The Neo-Con Paradox

After mulling over what it means to be a liberal for the last few years of my life, and in turn realizing that there are stupid liberals in numbers equal to stupid conservatives, I’ve decided to take a look at the other side of the equation in this piece. If you’ve been reading with any regularity you’ll find that I am a decidedly staunch liberal in nearly every aspect. However, like most liberals in my generation, my extended family is a milieu of classic and neo-conservatives with a peppering of moderate liberals. In taking a look at what it means to be a neo-con I’m really trying to see the values that they embrace and how the hell they fit into my family.

As of August, 2008 America has two political groups, and no they aren’t republican and democrat. They are the neo-conservatives and the liberals. There are of course exceptions, people still loyal to the old conservative mores of state’s rights, the moderates who embrace both sides of the spectrum, and of course the morons that reside on each end of their respective sides. I’m not that intrigued in the definition of liberals, because for the most part their name is apt. Larger government spending, expanded social programs, sex with animals, that sort of thing.

The Neo-Conservatives however, are a completely different beast because the name is so misleading. Conservatives, classically that is, are proponents of smaller government and states rights. Admittedly that’s a broad stroke. There are nuances to conservative doctrine going back to Theodore Roosevelt, but for the purposes of this essay we’ll use the basic embrace of small government and all that comes with it. (N.B. this whole “Party of Lincoln” trip that the Republicans are on right now is really ridiculous. Think about what the Civil War was over? Really think. FEDERAL AUTHORITY OVER STATE’S RIGHTS. Christ man, you’d think that if people actually took a moment to mull over what was said by pundits they’d throw something at their TV.)

I’ll do most of this defining at surface level because I’d much rather you all read the paper or a book than looking over what I have to say.

Take a look at some of the flashpoint issues today in the presidential race; gay marriage, abortion, energy crisis, war on terror, I’m sure I’m forgetting a bunch but that’s a start.
The first two, while decidedly religious issues that would define you as either a social conservative or liberal, have been taken by the neo-conservatives and turned into federal issues. A constitutional ban on gay marriage and abortion would be the anathema of original conservative doctrine. Why would a dogma supporting the state’s right to choose ask the national government to decide on a woman’s right to choose? Is it because they are a question of “ethics”? Does that make the rule of state’s rights obsolete? If a state chooses wrong can they still retain rights?

The question of off-shore drilling, which I’ve dealt with shortly here, as it relates to energy independence is an issue that is a little more complicated than the aforementioned ethics queries. But the neo-conservative stance on that topic is to federally force open many areas that have been closed by the states for oil drilling, including the Artic Refuge and the Florida and California coasts.

Lastly, the “war on terror”, or whatever the name is currently, in a domestic sense is the ultimate insult to conservative doctrine. Concepts like national wire-tapping warrants, the patriot act, interminable holding of “terror” suspects, and the invention of Homeland Security, could not be more different from the original beliefs of conservatives. All of them are rife with federal supremacy over any desire of the states. It is almost as in “neo-conservatives” were invented in the shadow of a fearful populous. The new rules of conservatism were slapped together in order to give many classic conservatives no time to think about what was happening to their dogma. An amazingly well oiled machine of propaganda has blighted the conservatives of America with trepidation of anyone that does not fit their idea of a “good America”.

I’ll go out on a limb and say that if the Republicans had stuck to their guns of old I might be riding an elephant instead of a donkey. States rights are extremely important especially in a country as big as ours. (NB: I wonder if an inhabitant of a place like Rhode Island would feel the same way about state’s rights as some one like me from California. It would seem as though small states benefit more than large states from federal decisions. Just some food for thought.) Instead the conservatives have taken their constituents and scared the hell out of them, slapped a “neo” in front of their name, and become the ass holes we all know today.

Homework: Here’s a little question I picked up from Tavis Smiley, we all talk about how Barack “transcends race” right? How come white candidates don’t have to transcend their race? And here’s a great article I got from my brother on the Chinese run-up to the Olympics: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7537838.stm  Improvements huh?