Taking the ‘Neo’ Out of ‘Conservative’
February 4, 2010
Jack Hunter, aka The “Southern Avenger”
2/4/2010
After Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are the two most popular rightwing talk hosts in America, defining for millions the definition of the term “conservative.” Lately, Beck has focused on attacking “progressivism,” often stressing that the progressive foreign policy of President Woodrow Wilson, who wanted to “make the world safe for democracy,” was identical to that of George W. Bush. Hannity takes a very different view, stating, “You can’t deny that George Bush was conservative on national security issues.” Yet, Beck does deny this, quite regularly. Who’s right? Better yet, who’s “conservative?”
One Comment
leave one →
Harold
ACGR's "News with Attitude" 
To a large extent I agree with the commentator. However, we must remember that the state of the world often dictates actions that might not otherwise be taken by “conservatives”. Ronald Reagan – a believer in limited government – was forced by the “cold war” to rebuild the military that had been gutted under Carter and to follow progressive Teddy Roosevelt’s admonition about carrying “big sticks”. George Bush was confronted by the results of Bill Clinton’s appeasement of jihaddhists by the reality of 9/11. In both cases, a military response or the THREAT of a military response was simply required. Further reduction in our military presence in either war – cold or religious – would have (and will) only result in more violent attacks. So in this instance, I agree with the “neo-cons” who demand a swift military response.
On the other hand, there is no reason surely why we should have kept troops in Germany, Japan and other areas once the threat of the Soviet Union was no more. Certainly there are still threats, but it is up to Europe and other areas of the globe to defend themselves; it isn’t our duty to do so. We should bring back our troops and use them to defend our borders to do all that we can to prevent people entering the country as did the perpetrators of 9/11. Bin Laden can plan all he wants if he has no agents in the US to carry out his nutty war. Ergo, in this instance I agree with the “paleo-cons/libertarians”.
We must beware of applying labels and then demanding policy and strategy based solely on those labels. There are times when actions become necessary – indeed essential – which may not adhere to the particular philosophy desired. We should have a general understanding of what this nation should be, but we should be open enough to act properly in a developing situation. Frankly, there are few, if any, “cookie cutter” solutions in an increasingly complex and dangerous world.