Jul 15th, 2003, 10:02 AM
Well, this is fairly typical of the uneducated conceptions floating about of late. Its not often you see a society revel in its own unravelling, its rather enjoyable really.
"A great speech to Congress by representative Ron Paul about how neo-conservatives are traitors to cause of limited-government and to the American political tradition in general. I think his conclusion is something a lot of people can agree with."
They are harbringers of the future really, the first to embrace the ideas which will eclipse our inept limited-democratic process with something designed to stand the test of time. 'Limited Government' is an impossibility, the countries of the world have politically grown too close together, econimically too reliant upon one another, for government to ever be limited again. Governments, in order to protect their respective nations' interests must gather to themselves far reaching influence and the projection of power which in turn necessitates growth in capabilities. In forty years Conservatives like myself will be relics of another age, we are already a thing of the past which have simply refused to accept our displacement. Adapt or die, it is the way of things. They are not traitors to a lost cause, but the predecessors to a new one. Only an infantile understanding of political paradigms could convince one differently.
___ ___ ___
"Spending, borrowing and printing money cannot be the road to prosperity."
A point I have made consistantly over the years, though I doubt many have paid attention. A closed economy leads to stagnation and ruin, the primary explanation for the failure of the New Deal to salvage the American Economy afollowing the Great Depression. Printing money creates inflation and recession not new wealth. I did not realize anyone was foolish enough to question it.
"Both sides of the political spectrum must one day realize that limitless government intrusion in the economy, in our personal lives and in the affairs of other nations cannot serve the best interests of America."
'Limitless intrustion' of a government over the private sector is a tenant of Communism, not Capitalism. However, some intrusion is necessary. Think back to the Trusts which existed at the turn of the century, and how crippling shortages of supplies were in a system void of competition. Once monopolies were broken, a resurgance of innovation, lower prices and higher product quality arose in order to sway consumers to purchase goods. That is supply and demand -But our economic model is no longer concerned with meeting the demands of consumers, but rather creating artificial demands to entice the consumer. The majority of funds liquidated yearly are spent frivolously on products which are neither necessities nor accessories. Materialism is the natural consequence of an over abundance of wealth. Without limited government intrusion, we would become hostage to the demands of modern latifundiums. Kevin would give you a better explanation, but its three in the morning and I wish to be brief.
"The problems emanate from both camps who champion different programs for different reasons. The solution will come when both groups realize that it’s not merely a single-party problem, or just a liberal or just a conservative problem."
A clearly confused soul who seems to believe politicians have some sort of loyalty to the idealogy embraced by their sponsoring party. They are individuals, and for the most part, self-serving oppourtunistic individuals who prostitute their power for personal gain. The politician excells in creating solutions to problems which create more problems. They have no other way to distinguish themselves save through adversity, therefore they must ensure that there is always a measure of inherent failure in every endeavour they undertake. A politician has one goal: Re-elecent.
"But I think the most interesting part is his description of the roots of neo-con political philosophy in Machiavelli and such."
For lack of a better word, this is complete bullshit -if you have not already read the linked article, this won't make much sense. The term Conservative was first applied to Teddy Roosevelt. In fact, it was under his administration the word shifted from Conservationalism in regards to natural resources and broadened to encompass also the patrician responsibilities of the affluent and influential towards society. To say Neo Cons are neither New nor Conservative is a historical injustice, though a catchy quasi-educated-sounding soundbite.
Simply because some Neo Cons in the current administration have studied under someone whom wrote an objective analysis on Machivelli's writings concerning the practical use of power does not in anyway make them supporters of Machiavelli's theories. Secondly, as a minor note, I have had the pleasure of reading Thoughts on Machiavelli which was required for my Poli Sci 356 coarse, and while this commentator goes out of his way to make it clear Strauss did not criticize Machiavelli, what he fails to mention is that he does not support Machiavelli either, but simply examines the conditions in Venice -as well as the nature of political power in itself- which contributes to the economy of the Machiavelli method.
"There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree."
There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the liberal philosophy in some varying degree.
Statements like the above, both the original and my revisitation, are meaningless. Even amongst Neo Cons some shift towards the left, others towards the rights. They are unique individuals with unique outlooks. Too expect total agreement in vision or action is unrealistic, and statements pointing towards extreme tendancies go both ways.
"Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe. . ."
This is laughable really. I won't bother refuting this point by point as the author offers no corroborative evidence, but simply states this as fact. If it must be taken on his authority alone, it is not reliable enough to rate rebuttal.
|
Linear Mode
