Know Thyself Part II: Defining the Right

“Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.” --Walter


Given the divisive nature of our current political landscape, perhaps it is necessary to define the various groups that make up the right. Although “neoconservative” has become a pejorative term, most Americans probably couldn’t tell you what they really believe. Anyone who votes Republican today is categorized by the media as the “right”, with no attempt to distinguish various ideologies. What the media misses is that the Pat Buchanan’s of the right have almost nothing in common with the Bill Kristol’s…other then their agreement that John Kerry was a joke.

Classical Conservative (“PaleoCons”) These guys are the “old school” Republicans. They are the modern version of the “Know-Nothings.” Somewhat provincial in nature, these guys are not fans of George W. Bush. They hate deficits, government programs, Jews, and idealistic foreign policies. In that order. It took Pearl Harbor to get these guys on board for WW2. This group has been shrinking steadily since then. Pat Buchanan is the most prominent Paleocon. The only nice thing I can say about these guys is that still value common sense. The editor of Pat Buchanan’s American Conservative describes their views here: http://www.amconmag.com/aboutus.html

Christian Conservatives- This classifies a lot of folks in the South today. Yes, a lot of them still believe in Creationism, and although this does weaken their credibility a bit, you can’t argue with faith. As such these guys are mostly concerned with social issues like abortion and gay marriage. And most support an aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East. The fact that many of them view this as a chance to finally convert those damn heathens is somewhat scary. The only way the Democrats will win in the South again is if they suddenly vanish to heaven in “the Rapture.”

Libertarians- All these people really want is to be left alone. Protect me from hijacked jets, but don’t tell me how to live my life. They actually make a lot of sense. That Jesse Ventura is their front man may help their street cred, but it hurts everywhere else. As much as I respect the right to bear arms, until the red coats return, the Montana militia folks need to get a grip. Liberty is a good thing. Anarchy…not so much.

Neoconservative- If you read the Washington Post or the New York Times you would think “neocon”s eat babies in their free time. To be called a “neocon” today is akin to being called a “neonazi.”

What most of the public doesn’t get is the liberal nature of their beliefs.
The original "neoconservatives" like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, were anti-Communist socialists strongly supportive of the civil rights movement, integration, and Martin Luther King. Neoconservatives were the ideological offspring of JFK. It wasn’t until the rise of "anti-Americanism" in the counterculture of the 1960s that this group began to associate themselves with conservatives.

According to Irving Kristol a neoconservative is a "liberal mugged by reality." The primary tenet of this idealistic ideology is to spread American ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad.

These ideas are rooted in liberal tradition. True conservatives act like dead-beat dads when it comes to nation building. They will change their names to avoid getting involved.

The coalition that currently comprises the Republican party is as diverse a group as one could imagine. Unlike the Democratic Party of late, it is truly a “big tent.” Were Bill Clinton in office today, I highly doubt that his foreign policy would differ greatly from George W. Bush. Yet, because the public faces of “neoconservatism” are so divisive in nature, the ideology has been branded as “right wing.” The continued defection of former Democrats like myself proves otherwise

For another perspective, NRO Editor Jonah Goldberg has recently published two essays regarding the evolution of conservatism at:

http://www.opinionduel.com/
and
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200503300801.asp

Or read Christopher Hitchens at:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2115170/