What's a 'Neoconservative?'

Once again, the American Conservative's Jack Hunter does a great job in his analysis.

Interview: Daniel McCarthy on Neoconservatism

Jack Hunter, the Southern Avenger, provides an informative interview with the American Conservative's Daniel McCarthy on the topic of "neoconservatism" (as opposed to true conservatism) in the video below. Check it out whether you are seasoned or new to the issue. It is well worth the time.

A Constitutionalist's Perspective on WikiLeaks

By now chances are that you have heard about the latest WikiLeaks release and have either formed an opinion or sought out the opinions of others. Originally, it was my intention to keep my mouth shut regarding the issue because there are plenty of folks out there giving their opinions and demanding you agree with them. Some have offered balanced assessments, while most--I feel--have spouted ridiculous untruths, based on misguided ideological or partisan bias.

(It is not my intention to get into the nuts and bolts of the released WikiLeaks content in this post. For a good overview I recommend this article. It gives a sample of the content and the situation surrounding it.)

To properly inform one's perspective on the issue, one mustn't be taken in with the alarmism being thrown around. Likewise, one must separate the judgment involved in the releasing of the leaks from the legality of the actions. 

The absurdity coming from many opponents rests on a major misunderstanding--one where personal feelings have clouded proper criticism. Many have called into question the wisdom in releasing documents that could harm US-foreign relations. Such questioning is fine, and I believe sensible people can find themselves on both sides of the fence. Some can find the actions of WikiLeaks to be foolish; others can find them harmless or even heroic. I am not asking anyone to fall into either camp. I am just asking for people not to buy into foolishness.

Congressman Peter King is one of the most vocal peddlers of such foolishness. His blatant disregard for reality and the First Amendment is alarming. King's call for WikiLeaks to be classified as a terrorist organization and statement that the releasing of the WikiLeaks files is "worse than a military attack" proves he is a bit off his rocker, operating in a different world that ignores reality and constitutional freedoms. Anyone who has seen the content of the leaks can easily recognize the treat is one of political embarrassment, not military logistics. Moreover, even Secretary of Defense Gates has admitted that the last WikiLeaks release--which actually did pertain to current military action--yielded no casualties or lasting military failures, contrary to the dooming prophecies of neocons, alarmists, and warmongers alike, who made such claims.


Globalists, administration officials, and neocons may very well have reason to be alarmed at the latest round of WikiLeaks releases, but the chances that our men and women in the military have reason to worry over the works is slim to none. Their only worry should stem from leadership in both parties being ever willing to put and keep them in harm's way.

Clearly, if we are to value freedom, we must not compromise it even when the situation proves difficult. We must protect the freedom of speech and press at all costs, especially when doing so is unpopular. This does not mean, however, that we must agree with the content of that speech or press or even the decision of those producing the content to produce it.

What is being lost in the public discourse is that the wisdom of the leaks can be questioned while upholding the right for the information to be made public. We need not demonize to show disapproval. Calling the releases foolish is one thing, calling it terrorism is quite another. That is where many of the critics fail. Instead of merely disagreeing with the decision for the information to be released and offering their reasons why, many critics demonize WikiLeaks and create unfounded claims against the release of said information.

Whether you agree or disagree with the decision of WikiLeaks to release the information; there is no right to call their actions terrorism. Once again: calling something unwise or reckless is one thing; claiming terrorism and calling for a suspension of constitutional rights is quite another.

Over the past week I have seen utter hysteria over these new leaks. Looking at them objectively, I laugh at how bent out of shape some are getting over the incident--especially considering how tame the leaks are compared to the last batch. What I find most alarming is how quickly people are willing to label the action of WikiLeaks "terrorism" and completely throw the Constitution out when considering the matter. Moreover, the true colors of many pundits and politicians is being well displayed. We see how globalist many are in their concerns, how deep neoconservatism has imbeded itself into modern political thought, and how much of a battle those of us who desire a humble and constitutional foreign policy still have to fight.

When considering the WikiLeaks issue I was reminded of my hero Thomas Jefferson's words to Charles Yancey where he wrote, "The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves, nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe."

I think we know where Mr. Jefferson would have sided on the issue.

I leave you with the words of Ron Holland, which echo my own sentiments:

I join with real conservatives not the false neocon war advocates hoping these leaks do not threaten our troops or necessary intelligence operatives. Still Americans must understand it is Washington and economic interests that have actually placed our troops at risks in foreign military wars and occupations not in the real interests of the United States, the nations invaded or civilians killed.

Wither the Neocons? by the Souther Avenger

Once again the Southern Avenger offers up a pointed and perfect commentary. I love it. Take a watch a be the wiser for it.

Not Necessarily a Neocon If...

In light of yesterday's article, I thought it might be beneficial to provide a list of things that don't necessarily make one a neoconservative. Some may say, "Of course, that does not make one a neocon. I share that belief myself." Well...you would be surprised with what some who recklessly throw around the term "neocon" use to pin down so-called neocons.

1. If someone believes that there can be a just cause for war, that does not make them a neocon. Believing in classical liberalism does not prohibit one from supporting just, constitutional wars and true national defense. However, foreign adventurism and unjust wars of aggression cannot be supported by a true conservative. Moreover, I would even go far enough to say that one can be in support of our current wars and not be a neocon. That is not to say that they are not wrong in that support; they are. But some legitimately believe the wars in the middle east are legitimate acts of national defense, rather than being motivated by neoconservative desires for global domination.

2. If someone does not think 9/11 was an inside job, that does not make them a neocon. You are free to your opinion, but many of us do not believe that 9/11 was a government-crafted conspiracy. I don't , and neither does the enemy of all neocons, Ron Paul.

3. If you have ever read The Prince, that does not make you a neocon. Yes, neocons are Machiavellian, and they do revere his work. But who has studied political theory and hasn't studied Machiavelli? I have. I've also studied The Communist Manifesto, but that doesn't make me a communist.

4. If someone is pro-military, that does not make them a neocon. Being against unjust war and against the military-industrial complex does not necessitate one being anti-military. Just because someone supports the troops, that doesn't mean they are a neocon. Some of our greatest liberty movement activists are or were in the military. Besides, someone has to support the troops; our government sure doesn't--whether it be on the battlefield or here at home.

5. Just because someone has been influenced by neocons, that does not make them a neocon. Let's face it, the neocons control the agenda and have defined what it means to be "conservative" for over a decade--almost two decades. Therefore, they have had a heavy influence on weak-minded and misguided "conservatives." We need to rescue these people from their wrongs, not write them off as neocons.

6. Just because someone believes differently than you, that doesn't make them a neocon. This is the most important one. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard someone called a neocon for the simple reason that they hold differing views. "You don't believe we should legalize drugs...neocon." "You don't believe in trying terrorists in civilian courts...neocon." Sometimes this frustration is properly directed, but neocon cannot become the auto-response for "wrong!" Neoconservativism is always wrong, but wrong is not always neoconservative.

Make no mistake, I do not want to defend neocons or downplay the hoards of them out there. I can't stand them. Furthermore, I don't want to defend those who share neocon views and are wrong on the issues. I want them to be taken to task. But I think it is important that we are careful in throwing around the "neocon" label. If we make proper distinctions, we can better work to bring conservatives back to what the claim to believe in--limited government and personal liberty--the very things the neocons stand firmly against.

Don't Be Neoconned into Thinking Everyone is a Neocon

Neoconservatives are a plague--a great illness that has brought pain, suffering, and misguided policy to our nation. Sadly, they have shaped the minds of the modern conservative movement in a similar way as Hayek, Mises, and other libertarians shaped it at its outset. Neocons crave war, promote the ends over means, and have little use for decency or conservatism in politics. They are Machiavellian in approach, care little for our Founding principles, and see liberty as a hurdle rather than a virtue.

With all of this said, it is easy to see that we should be careful in our use of the label. However, I see the term thrown around way too often in far too reckless a manner. I think it is time we remedy this.

The fuel for the neoconservative machine is foreign interventionism, but that does not mean that all who support our current wars or are more hawkish than ourselves deserve the "neocon" label. Moreover, the neocons profit from the so-called "War on Terror" as a means to further executive power, but that does not mean that all concerned with terrorism are in the class of neocons. Likewise, we must note that some similarities in policy with neocons does not make one a neocon. Neoconservatism is a distinct worldview and philosophical position; therefore, it takes more than a desire for attacking Iran to be one.

Because of it prominence in recent decades, neoconservatism has been the guiding force behind the minds of "conservative" politicians. Therefore, many who are not full-blown neocons still hold some neocon positions on matters like foreign policy and globalization, while holding more traditional conservative positions on economic and domestic policy. Look to someone along the lines of a Jim DeMint or a Tom Coburn for such an example. These two men are not neocons, though their foreign policy outlook has been warped by neocon influence. They have much more in common with someone like Ron Paul or John Duncan than they do with Paul Wolfowitz or Dick Cheney.

Regrettably, even if one is not a neocon, many in the liberty movement are quick to give the label. We should be weary of this misnaming. The simple reason for this is that neocons are our philosophical and political enemies; those who hold some neocon positions are not. They are merely wrong on the issues. Since neocons are fundamentally opposed to the principles of liberty, their is no common ground to be found with them. They will forever be our political opponents. However, the many who share neocon sympathies should not be viewed as lost-cause enemies. They should be seen as misguided souls who are dead wrong but can possibly one day see the light. In fact, some have already started to change their tone.

It is important to note that I am not saying we should not call people out on misguded and wrong positions. We should. I am merely saying that we should be careful who we label a neocon. For, the neoconservative position is one that can and should writen off, while a misguided understanding of foreign policy is something that can be combated and remedied. Though I have never been a complete hawk, I once was once supportive of the Iraq War myself--until I realized that we were never under a threat from the Hussein regime. Now I am completely against the war and am a consistent noninterventionist. Likewise, I have heard a number of testimonies from others whose support for the warfare state was changed based on their lack of support for the welfare state. Are these people neocons turned libertarians? Nope. They are merely liberty lovers who were called out on their philosophical inconsistency and corrected their position.

Calling out philosophical inconsistencies will be the key to victory. If someone claims to be a conservative, let's hold their feet to the fire and make them live up to the standards of the Old Right. We are in an ideological war. Right now the neocons have the mouthpieces, the majority, and the power. But we have the truth and the Constitution on our side. So I know we will prevail at the end of the day. 

By far, there are tons of neocons around. So I am not trying to downplay their influence or numbers. They are everywhere! But I want to note that there are some conservatives out there who are dead wrong on foreign policy but don't qualify as neocons. Instead of writing these folks off, we need to get them to see the light and hold firm to true traditional conservative principles. Until we do everyone will be a de facto neocons as part of a nation that pursues neocon policies.

Please check back tomorrow for a post on who/what a neocon is and is not.

The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn't 'Conservative' by the Southern Avenger

Also, check out an earlier blog of mine regarding libertarianism and conservatism here.

Tea Partiers Should Be Weary of the GOP

The Tea Party movement needs the Republican Party like one needs a shotgun blast to the head. It is that plain and simple.

I say this as someone who has interned for the state GOP and has served in a number of leadership positions in the local party for over 7 years (The entire time I refused to walk a party line--even voting Libertarian in 2008). Needless to say, the party system is geared toward compromise of principles and the creation of governance problems.

The Republican Party, in its current practice, is not committed to liberty, smaller government, or the Constitution. Rather, it is committed to electoral victory regardless of principle. Look no further than the election of Massachusetts liberal Scott Brown for proof. If the Tea Party is truly committed to limited constitutional government, they do not need a partner in the GOP that is not.

Sadly, the very GOP establishment that has forsaken the Constitution and got us into our current mess is now attempting to wed itself with the Tea Party movement--quite successfully I might add. Moreover, I believe that the Tea Party movement represents more than just Republicans; it is made up of a number of dissatisfied voters from a number of different backgrounds. But if there is not a concerted effort to fight this partisan influence and stand firm on principle, the Tea Party will fail.

Now is not the time for compromise in order to win elections. Electing more of the same will not reverse the tides; it'll merely provide us with a fresh set of actors.

Sarah Palin's speech at the Tea Party Convention showed that her concern is with furthering Republican politics and her own ambition, not with restoration of liberty in our republic. All this occured while thousands cheered on. Sadly, it appears the Tea Party movement is blind to this move toward co-optation. If the Tea Party wants to merely act as a midterm Republican Convention, then that avenue is open. But if it wants to bring back constitutional government, then it must distance itself from candidates and a party that will not advance liberty. Don't look to the parties as the power structure to be obeyed. Rather, force the parties to look to the grassroots as those with the power and listen to the voice of the people.

If the Tea Party movement refuses to stand on principle and instead caves into the GOP, the party structure will have the upper hand, knowing that they can continue to field neocons and other liberals while counting on the Tea Party's support. May it not be so.

I have seen these co-optation attempts with my own eyes, and I don't like it. This is one Tea Party that needs to keep a close eye on the guest list because to pick party over principle one would have to be as mad as a hatter.

Taking the "Neo" Out of "Conservative" by the Southern Avenger

I listen to each of the Southern Avenger's video posts on his youtube channel as they are released. It has been a wise investment of time. I rarely am in disagreement, find them quite thought provoking, and appreciate the detailed analysis.

Checkout his recent entry about my mortal enemies: the Neoconservatives.