?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
And in the "No, really?" column... - The Phantom Librarian
Spewing out too many words since November 2003
fernwithy
fernwithy
And in the "No, really?" column...
Klepted from finmagik.



You Are a Liberal Republican



When you tell people that you're Republican, they rarely believe you.

That's because you're socially liberal - likely pro-choice and pro-gay rights.

You're also not so afraid of big goverment, as long as it benefits people and not politicians.

You are the most likely of any Republican type to swing over to the Democrat side sometimes.




Though I wondered about the phrasing on the abortion question. Is the choice really between "wrong" and "a woman's choice"? Can't I believe that a woman has the ultimate choice, but really wish she'd make a different one? Why is that a binary question? And school vouchers, with the question being No, Yes for religious school, or no because I don't want money given to religious education. Vouchers, as far as I'm concerned, have nothing to do with religion, though of course they can be used for religious schools. But they could be used for the Nichols School or Buffalo Seminary or Choate or Philips as easily as for a parochial school. I'd have loved the opportunity to go to Nichols or Buff Sem, and there just weren't enough scholarships, and they wouldn't have covered enough to deal with the transportation between where I lived and where they were. Vouchers would have allowed it. Ergo, I favor them. If it means someone else can go to St. Joseph's, then so what? If that's where the person will get the best education, then go for it. It sure can't be worse than some public schools, and is probably better than a fair share of them.

I don't really think of myself as socially liberal though. I think of myself as pleasantly old-fashioned and suitably stuffy.

And while I'm on the subject, it was confirmed to me that people actually are using "neocon" to refer to the religious right. What's that about? If the religious right is "neocon," then for heavens' sake, what do you call, you know, neocons? William Weld, Irving Kristol, etc? Neo-con in the sense of small government (but not Libertarian small), individual rights, logic-over-emotion types. Often began by identifying as liberals but became disenchanted with the group-think and anti-individualist bent, and found themselves conservative by default.

At any rate, I intend to keep using the word to refer to actual neocons. I don't like giving in to the misuse of a word.
9 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
rabidsamfan From: rabidsamfan Date: November 8th, 2004 12:41 pm (UTC) (Link)
Unfortunately, I think that some of the neoconservative momentum got taken up by the radical reactionary right, but no one really wants to start calling the far right radicals...

I agree with you on questions that should have more choices than yes or no... And that's most of them! What happened to the idea of compromise?
fernwithy From: fernwithy Date: November 8th, 2004 12:52 pm (UTC) (Link)
Yeah, but it's not really a momentum thing--it's a definition thing. A neocon is someone who believes "X" things, not someone who happens to be in the leadership of the Republican party.

Compromise... what's that?
angua9 From: angua9 Date: November 8th, 2004 03:52 pm (UTC) (Link)

Neocons = military expansionists

My understanding of neoconservatives such as Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, etc. is that they are unabashed, unilateral, preemptive military interventionists. They are the architects of the Project for the New American Century, implacably opposed to "appeasement," disarmament treaties, multilateralism, or anything which might interfere with the free and aggressive exercise of U.S. military might (see "Bush Doctrine").

Domestically (which they seem to care little about) they are typically for business deregulation, low taxes, and some social liberties. See this Wikipedia entry for a fuller description.


Recently, the neocons have allied themselves with the movement by Viguerie and others to "break the back" of the welfare state by cutting taxes and increasing the deficit to the point where entitlements such as Social Security, AFDC, Medicare, and Medicaid can no longer exist, and with the social conservatives of the Religious Right. This three-way coalition (basically, the Bush administration) is now running our country effectively unopposed.
fernwithy From: fernwithy Date: November 8th, 2004 04:36 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Neocons = military expansionists

That's more of what I know of neoconservatives, though most of the ones I hang out with wouldn't put it quite that way--they do have a different point of view on the subject!

My objection was in looking at the religious right--with whom these folks are often at odds--and calling it "neocons," when it's more closely associated with paleoconservatism.
fernwithy From: fernwithy Date: November 8th, 2004 04:38 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Neocons = military expansionists

On the domestic issue, they definitely tend toward the individual rights/up-by-your-bootstraps mentality.
angua9 From: angua9 Date: November 8th, 2004 04:40 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Neocons = military expansionists

Forgot to say...

To my best understanding, William Weld is not a neocon; he is a moderate Republican of the sort of Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, and Arlen Spector. This dying breed is not included in the current ruling coalition.

Nor is the group you call Paleoconservatives, the isolationalist, protectionist, anti-immigration, usually racist, populists such as Pat Buchanan. These Republicans are allies of the Religious Right, but not of the Neocons. They seem to be dying out, at least as an influence on foreign policy.
fernwithy From: fernwithy Date: November 8th, 2004 04:46 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: Neocons = military expansionists

Well... all I can say is that when I was part of a neocon group in college Weld was definitely considered to be in the "one of us" category.
angua9 From: angua9 Date: November 8th, 2004 05:10 pm (UTC) (Link)
This could be. I don't know much about William Weld, and he didn't do much foreign policy as governor, I suspect. Domestically, the Neocons and Moderates are very similar.


As for the Neocon/Religious Right confusion... I don't see the Neocons adopting social conservatism, but I do see the apocalyptic visions of the Religious Right dovetailing neatly into the Middle-East plans of the Neoconservatives. As I understand the current end-time interpretations, Israel is supposed to conquer the Middle East before it becomes sunk in the lake of fire (or whatever - I'm kind of hazy on this part) and all the Jews and other unbelievers perish. Also, crusading for American democracy and capitalism looks very much like crusading for Christ.

So there is a huge amount of agreement between the two groups on foreign policy, which I believe is the most important reason for Bush's re-election.
fernwithy From: fernwithy Date: November 8th, 2004 05:24 pm (UTC) (Link)
I think the general idea is that, whatever their reasons for supporting Israel, they're supporting it, which is a rare commodity. And since either side of that issue believes that only G-d would cause the whole apocalypse to happen, and they don't believe G-d has any such notion in His head, they're not too worried. Their "plans" for the Middle East, as I recall, are basically, "Defend Israel. Stop and prevent attacks on same. Secure Jerusalem." In fact, I remember someone saying that attacks on "neocons" were code for attacks on Jews, which is why it shocked the hell out of me to see it associated with the Christian right!

Oh, hey; I see the quiz gave me a pic of Giuliani, another icon of the neocon movement.
9 comments or Leave a comment