25, 2007 @ 4:31 pm CEST
An interesting column, by E.J. Dionne Jr., appeared in today’s Washington Post. Mr. Dionne writes:
“Let’s grow up, conservatives!”
Barry M. Goldwater’s declaration at the 1960 Republican National Convention was designed to quell a rebellion against Richard M. Nixon, whom conservatives saw as selling out to liberals on various platform planks. Goldwater’s next line was uncannily prophetic: “If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work.” Forty-seven years later, the conservatives whose cause Goldwater championed still dominate the Republican Party.
The Democratic Party’s progressive wing, furious at what it sees as the capitulation of its congressional leaders to President Bush on the Iraq war, should remember this history. The decision to drop withdrawal timelines from the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill is not a decisive defeat. It is a temporary setback in a much longer struggle for minds and votes that the administration’s critics are actually winning…
Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said recently that no one remembers how long it took to reverse the direction of American policy in Vietnam. Obey is hunkered down for a lengthy struggle.
In a divided system, democracy can be frustratingly slow. But it usually works. Critics of the war should spend less time mourning the setbacks of May and begin organizing for a showdown in September. They would profit from taking Barry Goldwater’s long view.
Irony at its finest: ‘liberals’ looking at Barry Goldwater for inspiration.
There is a lot of truth to what Dionne is saying though: the Democrats caved in this time, but that doesn’t mean that the progressive movement has lost or will lose in the end. If I were a member of the progressive movement, I would use this as a means to re-energize the base, I would look at the bigger picture (battles like this take years), I would reward those politicians who did what the progressive movement wanted, and I would try to put pressure on those who didn’t do what the pm wanted, as to make sure that they will do what it wants next time (coming September).
There is only one problem: I believe that Americans are, culturally, more conservative than progressive. Therefore, a conservative movement can be successful, whereas a progressive movement cannot, at least not in the truly long run. They might win some battles, but they won’t win the war, so to speak.
1 C Stanley
May 25, 2007 @ 4:34 pm CESTAlso, progressivism is by nature, not patient. It’s followers would not be very likely to take the long view that Goldwater advocated since the basis of their philosophy is that change should be embraced.
2 mvdg
May 25, 2007 @ 4:58 pm CESTVery good point, as usual, Christine. That’s indeed a very important difference. Progressives demand change and that change has to come ASAP, whereas conservatives don’t necessarily object to change, but if change has to come, look at the entire situation, and change it slowly.
3 Alan
May 25, 2007 @ 5:13 pm CESTConservatives don’t object to change? I thought the whole point of being a conservative was to oppose change?
And as for progressive movements not being successful, I think you need to re-read your American history*. The Progressive movement at the turn of the century had a great effect upon the American government.
It’s the conservative movement I’d be worried about. I always hear them complain about how government keeps expanding, no matter which party is in power. And I hear religious conservatives complain that they only receive lip service regarding socially conservative goals.
*I’ve been wondering how you keep up with your studies and manage a blog or two. And manage all the various distractions that face college students. Perhaps this is evidence that you have indeed begun to slack off.
4 mvdg
May 25, 2007 @ 5:23 pm CESTNo, my point is more that they won’t take over politics, or an entire party, for a period of several decades. Did progressives change a lot in America? Did they accomplish a lot? Sure, but that’s not my point.
Conservatives don’t necessarily object to all change: a conservative might agree that something has to change, but will insist that one changes the situation gradually.
5 C Stanley
May 25, 2007 @ 6:47 pm CESTAlan,
The part of conservativism which seeks to prevent rapid change is mainly based on Burke’s philosophy, and this excerpt from Wikipedia shows that even Burke didn’t oppose all change:
You might want to spend a bit more time reading up on political philosophies before you accuse Michael of slacking off
6 mvdg
May 25, 2007 @ 6:54 pm CESTExactly Christine, good quote. The point is not that society shouldn’t change, the point is that change should come slowly and should be deeply rooted in society… which is why Burkean conservatives oppose Roe v. Wade.
7 Interested
May 25, 2007 @ 7:29 pm CESTActually lthomas has an excellent read on Conservatism (Michael has links to it from here) - and it’s philosophy over the years.
One line from West Wing - during the final campaign - Josh says - “Of course we’re not organized - we’re Democrats!” It’s actually a decent symbol to how the parties approach things. The GOP was typically a business orientated approach - very deliberate while the DNC types were much more in a disarray.
Disarray by itself is not a bad thing, but it’s a ton easier to get one single unifying message across than 50 different messages as is typical of the Dem’s. And in fact they did just that for ‘06.
It’s just not in their nature to have a generally one voice. Probably indeed due to the desire to change and change quickly.
Plus the movie - So Goes the Nation - another excellent example.
8 Alan
May 25, 2007 @ 7:46 pm CESTI’m not sure about conservatives approving “organic” change as opposed to the revolutionary type.
Here in the US our society has grown more diverse over the last generation or so. People and the private sector have adjusted to people whose beliefs and lifestyles would not previously have been acceptable.
This doesn’t seem to be true of our political conservatives, as represented by the Republicans. They seem to want to return to the ideals of the 1950s. I suspect this is why people outside the mainstream—black, Jewish, gay, non-Christian, unmarried, etc.,…—are such strong supporters of the Democrats. They know where they aren’t welcome.
And why would I want to read political philosophy? Isn’t that what we have political science majors for?
That is, besides working fast food.
9 mvdg
May 25, 2007 @ 7:53 pm CESTReturn to the 1950s: I can honestly say that I know of no conservative who truly wants to go back to the 50s. Most conservatives I know support civil rights, equality, etc.
they do oppose Roe v. Wade though
10 Interested
May 25, 2007 @ 7:56 pm CESTIf you do get to see that movie though. It’s quite something. I’m looking forward to 08’s movie.
11 C Stanley
May 25, 2007 @ 8:03 pm CESTAlan: You don’t have to read political philosophy if you don’t want to but your comments on it would be more informed if you did.
And all of the people outside the mainstream that you mentioned are quite welcome in the Republican party- but some of them have been convinced by the Dems fearmongering that they’re not.
12 Alan
May 25, 2007 @ 8:22 pm CESTChristine-
Perhaps I should have had a disclaimer that I’m not particularly informed about political science. Most of what I say is based upon media sources and personal experience, not specific political philosophies. I am in fact aware that what I am describing may not be consistent with the founding political philosophies of conservativism.
However, it seem to me that people who are described as (or describe themselves as) conservatives seem to prefer the mainstream and the traditional. Indeed, I hear “traditional values” nearly as often as “family values”.
And with these “traditional values” I hear other things as well:
“Judeo-Christian values”, which usually refers to conservative Christian morals
“Homosexual agenda”, which seems to mean some gay plot to destroy marriage and indoctrinate children in the gay lifestyle
“Reverse discrimination”, which usually refers to affirmative action, something very popular with African-American
“Selfish”, a word used to describe childless couples and single people who aren’t helping us match the Muslim world’s birthrate
Perhaps your average Republican/conservative doesn’t believe this, but I’ve heard Republican politicians and their conservative religious allies say such things frequently. So is it any wonder why I think that various groups are unwelcome in the GOP?
13 C Stanley
May 25, 2007 @ 8:38 pm CESTAlan,
I understand your point and I’m not at all happy that the GOP stereotype that you describe has that grain of truth that all stereotypes have (and I’ll even concede that lately it seems as though the grain has sprouted and that there is too much of this kind of attitude).
I don’t agree with all of your examples though. A few points of difference:
Judeo-Christian values: even those who endorse these aren’t saying that anyone outside of these faiths is amoral. In fact, what I think is happening is that religious people simply want secular people to explain what their values really are. Whenever those match up reasonably closely to the core morality of the Judeo-Christian tradition, there isn’t nearly the problem of acceptance as there is when the non-religious person doesn’t express any need for values at all or draws on moral relativism.
Homosexual agenda: yes, quite some people are bigoted and I don’t condone that. However, keep in mind that there isn’t anyone in the mainstream who wants laws passed against homosexuality; the people who want to change the status quo are the gay rights activists, and they do sometimes go beyond demanding civil rights and tolerance to the point of demanding no moral judgment. They have no right to have their lifestyle endorsed or approved by all- they only have the right to the same civil rights as heterosexuals (that’s why I approve of civil unions, not gay marriage).
Reverse discrimination: there’s no way to twist logic to not see that favoring one race over another (even if it’s to correct past wrongs) is unconstitutional. It also exacerbates feelings of racism because it continues to define people by their skin color. This is actually a perfect example of where conservative desire for change to come more slowly makes more sense IMO- you can’t legislate people’s attitudes, that has to change over time. And when you try to legislate or force it, people tend to resist the change even more because they resent it.
“Selfish” in terms of reproductive rates? I haven’t heard people saying that at all. Instead, I’ve heard people commenting on the obvious effects on demographics if current trends continue.
14 Alan
May 25, 2007 @ 8:52 pm CESTYou do have a point that this is a stereotype of the GOP and that there is considerably more variation among conservatives.
However, I’m not sure that other conservatives would agree with you on civil unions. Generally, I’ve only heard Democrats approve the idea. The only prominent Republican I’ve heard endorse the idea is Giuliani (I think). And I’m not sure that asking for gay marriage is the same as demanding approval.
And I’ve heard conservative leaders endorse the teaching of the Bible and creationism in the classroom, which is clearly not just Christian “core morality” but Christianity itself. And conservatives seem just as disapproving of Buddhism and Islam as they do of atheism.
We’re probably in agreement about affirmative action; I was just using that as an example of why African-Americans don’t support the GOP.
And as for “selfish”, I’ve heard from conservative columnists like Maggie Gallagher to letters to the editor in the local paper. That’s why you hear conservative politicians like Brownback and Romney mentioning “the family” so frequently.
15 C Stanley
May 25, 2007 @ 9:04 pm CESTAlan,
I just find that you’re using extremists and generalizing them to the average conservative opinion, which it’s not. No offense (and I don’t think you’re doing it intentionally) but that’s the same tactic that Rush Limbaugh uses- every wacko lefty is held up by him as an example, so that over time this is the picture that his listeners have of the Democrats.
On civil unions: I do think that quite a few GOP leaders are sensitive to voters who don’t want any gay unions at all. There are a few though that say that they want it to be an issue for the states to decide. And I didn’t mean to imply that I felt that gays who want ‘marriage’ are necessarily expecting complete acceptance, I was just saying that there are definitely those who do want to push to that point. They aren’t one in the same, but two parts of that constituency with some overlap. I think the ‘marriage’ part is one line of compromise because it separates the religious covenent part from the civil contract part (I also think that the religious right is largely hypocritical on the whole issue because really marriage has been seriously weakened by no-fault divorce laws- but I digress).
16 Alan
May 25, 2007 @ 9:16 pm CESTYes, I know that I may well be quoting people who are exteme and not representative of the whole of conservativism. Unfortunately those voices tend to get the most attention and often elected office. And I’m aware that conservatives aren’t necessarily the same as the religious right.
But I don’t think I’d be going out on a limb if I said that the Republican ideal was a Christian heterosexual couple with children. And that deviations from this ideal were considered, well, less than ideal.
Anyway, I think I’ve spent enough time blabbing about conservativism. I’d better go re-read EJ Dionne’s “Why Americans Hate Politics” so I can be better informed about Russell Kirk and the like next time.
17 C Stanley
May 25, 2007 @ 9:23 pm CESTYep, no argument there. But that’s even more reason that I find it important to talk about the core philosophy itself, instead of the aberrations of it. Maybe if enough people who think and feel as I do speak up, we’ll be heard above the roar of the others.
18 kritter
May 25, 2007 @ 10:52 pm CESTOk CS, MVDG- what are the great accomplishments of conservatism? I don’t mean the theory- Like progressives can lay claim to women’s suffrage, unionism, social security, medicare, medicaid, Head Start, the civil rights movement, the war on poverty and the child labor laws, laws requiring public education until age 16, and environmental regs.
Where’s your list?
19 lthomas
May 26, 2007 @ 3:07 am CESTTheodore Roosevelt’s Progressive (Bull Moose/Republican) Party becomes the first national political party to adopt a woman suffrage plank.
In the national election two years later, in 1918, Republicans won majorities in both the House and the Senate. We then swiftly passed the Women’s Suffrage Amendment.
Republican Party Freed the slaves and were the first to pass true civil rights legislation in congress.
President Eisenhower won passage of his landmark Civil Rights Act of 1957.
The Democrats weren’t just internally conflicted about the 1964 Civil Rights Act; a significant number of them actually filibustered it
14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Republicans can point to the Taft Hartley act.
Republicans led the integration of pro sports. Branch Rickey, owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers, was a Republican businessman who hired his fellow Republican, Jackie Robinson.
The first woman on the Supreme Court? Everyone knows that. But you may not have known that before she became a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Arizona Republican Sandra Day O’Connor was the first woman to be Majority Leader in the legislature of any state.
The first Hispanic member of the President’s Cabinet? Republican Lauro Cavazos, Secretary of Education under President Reagan.
It was President Ford who, in 1976, repealed FDR’s notorious executive order interning 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.
Prescription drugs for seniors.
20 lthomas
May 26, 2007 @ 3:14 am CESTBoth parties have had significant achievements through out their long and storied history. No party is better then the other party.
What is significant is that the United States was founded on conservative principals. Not in the political sense but as human beings who demanded that change occur in an orderly and acceptable manner. Any change that is FORCED upon its populace will only result in chaotic angst and will lead to civil unrest and societal rejection.
The Neocons are finding this in the Middle East. If any of you read my lecture notes, er my post on “What Price Victory” you will understand that even the Communists didnt want anything to do with the Fundamental and ergo ULTRA CONSERVATIVE populace of the middle east. We understood it and we forced the Soviets to wage their war there.
I get totally frustrated because the NEOCONS did not consult me before invading Iraq. I would have encouraged them to simply go back a few decades and see that it was here we defeated communism and that NO ONE is going into the middle east and make changes that will not require decades to effect.
This is the nature of Conservative values.
21 kritter
May 26, 2007 @ 5:00 am CESTlthomas- TR was not a Conservative- neither was Lincoln. I’m not talking about the Republican Party -which no longer bears any resemblence to the party that was founded in the 1800’s. Conservatives try to slow change down as much as possible,so most would oppose much of anything the government proposes to do. Now many conservatives would like to eliminate the progressive income tax, the Dept of Education, HEW and the EPA.
22 lthomas
May 26, 2007 @ 10:54 am CESTKritter
There is nothing about democracy that guarantees freedom rather than a tyranny of the masses. Liberal democracy suggests a more harmonious marriage between the two principles than actually exists.
I have stated that our founding fathers were conservative. They were. Not in the aspect of political philosophies but in their human nature. Change invariably to come, must come slowly. With that in mind they founded this nation on Liberal ideals that were becoming popular in the 17th and 18th century.
Liberals strive after the replacement of absolutism (Monarchy)by limited government: government by consent.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, (Monarchy)it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.(Liberalism at its finest as defined in the 18th century.)
The idea of consent suggests democracy. At the same time, the founders of the first liberal democracies feared mob rule, and so they built into the constitutions of liberal democracies checks and balances intended to limit the power of government by dividing those powers among several branches.(Conservative Values) For liberals, democracy is not an end in itself, but an essential means to secure liberty, individuality and diversity.
Liberals essentially believe that the government is to serve the people.(this is the philosophy of todays liberalism) Our founding fathers while certainly understanding this concept believe it essential that the people needed to serve the government.(Equally) Because without the two philosophies driving this nation the nation becomes rudderless and embarks upon ideals that are less then beneficial for the masses, driven by reason that is affected by emotion.(Reasonable men gather to join political movements moved by emotion and not reason)
Therefore the philosophy that created this nation also created the need for a two party system. It is why we only have 2 parties and always have. Our founding fathers created a system of government that checked and balanced itself.
The fear that I have Kritter is that when I hear someone like you pointing to the accomplishments of the DEMOCRATIC party that you as well as the readers do not understand that the accomplishments of any party is directly in response to the struggles against them by their polar opposite. That the conservative nature of this nations law making process guarantees what I preach in my classrooms.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes
Change for changes sake is WRONG and to be avoided.
23 lthomas
May 26, 2007 @ 11:15 am CESTWhere’s your list?
Also I mean this in the spirit in which it is intended. Harmony, peace and tranquillity.
The democratic party in the 20th century embarked upon a great crusade to turn America into the socialist nations that were sprouting up all over continental Europe.
Conservativism (Change for changes sake is wrong) Burst forth upon the scene in the mid 30’s as a philosophy to keep the Democratic irrationals in check.
Our nation was never intended to be socialist. The checks and balances built into the government sprung into action and the Democratic party was halted in their slide towards socialism.
So the greatest achievement of the Conservatives is the prevention of this country from becoming another failed form of Socialism.
24 mvdg
May 26, 2007 @ 11:54 am CESTAll good points LThomas.
25 C Stanley
May 26, 2007 @ 12:59 pm CESTYes, lThomas, good roundup.
Kim, it seems you are trying to have it both ways here. First you say what are the accomplishments of conservatism, then when LThomas lists a bunch of them you say “that’s not conservatism”. If you read over the beginning of this thread, you’ll see that we’ve already said that conservativism isn’t against all change- just against rapid abrupt changes that disrupt the fabric of society. So, there’s no reason to assume that ‘good conservatives’ couldn’t have engineered the changes that LThomas talks about. Putting accomplished blacks and women in position of power, for example, is perfectly consistent with conservative philosophy- but insisting that people should be promoted to high positions based on color or gender over qualifications is NOT a conservative action.
If you want to argue that the recent Republican party hasn’t held to conservative ideals, most of us would agree with you. But don’t try to say that conservatism wasn’t responsible for many of the accomplishments that LThomas has listed.
And besides, I was tempted when I first read your challenge to just say that the answer to your question is that conservatism is responsible for everything else besides the progressive accomplishments that you’ve listed. Because that’s the point: sometimes the status quo really is good and the conservative viewpoint is that we should preserve what is good even when it’s necessary to change some parts of society. So, conservatism is responsible for a stable family structure still being (mostly) the norm, for community values that allow people to have civic pride and a sense of ownership, for property rights, for freedom of worship and the positive force of religious morality and structures on society, for a strong work ethic which says that those who can work, should; for preventing the intrusion of government into certain areas (that’s right- that is the true conservative position and despite some social conservatives moving in the wrong direction on that, there are still plenty of areas where conservatives stand up against govt intrusion). Also, conservative policy should largely get the credit for growth and stability of our economy.
26 C Stanley
May 26, 2007 @ 2:03 pm CESTOh, and I forgot to mention, Kim- on your comment about conservatives wanting to ‘eliminate’ certain agencies, that is so much of an exaggeration that it is a false statement. I’m sure you can find some extremists (generally libertarians) who would go that far, but no one in the mainstream is advocating that we shouldn’t have those agencies- but we will argue that the bureaucracies shouldn’t be allowed to be so bloated and that many things like education should be administered much more on the local level.
And BTW, I”m not sure if you saw the exchange I had with Jim S recently about Repubicans who wanted to “abolish the EPA”. When I researched this (because it was news to me), it turned out that back in the 80’s there were some Republicans who were saying that the agency was so dysfunctional and inefficient that it should be abolished- but then a young conservative Reagan appointee saved the agency by instituting a series of reforms to make the agency actually function. That’s the kind of conservativism that I support, and that’s why it’s not helpful to make overgeneralizations as you are doing. Bureaucracies should be open to scrutiny- that doesn’t mean that we believe that all federal agencies should be eliminated. And when you create that false dichotomy, you take away the opportunity to examine things in a meaningful way that would help to reduce our rampant spending. There should be no sacred cows.
27 domajot
May 26, 2007 @ 5:02 pm CESTAgain, when presenting conservatism, it is presented by conservative commenters in its ideal form - what they think the best kind of conservatism should be. That’s fine, but it’s not fine to pooh-pooh practitioners of conservatism who develop tangental positions of which these commenters disapprove.
The fact is, that any ideology and any movemnt depends very much on how it is put into practice, more than on how it is conceived as an abstraction.
Roe vs Wade haunts every conservative discussion. For better or worse, the decision has defined laws for decades. I don’t see much slow and reasoned change being advocated to address conservative discontent, In fact, the battle cry is for oveturning the decision very suddenly.
I would say the same for most policy decisions representatives of conservatism advocate. How patient one is seems to depend very much on whether or not one believes in the policy. The cautious approach seems to be pretty much relegated to policies out of favor. -Favored policies don’t receive the same level of caution.
Getting back to progressives and the war funding supplemental, I think, for the time being, the tug-od-war between the President and Democrats ended very sensibly. I’m glad the progressives didn’t get their way. I’m also glad they were a voice spurring on the debate. The tug-of-war was an important necessary process. When it no longer served any purpose, it ended.
I look at progressives as a necessay part of our checks and balances in the public square. They are the ones keeping an eye on dangerous trends and injustices, that the more mainstream would otherwise sweep under the rug. They are usually too idealistic to produce the best (realistic) solutions, but they balance our vision of where we are and where we should strive to go.
I would even venture to guess that they spur some conservatives to reevaluate the health of their own movement (on homosexuals, for example).
It’s true that progressives are impatient, especially now. They are reacting to the exreme conservatism that has been the predominant voice of power in recent years.
Listening to progressive voices and conservative ones, I see how much energy goes into touting that their side is the end-all and be-all for civilization.
What neither acknowledges is that they need the oppostion to keep them on track.
onservative actors who don’t toe their line on what proper conservatism is are pooh-phhhed.
28 kritter
May 26, 2007 @ 5:12 pm CESTSo the achievement of conservatism is that it holds back liberalism??? My point is that many reforms -like the 40 hour work week, integration of southern classrooms, entry of women into the professions (other than nursing or teaching) would have happened much later or neverhappened at all, if up to conservatives. The granddaddy of Conservatism himself, Barry Goldwater objected to civil rights legislation based on a states rights philosophy. States rights was the argument used for decades by segregationists to maintain Jim Crow. Those laws were brought down by liberals who put themselves in harms way to bring a halt to the evils of our racist past.
If you look at Lincoln- who was a progressive- not a conservative - he believed that the federal government had the power to override the states in a situation where the survival of the union was at stake. This was almost a radical viewpoint at the time. The abolitionist movement itself was considered radical.
And CS, the former Senate Maj leader Tom Delay, states in his autobiography that it was his mission as a conservative to eliminate the Dept of Education and the EPA. He was a former pest control man who went into politics because the govt banned his favorite pesticide. Conservative forces today work to slow down progress towards taking action on global warming-which if you look at our lack of progress, has been one of their major successes.
And I would like to see backup on the claim that the founders were conservative. They were using the ideas of the enlightenment which were considered quite radical at the time.
29 michael van der galien
May 26, 2007 @ 5:29 pm CESTthey should have changed the constitution first.
Secondly, without conservatives America wouldn’t be the richest country in the world.
Conservatives can never brag about progress, because progressives claim to be responsible for all progress, even when they are not.
30 The Populist
May 26, 2007 @ 6:59 pm CESTCalling Pregressives inmature, is like calling Saddam a Saint.
Beeeeoooyyych please!
31 C Stanley
May 26, 2007 @ 7:33 pm CESTDoma-
Good comment- I agree with you! Progressives are needed to spur progress but conservatives are needed to hold back the progress from being too rapid and reckless. Both sides should acknowledge that everyone benefits from the push and pull of the two sides.
So yes, Kim- one of the acheivements of conservativism is that it holds back liberalism. Do you really not see why that is a good thing? Do you think that we should be a one party system without one side balancing out the other?
32 mvdg
May 26, 2007 @ 7:37 pm CESTEcxactly, well said.
I’m actually a conservative liberal, not ‘just’ a conservative. At the core of my political views lie the fundamental traditionally liberal values, which makes me more open to change than some conservatives.
33 lthomas
May 27, 2007 @ 9:50 pm CESTMichael I keep telling you that you are a Neocon.
Neocons are conservative liberals. We basically believe in stronger but smaller government. More social programs then our conservative brethern would agree to.
We believe in projecting power but not using power. This is where the neocons of the Bush administration did not listen to me. Our nation is safer if we make other nations safer. If other nations are safe, propserous and happy then America is safer.
You do not do this by attacking countries and nation building.
You do this by nudging countries, working with countries and if necessary applying military pressures on countries to make the right choice. A classic example of this would be Libya. North Korea is feeling the effects of true Neo Con Philosophy.
Neocons are getting a bad rap for all this because of a few Neocons who dont get it. Lost sight of what we believe and failed to grasp the Fundamental Conservativism that prevails in the Middle East.
You know Conservativism that RESISTS CHANGE. AKA nation Building.
34 mvdg
May 27, 2007 @ 9:54 pm CESTlol LThomas and I’m telling you, you will become a Burkean conservative FAST!
No, the way you present neoconservatism is much more reasonable than how Krauthammer et al. present it. Their type of neoconservatism is: attack a country in the Middle East, topple the government, replace it with a democracy and all will be fine.
35 kritter
May 27, 2007 @ 11:26 pm CESTWell, as a progressive, I now take credit for any and all American progress towards the realization of its true democratic potential since 1776! Gay rights and energy independence, restoration of our civil liberties, are the next battles for progressives in the 21st century.