WHAT NEO MEANS | 2010-08-27
In the 2008 election, a leftist strategy was leaked which said "Find an opponent and call him a racist."
Conservatives quoted this but it still worked beautifully. It worked because it is correct.
Conservatives base their American history upon the views of a man who knew his STATED historical view was absurd, Abraham Lincoln.
Everyone else knows it, too. You have to choose between the RACIAL views of our Founding Fathers or anything any of the Rousseau-Marxist Mommy Professors come up with.
Leftism is still based on the early twentieth century view that animals have no class system, no wars -- "Only Man Has Wars" was a leftist hippie slogan, and no territory.
That nonsense is SHOT. But conservatives are even sillier. They posit a theory that everything liberals did until on or about January 1, 1970 was dead right, but at that moment it all went unaccountably wrong.
That's insane.
National Review is full of praise for every liberal before 1970. It praises Lyndon Johnson's policies rather than him personally because the people they follow, the liberals, can't bring themselves to praise Lyndon.
This, by the way, is the true definition of neo-conservatism. The term has gotten a meaning of being Jewish or all for war, but the actual definition is neo, which means that it condemns the old conservatism National Review was founded on, and its conservatism, that is, its opposition to liberal proposals, is new, or neo-.
A writer in National Review was complaining that all the alternative histories end up showing how awful history would be if it were different. But that is the theme of National Review today. If Lincoln and Roosevelt and Johnson had not succeeded, the world would have been lost.
Only National Review would have a cover picture of Franklin Roosevelt and Churchill, saying They Saved the World. They did the same thing with Lincoln.
Would the world have ended if Britain had not declared war on Germany in 1939?
To question that is "racist," according to National Review.
REAL neo-conservatism begins by conceding history to the Left. Its main voices are Jewish, but EVERYBODY'S main voices are Jewish. Everybody's main voices used to be in New England.
So we can either feed our obsession or deal in reality. The reality is that neo-conservatism concedes history to the political left. That is the DEFINITION of NEO-conservatism.
Both of today's official sides declare that all history was good until on or about January 1, 1970. So naturally all alternative histories that are PUBLISHED declare that any deviation from real history before January 1, 1970 would have been a disaster.
But can a person who concedes history to the left be a conservative?