Wednesday, April 19, 2006

What kind of conservative are you?

As conservatives, we tend to use the word "conservative" with a broad brush. There is a difference between conservatives, however. So-called "neoconservatives" aren't really conservatives at all, but are displaced liberals thrown out of the Party of George McGovern, yet these people dominate the thought process in the White House.

I am a paleo-conservative, literally "old conservative." My conservatism is the same conservatism of my parents and grandparents and their parents before them, an America First conservatism that believes in small government, protecting our borders, and putting America's domestic interests first.

The Democrats are not interested in catering to paleo-conservatives, the GOP, once our party exclusively, is still our only hope. The problem is that the people of our country are rejecting neoconservatism and embracing paleo-conservatism, and the Republican Party needs desperately to follow suit or pay politically.

Pat Buchanan further expounds on that reality in this article.


At Thursday, April 20, 2006 2:11:00 PM, Blogger Chucko said...

Hey Dave, I'm somewhere in between the paleo/neo genre. I am, however, no fan of Patrick Buchanan. While I agree with many of his ideals, his tiny percentage of the vote in 2000 nearly caused Algore to become president. It seems to me he's a bit too lustful for power. Here's Fred Barnes' original article. As a disclaimer, I am a fan of Barnes and the Weekly Standard.

"Jump to the November election. What Republicans need more than anything else is unity. They have it when Bush's poll numbers are up.

They don't when his approval rating tumbles--and it drops all the more when Republicans are criticizing him. With their issues unusually prominent this year, paleocons are likely to be critical. And the mainstream media likes nothing more than to play up conservatives who attack other conservatives."

We should work on the planks in between election cycles, doing it during an election year merely causes pain, lost seats, and lost opportunity.

At Thursday, April 20, 2006 2:55:00 PM, Blogger Dave Oatney said...

As a huge supporter of Buchanan in 1996, I can say with honesty that had he not bolted the party, I'd still be a huge supporter of Pat Buchanan.

If you've ever read any of his books, you'd know he is anything but lustful for power. Pat (like me) believes in certain unshakable things-he wants those ideas in the public square. As for his ideas, there is not a single one that I disagree with.

As for The Weekly Standard, I can honestly say that it is by far and away the worst conservative (if you can actually call it that) publication I have ever read. I expected much more from it, and was sorely disappointed.

By far and away, the best publication out there to be had is National Review, with The American Conservative coming in a close second, and The American Spectator third.

At Friday, April 21, 2006 9:12:00 AM, Blogger Chucko said...

I'm a huge fan of NR and subscribe to that as well Dave. I've flirted with subscribing to the Spectator, but it's a bit pricey for the number of issues you get, and while I like Ben Stein, I'm no huge fan of his writing. I'll check out The American Conservative as well.

Regarding Pat, like I said, I agree with many of his ideals. I just felt, as you likely did when he bolted the party, that he seemed willing to sacrifice all gains to make a point. Whether that is good or bad is relative, I do feel he has been unfairly stereotyped and painted into a corner by the media.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page
Profile Visitor Map - Click to view visits
Create your own visitor map