Neopaleoliberal©

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet."
--From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

I remember reading Romeo and Juliet in ninth grade English class. Not one of his best works, and not a particularly interesting read either. The only reason I remember it is because I have a mind like a steel trap. Whereas with most people, ideas come and go, in my head they rattle around for a while and then start setting up subdivisions. But I digress.

The cause of this little mental meandering is the term "neocon". I've been called a neocon, usually by mentally deficient liberals who think it shows how hip and suave they are. Secretly I've always thought they don't have the slightest idea what a neocon is, they just see it in Molly Ivins columns and in blogs and toss it around to show how well read they are. As I've shadow-boxed with them over the years, I've also come to believe no one really knows the definition of neocon, and I believe that is because I don't think there really is a definition. I think it's one of the words that just kind of appeared on its own, coined by someone, released into the wilds of the internet, where it has multiplied to the point that every one uses it and just assumes they know the definition.

I've asked people on both sides of the political divide and haven't heard anything that even required much thinking to come up with. I've heard "Jews" as one definition, but that's far too simplistic. I've received plenty of examples, but nothing that even begins to show the solid thinking necessary for a definition. Then I read a book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. that shows considerable forethought and effort.

Woods' definition is roughly this: The rise of the modern conservative movement in America - which probably began with the presidential aspirations of Barry Goldwater in the 1960's. Their platform was small, limited government, lower spending, lower taxes, strong national self defense, and keeping the government the hell out of people's lives. [Editor's note: Hmm, why does that remind me of something...]

The movement's greatest accomplishment has to be eight years of Ronald Reagan, and its zenith is the 1994 take over of the House of Representatives following forty plus years of liberal-democratic control. But as anyone with even a passing interest in watching politics (beats the hell out of looking at yellow-bellied sapsuckers) can tell, we may have gotten some taxes lowered, and Reagan did slow down the growth of that great leviathan called government, but overall we do not have a smaller, more limited government, and lower spending has become an oxymoron like Congressional Ethics.

So what happened? According to Woods, once the Republicans began seizing the reigns of government, they found they liked being the head honchos. Many of them abandoned their cherished principles in favor of big fat lobbyist checks, and the ability to do pretty much whatever they want. They believed larger government is acceptable, as long as they control it. They favored increased spending, as long as they could keep the taxes low enough to not piss off their party supporters. And in general, became big government liberals in conservative clothes. It is these people Woods refers to as "neocons."

Now, "neo" is Greek for "new", so neocon would be a new type of conservative, which, ironically, is pretty much the opposite of what a conservative is.

Stick with me, we're almost there.

Obviously - at least to me - I am not, nor have I ever been a neocon of any sort. I'm convinced of that. So what am I? I've been asking myself that question for some time, not because I'm into labels, but because the world is filled with labels, and I try to find my way through them. There are many liberal goals that I find worthy and I fully support. Who doesn't want world peace, good public education, clean air and water, etc.? Where I part ways with liberals is how to achieve these goals. The liberal viewpoint is simple; raise taxes, redistribute wealth, and take away as much freedom for people to be stupid as they can to prevent simple, uneducated, unwashed masses from hurting themselves and others. In other words, business as usual since FDR's New Deal. I can plainly see that none of that really works, and in reality usually makes things worse.

So am I a "neoliberal"? I offered that proposition to my blog editor. (Yes, I have an editor, do you?) He replied that he believes I'm more of a paleoliberal, in that my beliefs fall more closely in line with old time liberalism, back when the root word was recognized as 'liberty." But that doesn't quite fit the bill either, since I do want to accomplish new things, but I want to use the lessons from the past to determine what works and what doesn't.

So, with out further ado, I offer up to you Ladies and Gentlemen, a new political movement, for which I rightly can claim the honor of naming. I present to you "neopaleoliberalism!"

Dem Quixotic

There's been talking heads on the right who have used the analogy of religion to describe the values (or lack thereof) of the left. Ann Coulter even wrote a book about it. I can take only slight, smug satisfaction knowing that my editor and I had debated the theory years before she wrote her book. Only slight because while I can claim credit, she still gets the checks.

But I've never been completely satisfied with the analogy, there's just something about it that doesn't seem quite right. Last night while I was walking through my dining room, I was struck with a bolt of inspiration. It's not religion that makes the best analogy. Religion is recognizing and accepting the existence of a higher being and/or plane of existence. For the analogy to work, this would be required of the top tier of liberals to accept something larger and more important than themselves. And I believe that's why it doesn't fit. It doesn't really describe the actions and emotions of the rank and file liberal democrats. The rank and file don't look up to the top tier liberal groups and politicians for salvation; they look up to them in awe, but hardly with the hope of eternal salvation. So no, it's not religion. It's Chivalry.

About 15 years ago my sister and I attended the Sterling Forest Renaissance Festival in upstate New York. It's quite a day trip vacation. For those who are interested in history period events, I highly recommend it. One of the first booths you encounter upon entering is the print shop. There are all kinds of drawings, etchings, prints - you name it you can probably find it there. I bought myself a nice little drawing of a dragon reclining on a burned out castle. Enough said. Later in the day my sister somehow managed to ditch me long enough to sneak back over to the printer and she bought me a print of a Code of Chivalry based upon a 13th century France document. I got it for Christmas that year, and it's hung proudly on my wall ever since.

The Code of Chivalry (France, circa 13th Century)

Thou shalt believe all the Church teaches and shalt observe all its directions.

Thou shalt defend the Church.

Thou shalt respect all Weaknesses and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.

Thou shalt love the Country in which thou wast born.

Thou shalt make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy.

Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties in accordance with the law of God.

Thou shalt be generous and give largess to every one.

Thou shalt be the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.



With some slight modifications, I believe we have a pretty accurate code of honor among liberals:

The Code of Liberalism (San Francisco, New York, circa 20th Century)

Thou shalt believe all the Democratic Party teaches and shalt observe all its directions.

Thou shalt defend the Democratic Party.

Thou shalt respect all Recognized Victim Classes and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.

Thou shalt love the Democratic Party in which thou wast born.

Thou shalt make war against the conservative without cessation and without mercy.

Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy liberal duties in accordance with the law of the Democratic Party.

Thou shalt be generous with other's money and give largess to every recognized victim class.

Thou shalt be the champion of the Left and the Good against Injustice and Evil.


As with the dragon etching, enough said.

It's getting hot in here

I was reading the local newspaper this past Sunday morning, and almost fell out of my chair laughing. My local paper employs a democratic hack for their senior editorial page writer. I can barely read his column anymore, even though I will give him credit for at least admitting his bias. Last summer he concluded a column by stating that there are some people who believe democrat equals good and republicans equal evil, and then proudly stated he was one of them. One point for honesty, one million points for political bias.
On Sunday said author began his column with the following rhetorical question:

Q: Do this country's news organizations have a greater obligation to their readers and viewers or to the federal government?
A: Are you kidding?

I reached the same rhetorical answer, but for what I'm sure are vastly different reasons. The reason I view the reply as ridiculous is the two options he offers are both wrong. The real joke lies in the obvious answer as to where a news organization's obligations lie. They lie neither with their readers and viewers nor government of any kind. Is it just me, or is the obvious answer that a reporter's obligations are to the truth - government and readers be damned?

If the truth hurts the government, or if it hurts readers, so what? After all a reporter's job is to report, isn't it? But I guess I'm asking too much from the modern mainstream media. Anyone with a brain should be completely disgusted with their unparalleled bias so blatantly displayed during the recent election season. Of course, if you're of the democratic persuasion, as many of my family and friends are, you probably view the pig-sty of campaign reporting as a fair and balanced overview of the natural order of all things. Or to put it another way, democrat good, republican evil. Not convinced? How about the doctored photos from the recent Israel/Lebanon war? Hundreds of examples. Blatant. Patent. Lies.

I could go on and on about the obvious political bias of the media at the expense of the truth, but even though I could fill volumes, I don't really have the time to type up about 30,000 pages. [Editor's note: Thank God!] So I'll just pick one off the top of my head. The great global warming hoax.

That's right, you heard me. The Great Global Warming HOAX!

Is the globe warming? Maybe yes, maybe no. No one really knows for sure, that's because science isn't even close to coming up with a definitive answer. By the way, that part isn't the hoax. That part's the truth. Take a moment to think back when was the last time you heard that reported. Personally I can't recall the last time I heard it reported that the majority of scientists either had no position or weren't yet convinced. What is printed however is Al Gore and his entourage endlessly repeating that science has concluded there is a problem, the time for science is over, and the time for politics is now.

He usually adds that all serious scientists agree; which implies only nut cases, lunatics and the such could possibly disagree with him and his proponents. He even likes to trot out the old "flat earth society" cliche to further ridicule his opponents. Not that there is anything wrong with a politician arguing politics. I would expect nothing less from Mr. Gore, just as I would expect nothing less from the right wing hacks spouting off all kinds of scientific mumbo-jumbo. My point is, no one in the media is asking Mr. Gore to back up his claim that everyone agrees with him. Not one single news source has the testicular fortitude to question what is so obviously a lie. Allow me: "Mr. Gore, why do you insist that less than 50% of the scientific community constitutes the vast majority of scientists?" I'm not holding my breath.

Reporters may or may not have an opinion on global warming. They may think that by spreading the message they are helping inform the public. They may even convince themselves they are doing their part to save the future of the world. Whatever their reasoning, one thing they are not doing is reporting the truth. In this example, reporters may believe they are obligated to their viewers at the expense of the government. But in reality, they are obliging their political affiliations and the environmental movement at the expense of their viewers. Which means, we all lose.

We all lose because shoddy science is given the benefit of the doubt at the expense of real science. The truth is not even up for consideration. Again, is global warming a reality or not is a matter of science, yet to be determined. The fact that Al Gore and the environmentalists are allowed a free pass to discredit the majority of the scientific community is awful. The real victim in this case is the truth. So I ask any and all reporters once again, where do your allegiances lie, with your views and readers or with the government, or with the truth?

It's my party and I'll cry if I want to.......

So the dust begins to settle on the 2006 US Congressional elections. Democrats are in, the GOP is out, and whatever one draws from this, the obvious results are that the political ruling class wins and the everyday American loses. And loses big.

I'm hardly a fan of Republicans. But seeing as Democratic party principles can't survive even ten minutes of rational debate, I fail to see how this bodes well for We The People. Republicans - some at least - pay lip service to common sense, economics, physics and reality. Those on the left seem convinced that if we just say something long enough and loud enough, it will be so. Guess what sports fans, it don't work that way.

On the one hand, with the GOP we at least got some tax cuts - though notably absent were the spending cuts that should have gone hand in hand. And we did get what I perceive as two of the best Supreme Court Justices we've had in decades, if not centuries. With two years left of Bush, I held out hope beyond hope that Janice Rogers Brown could take a seat on that panel. Scratch that one now. All Americans are poorer and less free for this. During Chief Justice Roberts confirmation hearings, some democratic dick stated he wanted to be sure the "little guy" would get a fair shake in Roberts court room. Roberts replied that if the law says the little guy should win, then the little guys would win. If the law says the big guy should win, the big guy will win. His point is, his court room would be ruled by law, not emotions. Emotions change on a whim. Laws don't. For me, the Roberts court is a solid mark in the win column for Bush, regardless of anything else. I feel safer with my fate protected and guarded by law, not on how well the media can spin it on CNN.

My analysis of the election is the Democrats didn't win so much as the Republicans lost. I don't see how you can call it a mandate from the people when their entire strategy was "Bush sucks." Plays well on HardBall, accomplishes nothing in reality.

There were some bright spots in the election for people of all political stripes. For starters, the demands of tens of thousands of democrats screaming "the election was stolen!" is deafeningly silent. I thought the only way Republicans could win (or Democrats could lose) was because the elections are rigged? Guess not. Irrefutable proof that all the whining and wailing of 2000, 2002 and 2004 was nothing more than wimps and losers unable to face the fact that reality continues regardless of their insistence it does not.

Secondly, I don't want to hear one more whiny cry-baby say America is a fascist nation. If it were there would not have been election earlier this week. Fascists tend to not care too much about the will of the people. If Bush equals Hitler, and Hitler didn't let his opponents even organize, much less field a slate of candidates for elections, much less not send the SS out to dispatch them, then does Bush still equal Hitler? Probably in the small minds of people who can't generate the mental horsepower to see past party affiliations. But then again, when one refuses to accept reality, then the constraints reality places on one, do not exist either.

Here's one thing I can say with pretty much 100% certainty. Soon, if not already, but definitely by the time the next Congress convenes, the media will treat us to a slew of stories about how good the economy is getting, and how things are looking up in Iraq and around the world. This past election cycle has proven one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt. The mainstream media is the PR wing of the Democrats. I have never seen so much bias in reporting in my life. I did not think it were possible and wouldn't believe it if I hadn't seen it myself. But I did. The media invested a lot of its credibility in this race, and in my opinion, they lost it all.

So collect the balloons, sweep up the streamers and confetti, gather up all the empty champagne bottles. It's time to get ready for the next election. The cycle has already started!