A month ago, I put up this post to encourage people to understand what "neoconservative" means, rather than just to use it as a term of abuse. (And cross-posted it here, in the hope that we would get more knowledgeable comments from our trolls.)
It's too bad Joel Connelly didn't read that post, because, if he had, he might have saved himself from this embarrassment.
Seattle Times scribe Danny Westneat went to Portland, rode 14 different trains, and came home reporting how light rail has revitalized the Rose City.
Opposing Proposition 1, however, Fairview Fannie's neoconservative editorialist ridiculed Portland's light rail system, with statistics substituting for observation and demonstrating myopic ignorance of a major transit success story.
The Seattle Times does not have a "neoconservative" editorialist. (Though they would be better off if they did.) Connelly does not name his neoconservative, but from what Connelly says about the piece, I would guess that he means Bruce Ramsey.
There are a number of terms that could be used to describe Ramsey's political beliefs — neo-isolationist, for example — but neoconservative is not among them. So, why did Connelly choose that adjective for Ramsey? Because, I suppose, neoconservative has become, for many on the left, an almost meaningless term of abuse, as fascist is in less polite circles on the left.
Oh, and while we are discussing "neoconservative", let me add an example that Connelly will like. Most who have studied his views would agree that the late Senator Henry Jackson was, in many ways, a neoconservative. And it is simply a fact that many of his neoconservative supporters (including myself) have moved to the Republican party. Now then, which famous Democratic president had views closest to Jackson's? Why, John F. Kennedy, of course.
(Incidentally, I am fascinated by Connelly's claim — which I fear he believes — that impressionistic reporting can substitute for clear thinking with numbers. I'll have to use that line about "statistics substituting for observation" in a future post — when I need a bad example showing how not to think about transportation policy.)
Posted by Jim Miller at November 05, 2007 01:13 PM | Email ThisI agree that using terms like neocon as an insult, especially in this context, is useless and juvenile. But a better comparison is to conservatives who use the term "progressive" as an insult.
They are rarely so open about their decision process...
Posted by: Cicero on November 5, 2007 01:44 PMAs for 'progressive', enough lefties still disguise their socialism (or worse) with that term that an acid skepticism is appropriate when encountering the word.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on November 5, 2007 01:52 PMNeoProg - An extremist left-winger
Posted by: me on November 5, 2007 03:43 PMSome pansies like Fukuyama have disowned the term because they can't stomach even the slightest bit of sacrifice for principle. But uppity sociologists are a dime a dozen.
Posted by: AD on November 5, 2007 04:30 PMLook, a neocon is:
Foreign policy interventionist. A nation-builder. They support nations that are willing to do our bidding in exchange for economic benefits. They would have favored supporting the Shaw of Iran, just as they support Musharreff in Pakistan. They support building an maintianing many US military bases all over the world, and being the world's policeman. This used to be called Wilsonian, or liberal. It can also be thought of as imperial.
Fiscally conservative, but only on taxes, not on spending. Neocons are "compassionate conservatives" who believe in big government, but want to fund it with deficit spending, or via economic growth. A neocon has no problem with "industrial policy" which is just another word for corporate welfare. This is half-liberal.
Socially conservative. Opposing gay marriage and abortion, favoring bluring the line between church and state. This is not liberal at all. Neocons also do not support privacy rights, civil rights, or the first ammendment, as evidenced by their support of McCain Feingold, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the military commissions act that violates habeas corpus. Neocons support using torture against suspected terrorists.
So, other than the position on reducing taxes, neocons are anti-libertarians, and are very significantly liberal. Bruce Ramsey is pretty much an anti-neocon. Bruce Ramsey is a fan of the free market. This is probably what the writer was really accusing him of. The problem is that neocons are NOT fans of the free market. Neocons brought us increased domestic spending, No Child Left Behind and the medicare drug benefit.
The neocons have brought the Republican Party a long way from their conservative, limited government, foreign policy non-interventionist, free market roots. The sooner they get back to these roots, the sooner they will return to power.
By the way, Ron Paul is the closest thing to Reagan and Goldwater. He could do this for the R's.
Ron Paul has raised over $3 million dollars today (11/5/07) alone! Yes, that is in ONE DAY. And the average donation was under $100. He is now in third place, ahead of McCain, but behind Giuliani and Romney.
Go, Ron Paul! Hope for America.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 5, 2007 05:53 PMThat's "plenty of people"?
What the hell is a "neocon"? Can anyone here define what "neocons" believe as opposed to conservatives?
I just see the term "neocon" as another convenient term the left loves to throw out along with their "Bush lied us into war" crapola.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 5, 2007 05:58 PMFrom their colophon:
"Liberty is a libertarian and classical liberal review of thought, culture and politics published monthly..."
I really like Bruce Ramsey's writing. I consider myself a fan.
He is the opposite of a neocon.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 5, 2007 06:01 PMWas it a lie at the time, or did Bush change his mind later? Perhaps the neocons got to him after the election.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 5, 2007 06:25 PMNeo meaning new.
Conservative meaning to save the past; or to preserve; or even, uphold the status quo.
To me, Rudy is more conservative than Thompson because he's more about preserving current norms than enforcing the will of the Christian Clerics.
I prefer the term...Conservative. A true Conservative uses the minimum, so an extraneous prefix would be left behind. A Conservative is very ecologically minded...like Teddy Roosevelt and Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller.
Conservative. Says it all.
Posted by: John Bailo on November 5, 2007 06:29 PM
Now you're entering fantasy land Bruce. This is a good example of why I think Libertarians are riding the goofball train. Not a lot of difference between what you Libertarians hang your hats on and the garbage the Code Pink and Move On goofies believe.
I suppose you also think that Ron Paul, who doesn't have a snowball's change of getting the Republican nomination will run as the Libertarian candidate in '08.
Gosh wouldn't that be swell as he hands Hillary the key to the White House.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 5, 2007 06:44 PMThey frequently rattle off stereotypically jewish names in the Bush administration as the hidden advisors pushing a pro-israel agenda. I have always been puzzled by the widespread antipathy towards Israel voiced by many in the "progressive" blogosphere. The Palestinians they appear to favor would be the first to deny the ideals they hold most dear, particularly when it comes to equal rights for women, minorities, and gays.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on November 5, 2007 06:55 PMIf, in the likely event that the Republicans are not smart enought to nominate Ron Paul, I will proudly vote Libertarian.
The rest of your post is just name-calling, and not worthy of a response.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 5, 2007 08:12 PMhttp://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/is_ron_paul_pandering_to_the_p.html
Posted by: AD on November 5, 2007 09:31 PMI would change "have brought" to "have brought down". The end result is that the Democrats are back in control. Even after they return to their roots, it will take a while before people will want to vote more for R's, because the trust was lost during the Bush Administration and as long as the ramifications are present (i.e. the war(s), bloated government and the economy), a good number of people will turn away from voting for who they perceive to be neocons who are Republicans. As a result, the next President could well be a Democrat female - Yikes !!
Posted by: KS on November 5, 2007 10:19 PMApparently, the 'NeoProgs' have completely forgotten about 9/11 in 2001. That was the day the Islamo-fascists declared war on the United States and killed 2,974 members of our society.
Posted by: me on November 5, 2007 10:54 PMbefore bush, jr., neocon wasn't a word in the country's political lexicon, and instead was kicked around some elite republican circles when they all got together to pay homage to strauss.
enter bush, who has the uncanny ability to break everything he touches....
Posted by: dinesh on November 6, 2007 07:49 AMIf you are a Ron Paul fan, fine. As you admit,
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 6, 2007 08:36 AMYeah, at first I thought Connelly was commending him for using actual facts. Seriously, it confused me.
Posted by: pudge on November 6, 2007 08:47 AMBruce, if you intend to vote Libertarian unless you get your fantasy of Ron Paul as the Republican nominee,(as you post at #21), you will help hand the White House to the socialists. There are other excellent Republican candidates. Why in the name of reason would you prefer to let '60's socialists run the country?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 6, 2007 08:54 AMare you wearing a polyester jump suit while typing this?
socialists? please, which party expanded the size of the federal govt and its spending since 2000?
Posted by: dinesh on November 6, 2007 09:08 AMHillary isn't a socialist? Did she or did she not say that she wants to "take oil company profits"?
Your move.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 6, 2007 09:53 AMBut she isn't a socialist. Oh no, of course not.
Give me a damned break.
Examples of this please? I'm not trying to be a smartass but honestly I have no idea what you are referring to.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 6, 2007 01:38 PMIf the Republicans nominate a right-wing socialist like Romney or McCain, how does it help me to waste my vote on them? A vote for them tells the world that I endorse their positions. However, the message my Libertarian vote will send is clear: neither right, nor left-wing socialism will I endorse.
My single vote can not change the outcome of this race. All it can do is make me feel that I have defended what is right. It can make me feel good about myself and my actions. A Libertarian vote does this, but voting for a right-wing socialist does not, even if the Democrat wins, as is likely this cycle no matter how I vote.
If Republicans are not smart enough to nominate Ron Paul, then I will be perfectly happy voting Libertarian, as I have many, many times in the past.
If I tell the Republicans that I will vote for their right-wing socialist as a lesser of two evils, then I have lost all power within the Republican Party. They will think they can have my vote while doing nothing for the cause of liberty. THIS is how "lesser of two evils" thinking has lead us down that famous path that is lined with good intentions. I want the R's to know that in order to win my vote, they will have to nominate a candidate who defends my values. They will need to find another Reagan or Goldwater. I think Ron Paul would fit that bill.
Nope, I have higher standards for my vote. You use yours as you will, but I use mine to communicate my values to the system. There is nought else it can do.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 6, 2007 02:05 PMIt would absolutely violate my principles.
I see Hillary as just as bad, but I see a Libertarian vote as a liberating expression of the values of limited government, liberty, and the free market.
Vote Libertarian. It just feels good! :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 6, 2007 02:13 PMI think that's is just a bit of a stretch.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 6, 2007 02:17 PMMaybe it feels good to you, Bruce. I can't imagine how helping propel us to a possible 8-years of socialism advances libertarian principles in any way. Hitting myself in the head with a hammer would feel better than that.
Bruce, it is a funny world you live in, where it is "smart" to nominate the candidate with the LEAST chance of winning!
Nope, I have higher standards for my vote. You use yours as you will, but I use mine to communicate my values to the system.
Funny. I have a higher standard than that for my vote: I use mine to pick the best of available candidates to run the government. There is no higher standard than that.
There is nought else it can do.
Yeah, the 2004 gubernatorial election NEVER HAPPENED!
Posted by: pudge on November 6, 2007 02:26 PMTake your shots at me if you will.
But I believe libertarianism is as dangerous in its own way as socialism. I believe in limited government. I do not believe in anarchism which appears to be the next step if you read the libertarians platform. I sure as heck don't believe in a government that turns its back on innocent unborn children. Evidently libertarians don't give a damn about unborn children. In fact, it you read what the libertarians believe you could almost imagine it came from the Democratic National Committee. How fascinating is that?
Conversely, if Hillary gets elected (God forbid), then neo-Prog will become in vogue by the right as she will want to spread the nanny state to all four corners of the USA.
Posted by: KS on November 6, 2007 07:24 PMWhat? Give me some quotes, give me some substance. I get so tired of people posting pure garbage with no facts to support what they say. I love political give and take, but I can't stand a reading a bunch of unsubstantiated junk.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 6, 2007 07:36 PMBill @ 36: You keep hitting yourself over the head with the Republican hammer, and I'll keep hitting myself over the head with the Libertarian popsicle stick. :)
Pudge @ 37, even the Rossi/Gregoire race was not decided by one vote. Your one vote would STILL not have changed the outcome. Oh, and by the way, do you realize that without Libertarian Ruth Bennett in the race, it would not even have been close? Ruth Bennett, who got tens of thousands of votes, is an out of the closet Libertarian who did not run on fiscal issues, and advertised only in a Seattle gay publication. She took more votes from Gregoire than from Rossi, and she did this ON PURPOSE.
Bill @ 38, I'm not going to get in to abortion with you. We would never get anywhere. But let me just say that there are pro-life and pro-choice Libertarians. The issue divides Libertarians, as does the Iraq war. It all depends on when you think the right to life accrues to the fetus. Smart, principled libertarians can disagree on this one.
Ron Paul's position is complex. He is pro-life, but the reason he wants to get rid of Roe vs Wade is that abortion is not authorized for the federal government to regulate, because it is not in the Constitution. Abortion is therefore left to the states, who will presumably draw the line at different places... I agree with him on the issue of Roe vs Wade, but I would probably advocate making abortion legal through the fourth or fifth month of pregnancy at the state level. I'd guess that some states would outlaw abortion completely, like Utah and S. Dakota, but other states would leave it legal through month nine, like Mass, CA and NY.
Yes, a small minority of Libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, but the vast majority of us are minarchists: desiring the minimum government that is sufficient to defend our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property.
You are welcome to try to paint us as extreme, but the fact is that most of us are much more reasonable than you would like to admit. Our philosophy is identical to that of the founding fathers. Why don't you Republicans come back to that philosophy, by supporting Ron Paul? :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 6, 2007 11:27 PMCome on Bruce, you're smarter than that. Yes, it wasn't one vote, but SO WHAT? It was 130-ish votes, and if 130-ish potential Rossi voters said "I won't vote because my vote won't make a difference," then there's your ballgame.
Oh, and by the way, do you realize that without Libertarian Ruth Bennett in the race, it would not even have been close?
I've heard you say that, and reject it out of hand as mere suppposition. You don't know that, for two big reasons.
Ruth Bennett, who got tens of thousands of votes, is an out of the closet Libertarian who did not run on fiscal issues, and advertised only in a Seattle gay publication.
Exactly. Which means a. she is probably picking up votes from a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't vote at all, and b. a lot of conservatives who sometimes vote Republican but prefer to vote Libertarian might have voted for her without knowing anything about her, and may have otherwise voted for Rossi.
And of course, none of this has anything to do with the fact that if just a tiny handful of people in this state who didn't vote because they thought their vote doesn't matter, actually voted, then Rossi could have been elected.
And, in fact, this is far more verifiably true than your claim about Bennett making it close.
Posted by: pudge on November 7, 2007 09:50 AMWhat in the world is "complex" about killing unborn children? You either believe it's ok, or as I believe, that it's murder. I understand the Constitutional issue but find it meaningless. Abortion is still murder.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 7, 2007 10:11 AM