> DLS,

You rang?

Stand by for a somewhat dissociated response.

> “Far right� (like “far left�) has
> come to be an almost meaningless
> term nowadays since no one seems
> to be in agreement with what
> “the right� even mean[s] anymore.

“Far Right” typically is used by liberals (including the media) to refer to anything right of the DLC-DNC.

So many liberals here and elsewhere call themselves “moderate” or “centrist” — the center continues to shift leftward, or at least it did so until 1980, though it continues to go leftward. Everyone now seems to look first to Washington, DC and the federal government to solve all their problems even though its legitimate constitutional role consists of almost nothing…that is what so many consider “mainstream” now, it’s heretical to question it. (So much for “Question Authority” — hypocrites, as usual…)

The terms still are meaningful to those of us who understand them.

> Just who, I wonder are the “true�
> heir to conservatism? It is
> paleoconservatives such as Patrick
> Buchanan?

Do you mean who will be most seen as “conservative,” by conservatives and the rest of us as well, the people who will pretty much define American conservatism? Paleocons have near zero respect or influence in Washington, even though yes, they and populists in their mold (who want jobs retained here at home, not outsourced elsewhere in the world, for example) are probably what most would say are true “conservatives” (and these days, typical of the “far right”).

> Neoconservatives such as William Kristol?

Ah, yes, a large, over-powerful Washington is just fine, thanks. They even have company in the form of some so-called libertarians, such as CATO, which relocated to the seat of that hated government in Washington and nowadays often engages in lobbying in DC in ways that often could be called “corporate whoring” on behalf of business.

The paleocons hate them.

Democrats and most other liberals can tolerate them, especially those who are actually quite liberal such as in the Northeast (the RINO version)

> Theoconservative such as Jerry Falwell?

Yuck. Nobody wants federal blue laws.

We don’t like religion in government and the religious right is an odd member. They’re just finding shelter on the Right due often to religious bigotry by the Left.

> Mainstream conservatives such as
> George Will?

Yuck. I have nothing but contempt for his contempt expressed toward the Perot campaign in 1992. (Anything other than the two major parties and candidates well known in Washington is not respectable to the likes of people like him.)

> ???-conservatives such as
> George W. Bush (sorry, but
> I’m still trying to figure out
> what his political ideology is).

Maybe he is too!

> It’s always bizarre to hear
> those on the left deride
> neoconservatives as being a
> part of the “far right.�

It is definitely bizarre — and irritating when it keeps happening after such people have been corrected numerous times.

But then, some of them on the left call the Democratic Party actually somewhat right of center(!!!). (Shows you where often the left thinks the “center” is — it’s the edge of ideological acceptability or toleration! Conservatives don’t see things that way, noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo…)

> It’s as if liberals/progressives don’t realize

There’s much they don’t realize or know. For many, not yet — they will when they get older and outgrow some of their youthful silliness. (The ones who stay liberal or become so in older years, these people interest me.)

> that paleoconservatives regard
> neoconservatives as being to the
> left of “true� conservatives.

That is true, though the neocons (once very well described as “liberals with economic common sense,” though the latter part may not be true if they believe debt with big spending is okay) are also considered conservative, which is why I use the term “far right” to characterize the paleocons. Not extremists; they are no such thing as a rule, but definitely farther right than the neocons (”Can’t we just all get along and maybe share the growth of government with the Democrats as long as we both do well for ourselves? We’ll spend some, they’ll spend some”). Note that the liberal media will call them “extremists” at any time, as well as anyone who criticizes the vast overgrowth of the federal government and its encroachment into state and local affairs. After 1994 such people were called “extremists” (a lie) by a reactionary liberal media, and in Congress there even was a pathetic New Deal dinosaurish group calling itself the “mainstream coalition.” That shows you how so many people (mainly liberals) characterize or classify “mainstream” as well as “moderate” and “centrist” politics (between the DLC-DNC and Democrats called liberal by their fellow liberals).

You seem to be well aware of a lot of these facts (and related facts such as FDR’s revolutionary role in our system of government), which I find refreshing.

As to what your original question may imply, what will conservatism be and mean in the years to come, it will continue to slide leftward to be more like the neocons, and paleocons will become even more endangered (along with so many of us who are more libertarian, classic English heritage types). Federalism is a relic; wait until more people are hooked on entitlements in their later years. DC will grow more than ever. A large new health care bureaucracy, mainly in DC, will be built there, and so on. “Conservatives” will even more be seen and heard (in the media) as Washington animals distinguished even less from the Democrats than they are now. We’ll have more regulation as well as more entitlements, while government spending and costs as a fraction of our gross product will continue to grow and advance into unknown-fraction territory. Ugly years ahead!

Now, a kicker — big cities are anomalous to the modern USA and the office of mayor is anachronistic. Giuliani is merely riding on historical and population momentum. But what if in the future we have metropolitan area unification? That would make some new modern local government posts big and serious. Bet it won’t be “true” conservatives that find their way into those posts. (Nor leading an even more powerful AFSCME)

“Far right” (like “far left”) has come to be an almost meaningless term nowadays since no one seems to be in agreement with what “the right” even mean anymore. Just who, I wonder are the “true” heir to conservatism? It is paleoconservatives such as Patrick Buchanan? Neoconservatives such as William Kristol? Theoconservative such as Jerry Falwell? Mainstream conservatives such as George Will? ???-conservatives such as George W. Bush (sorry, but I’m still trying to figure out what his political ideology is).

It’s always bizarre to hear those on the left deride neoconservatives as being a part of the “far right.” It’s as if liberals/progressives don’t realize that paleoconservatives regard neoconservatives as being to the left of “true” conservatives.

At least someone else has noticed this and says something about it.

The paleocons (placed by even conservatives to the far right, farther obviously than the neocons happy with an oversized Washington, DC) are marginalized to excluded, while all you typically hear are the false statements that the GOP is, or is dominated by, the “far right” [sic].

That’s called a “party platform.”

Now, if we had more parties (and proportional representation), there would be more platforms and more, differering combinations of positions on various issues.

Yes-No (”either side”) on five issues could support 32 political parties.

You know what’s funny? Even before I noted the link to the website you chose (rohrabacher.house.gov), I was thinking back to the all-out-debate between Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr and current Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher had on CNN back in December of 2005 concerning the National Security Agency’s spying program:

ROHRABACHER: No, that’s not–Bob, you haven’t read this. No, that’s not hypothetical at all. One of the cases that was involved in this, was someone who was attempting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge and because of these wire taps, we were able to stop that.

BARR: No, you’re wrong there, Dana. First of all–

ROHRABACHER: And by the way, how do we know who wasn’t deterred from blowing up other targets. The fact is–

BARR: Well, gee, I guess then the president should be able to ignore whatever provision in the Constitution as long as there’s something after the fact that justifies it.

Transcript of Barr-Rohrabacher debate here.
Video of Barr-Rohrabacher debate here.

Bob Barr’s defection to the Libertarian Party struck me by surprise considering that the LP was partially responsible for his defeat (Democrats in Georgia redrew the districts such that Bob Barr was pitted against fellow Republican Congressman John Linder, and the LP ran television ads that relentlessly hammered Bob Barr on his opposition to medical marijuana).

But clearly, Bob Barr has had enough of the Republican Party and has been one of the Bush Administration’s most persistent critics on the issue of the USA PATRIOT Act and the NSA’s surveillance program.

Just curious, Wonked Out, are you in any way affiliated with Congressman Rohrabacker, and if so, could you offer Rohrabacher’s perspective on the current state of the GOP?

If this is what our thought leaders are suggesting, perhaps we should start to consider/debate the same.

But indeed, the “anti-semitic” slur represents a new low in political bickering. Long before liberal-turned-conservative-turned-liberal-turned-??? uberhawk Marshall Wittman (AKA, “the Moose”) was denouncing progressive critics of Senator Lieberman as being “anti-semitic”, neoconservatives were denouncing paleoconservatives and paleolibertarians as “anti-semitic” in order to run them out of the conservative movement.

Of course, what’s sad is that anti-semitism does unfortunately still exist here in the U.S., and falsely smearing the anti-war crowd with the term “anti-semitic” draws attention from those people who truly ARE anti-semitic.

http://www.joeleonardi.wordpress.com

or

http://joeleonardi.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/the-reason-the-right-went-wrong/

I have read AW for a couple years now, but some at TMV will accuse AW and the paleocons and Libertarians of being anti-semtic. Lind, Reese and PC Roberts come to mind…

Rudy,

And some at TMV would accuse you of being anti-semitic for even suggesting that we have no business going war to with Iran.

But to be honest, there are those at antiwar.com who go over the line from time to time. The time and energy that some of its columnists spend criticizing the Israeli government would be much better spent on criticizing the U.S. government.

It doesn’t change the fact that since its founding in 1998, antiwar.com has been even-handed in its criticism of Democrats and Republicans. If anything, it seems to hold Democrats to a higher standard than Republicans. Former Democratic presidential candidate and current DNC chairman Howard Dean is a “hawk” in the eyes of antiwar.com (for his openess to the idea of taking a harder line against Iran), and the only politician who is even remotedly trusted is Republican Congressman Ron Paul.

Which all goes to show how utterly stupid our one-dimensional left-versus-right political spectrum is. There are progressives, liberal hawks, communitarians, moderates, libertarians, paleoconservatives, neoconservatives, theoconservatives (the Religious Right)–none of which really agree with one another on more than a handful of issues.

And there are the Democrats and the Republicans, whose ideologies morph over time to such an extent that what a party stands for now is completely at odds with what it stood for only tens years ago.

Ain’t that the truth! I’ve never understood why holding a certain position on one issue requires that you hold positions x, y and z on other issues. Why does being pro-choice mean that I have to hold certain positions on foreign policy? Why do my positions around various foreign policies have to revolve around the issue of being in favor or against American military force when each situation is unique and calls for a unique solution? I just don’t understand the willingness of so many people to become passionate hacks in favor of an arbitrary basket of seemingly unrelated policy positions… I guess it’s just easier to ride along.

But thing is, Paul, that these four (I’m excluding Ron Paul) are arch-conservatives. They’re extremely conservative on fiscal issues and also rather conservative on social issues. In they’re minds, THEY’RE the true conservatives and George W. Bush ISN’T.

This reflects a large (but little talked about) rift in the Republican Party that began in the 1980s between the paleoconservatives and the neoconservatives, which has led to the increasing marginalization of the paleoconservatives and the growth in power of the neoconservatives.

From a progressive Democrat’s perspective, these two group might both be considered conservatives. In fact, I have heard progressive Democrats denounce neoconservatives as “right-winger.” Yet, to from a paleoconservative’s perpspective, the upstart neoconservatives are actually to the LEFT of true conservatism. They don’t regard the neoconservatives to be true conservatives and don’t want to be associated with their policies.

Which all goes to show how utterly stupid our one-dimensional left-versus-right political spectrum is. There are progressives, liberal hawks, communitarians, moderates, libertarians, paleoconservatives, neoconservatives, theoconservatives (the Religious Right)–none of which really agree with one another on more than a handful of issues.

And there are the Democrats and the Republicans, whose ideologies morph over time to such an extent that what a party stands for now is completely at odds with what it stood for only tens years ago.

What these four conservatives show is that one can be ideological without being partisan. In my mind, it is better to rigidly stand up for a particular political philosophy (though it might be outside the mainstream) then it is to unquestioningly defend a particular political party.

superdestroyer,

Actually, leftist Ralph Nader was a persistent critic of Bill Clinton during his second term and even joined Republicans in calling for Clinton’s impeachment. Also, antiwar.com (which features libertarians, conservatives, moderates, and liberals) has been relentlessly critical of the Democratic Party on issues of war (going back to Bill Clinton) and considers them just as bad as the Republican Party.

So, believe it or not, there are people out there who take consistent positions on civil liberties and war and criticize both of the major parties, and the reason they’re able to be honest brokers is that they have no attachment to either party.

Unfortunately, the media doesn’t pay much attention to Independents, Greens, Libertarians, or paleoconservatives. They’re much happier to invite Democratic and Republican partisans onto their shows to make everything black-white, left-right, us-versus-them.

Thank goodness for C-SPAN, which invites people from ALL political persuaion onto its shows and actually televises what it is that our congress is doing in Washington.

I’m glad to see that these 4 can put the best interests of the country over partisanship. It gives me hope for the two-party system.