Sunday, April 14, 2013

Who are the "Neo-Cons?"

A simplified conclusion would be Republican "R.I.N.O.S," also known as, "Republicans in Name Only," are the "Neo-Cons." Unfortunately, it is much more complicated than that!

In the March 24th post on Eagles for America, we linked "Neo-Con's"(New Conservatives) to Leon Trotsky, labeling them as "evolved Trotskyites." When we assert that certain Republican and ex-Republican "R.I.N.O.S" are actually "evolved Trotskyites," there is little argument.

All party members admit to a lingering bitterness held toward the late Arlen Specter. As we recall, the longtime Republican Senator from Pennsylvania switched parties was instrumental in getting Obamacare through the Senate. Florida Republicans remain tiffed with Charlie Crist's about face. To call either a "Neo-Con" is a mild accusation.  Suggesting that both were "evolved Trotskyites" would likely spawn an affirmative response.

The same might hold true if aimed at Delaware's Mike Castle. Or Maine's Olympia Snowe. We could add former Rhode Island Senator, Lincoln Chaffee and ex-Connecticut Senator, Lowell Weicker to the list. Even to label Weicker's replacement, Joe Lieberman a "Neo-Con" would draw little opposition from Republican camps!

But wait! Are not these figures mostly liberal Republican types from the Northeast? The "Neo-Cons" are not confined to that region. So what actually contrasts a "Neo-Con" from a "R.I.N.O.?" And, for that matter, what differentiates "Neo-Cons" from "Constitutionalists?"

The former is fairly simple. A "R.I.N.O." is a Republican party member who holds more moderate, if not liberal positions on various issues. Nelson Rockefeller would be referred to as a "R.I.N.O." if he were living today. His brother, Winthrop was considered more liberal than Democrat, Dale Bumpers when the two squared off in the Arkansas Governor's race in the early seventies. In retrospect, that proved to be a misnomer.

Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul insightfully drew the distinction of "Constitionalist" and "Neo-Con" in his book, The Tea Party Goes to Washington. According to Paul, a "Neo Con" believes in a large,Washington, D.C. based govenment with the role of fostering and facilitating conservative principles.  A "Constititionalist," advocates a "strict construtionist" interpretation of the Constitution.

Were the Rockefellers "Neo-Cons?" Actually yes. And that is where the confusion sets in.
Trotsky was a Communist. Why would an "evolved Trokskyite" be represented in one of the wealthiest American dynasties?

We must never forget the break in the Communist party. Joseph Stalin, ultimately won. Leon Trotsky lost. Vladimir Lenin, while considering Stalin abrasive and uncouth, was more in principle agreement with him than Trotsky. Stalin held the view that Communism's adoption could only be accomplished through force. Trotsky maintained the belief that it's eventual acceptance was only a matter of time.

The Trotskyite position became homogenized with western capitalism. A happy medium emerged. It began with Roosevelt's New Deal. The New Deal can best be summarized as "a way out(or privileged place) for the extremely wealthy and socialism for the remainder of the population."

Was that conclusion altogether unattractive? To Oligarchs, such as the Rockefellers it made perfect sense. The promise of a social safety net, including socialized medicine, subsidized housing and free education were proven "rabble rousers!" To fund it by increasing the middle class contribution was a sacrifice most of America was ready to consider. True, the positioning was critical. But slick, glib politicians could be found. 

Are these "Neo-Cons" actually on common ground with the Democrat party? Not exactly!

We must remember that Stalin hated Trotsky. And, visa versa. That animosity lingers today and is most visible in the general elections. "Neo-Cons" control most of the Republican machinery. The Democrats are more closely aligned to Saul Alinsky, the Frankfort School and Stalinism.

I recall Republican strategist, Karl Rove's acid assessment of Barack Obama. There was unquestionable contempt present when Rove described the President as the "guy at the cocktail party with a Martini in one hand, a cigarette in the other, making a snide comment toward every passer by." To suggest that Rove dislikes Obama would be an understatement.

It's also worth mentioning that the Dallas, Texas former Tea Party president's description of Karl Rove was, "A big government moderate."

Rove was definitely on the bandwagon of Kay Bailey Hutchinson's 2010 Texas Gubernatorial bid. Bailey reminded Texans "what we(as in central government) have done for you in Washington, D.C."

It may have been in that campaign that Senator Paul's distinction of "Neo-Con" versus "Constitutionalist" was most clearly manifested. Bailey's opponent, incumbent and current Texas Governor, Rick Perry emphasized the importance of reducing excess spending and returning power to Austin. He cited Bailey's support for Washington, D.C. based government and the programs that increased it's size and scope. In the end, Perry trounced Hutchinson, administering a black eye to all Texas Republicans who supported her. Including Karl Rove.

Are we suggesting that Rove and Hutchinson are "Neo-Cons?"

This is where things become delicate. Perry, we must remember was a Democrat until 1989. In fact it was Rove who recruited him for the GOP. Perry, like many Southern Democrats(called Boll Weevils at that time) had become disillusioned with the direction of the party. He and other Southerners were echoing Ronald Reagan's proclamation, "I didn't leave the Democrat party, it left me."

Those Republicans who were Republicans in the seventies were ideologically more in tune with Nelson Rockefeller, Gerald Ford, Bob Dole and Howard Baker. Southern Democrats never warmed to any of the four. They were more on George Wallace's page. When the former Alabama Governor talked about States rights and the 10th amendment, he immediately gained their attention.

Wily Jimmy Carter took note. His Southern drawl and avowed loathing of big government lured these "Dixiecrats" into continued allegiance with the Democrats. Four years later, having realized that they had been "conned" by the Georgia Peanut farmer,  most embraced Ronald Reagan. They were later heralded as "Reagan Democrats."

It might be noted that the Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, Nelson Rockefeller wing of the Republican party did not initially support Reagan. They were decisively behind his eventual running mate, George H.W. Bush.

Bush, like Ford, Dole and Rockefeller was a long time party man. Reagan was the outsider who, like Perry was a convert. In that 2010 Texas Gubernatorial election, the distinction between the two elements again crystallized. 

Are we suggesting that Dole, Ford and George H.W. Bush were "Neo-Cons?"

To call these great Americans "evolved Trotskyites" is a stretch. They all loved their country and were patriots to the utmost extent. To suggest that they were influenced by Keynesian economic theory is a fact. To note that they supported large Washington, D.C. based government is reality, albeit not to the extent of their Democrat adversaries.

In short, there is a stark difference between Republicans! Maybe it's due to the fact that most of today's Republican party is made up of members who would not have been Republicans in 1973, or even 1983. Without question, Reagan Republicans were quite different from Nelson Rockefeller Republicans. Not to mention, Mitt Romney Republicans.

Reagan rolled into office with a promise that he would "reduce the cost of government." He strove for Federalism. Rick Perry echoed that aspiration in his short lived bid for the presidency. When he mentioned "downsizing" Washington, the "Neo-Cons" pounced! 

Southerners in comparison to Northerners may find it easier to compromise a safety net for more freedoms. It is in our psyche, perhaps. There is always a deep rooted fear in a government from afar, mandating how we are supposed to live our lives.

 Federalism amounts to less power for a central government. The two arguing Marxist factions determined this much 100 years ago.  Stalin, Trotsky and Lenin agreed that it was "better to control everything from one central point."

This amounts to an eye opening litmus test. Even honorable leaders with the best of intentions have been known to get it wrong! When we continue to witness the growth of Washington, D.C. based government and ask "why," it becomes plainly evident.

"When both sides are in agreement, the result is generally predictable."  

No comments:

Post a Comment