Waaaa! Don’t Call Me a

Sunday, November 10, 2002
Posted in category Uncategorized

Waaaa! Don’t Call Me a Neocon!: Or so says Carol Devine-Molin. Devine-Molin, writing at Etherzone.com, lists out her “Reaganite” worldviews as such: “In fact, many of us still continue to refer to ourselves as “Reaganites” and hold the same political ideals that include: a) cutting marginal tax rates that unleashes a stimulative effect upon the economy, b) reining in the size and scope of government, c) creating a first class, technologically advanced military, and d) exhibiting a sense of moral certitude as we go about the task of dismantling an “Evil Empire” that poses a global threat.” Most amusingly, in the same column, she spends 1,000 words telling us why she’s “not a neocon.” And of course, she claims to be be more Reaganite than neocon, however, the distinction is becoming more blurred over time.

Devine-Molin makes some noticeable errors when she says: “the Hard Right is a little more complicated, and is comprised of the Paleoconservatives (Buchananites, John Birchers, and other old-fashioned conservatives with their Isolationist/Libertarian bent) and the Ultra-Libertarians.” “Hard right”? And that is? And she somehow manages to call “old-fashioned conservatives with their Isolationist/Libertarian bent” paleoconservatives. Now they are either paleoconservatives or libertarians, but not both. The “isolationist/libertarian bent” is totally incorrect, as well. Isolationist denotes an economic meaning as well as describing a foreign policy ideology, and a paleocon isolationist economic agenda is the exact opposite of the free-trade principles of those with a “libertarian bent.” The correct term for her to use to describe the libertarian foreign policy worldview would be “non-interventionist”, which is distinctly different than “isolationist.” As for “ultra-libertarians”, that’s anyone’s guess as to what that’s supposed to mean. Another unsupported shot at LewRockwell.com, I suppose.

I think the gist of her column is that she’s not a Kristolite, but rather, a dyed-in-the-wool Reaganite. However, she paints a picture of a neocon in describing herself. And she goes on to clamor for war under the guise of an argument as weak as an anorexic’s bicep (kill Saddam before he kills us!). And most perplexing is that these folks DON’T SEEM TO GET IT that there is no difference between the so-called “mainstream conservatives” and the “left”, as they describe it. A Republicrat is a Republicrat. And they’re all Social Democrats.

Read the column and decide for yourself: neocon or not?

Be Sociable, Share!
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Leave a Reply