Any conservatives against the war?
I had an interesting conversation yestday with an older gentleman in my neighborhood who is very much against the war, but he's a very conservative Republican. It was an eye-opener, because his arguments against the war were from a conservative point of view.
He said things like "not 50 Iraqi lives are worth even one American life," and "why do we have to take care of the rest of the world - who cares if they have a dictator."
He seemed to have a partially isolationist perspective, which I would think may exist among some conservatives. He didn't mention this, but I would think that a religious pro-life perspective wouldn't be consistent with this notion of trading off Iraqi and American lives in order to save future lives. I wouldn't think that that type of cost-benefit analysis would be appropriate when we're dealing with human lives.
I know there are lots of liberals that support the war for "liberal" reasons - e.g., to have a more liberal democracy in Iraq, and improve human rights there, etc.
So I'm just wondering if any conservatives here are against the war, or if you know any conservatives against it.
He said things like "not 50 Iraqi lives are worth even one American life," and "why do we have to take care of the rest of the world - who cares if they have a dictator."
He seemed to have a partially isolationist perspective, which I would think may exist among some conservatives. He didn't mention this, but I would think that a religious pro-life perspective wouldn't be consistent with this notion of trading off Iraqi and American lives in order to save future lives. I wouldn't think that that type of cost-benefit analysis would be appropriate when we're dealing with human lives.
I know there are lots of liberals that support the war for "liberal" reasons - e.g., to have a more liberal democracy in Iraq, and improve human rights there, etc.
So I'm just wondering if any conservatives here are against the war, or if you know any conservatives against it.
Comments
I personally wouldn't mind it a bit if we stopped being the world's police officer and let the all respectively deal with issues themselves. However every time I try to argue it well, someone makes a compelling case as to how you really can't sit around and ignore your neighbors.
Nick
He's been very skeptical, even derisive, about all of the claims of Iraqi WOMDs and Iraqi links to Al Qaeda.
Originally posted by BRussell
I had an interesting conversation yestday with an older gentleman in my neighborhood who is very much against the war, but he's a very conservative Republican. It was an eye-opener, because his arguments against the war were from a conservative point of view.
He said things like "not 50 Iraqi lives are worth even one American life," and "why do we have to take care of the rest of the world - who cares if they have a dictator."
He seemed to have a partially isolationist perspective, which I would think may exist among some conservatives. He didn't mention this, but I would think that a religious pro-life perspective wouldn't be consistent with this notion of trading off Iraqi and American lives in order to save future lives. I wouldn't think that that type of cost-benefit analysis would be appropriate when we're dealing with human lives.
I know there are lots of liberals that support the war for "liberal" reasons - e.g., to have a more liberal democracy in Iraq, and improve human rights there, etc.
So I'm just wondering if any conservatives here are against the war, or if you know any conservatives against it.
As I understand it, you're hitting on one of the crucial differences between the old-guard republican party and the newly-empowered neo-conservative philosophy; republicans *tend* to be more isolationist in their geopolitics, and the neo-cons are *significantly* less so (hence, Afghanistan and Iraq get a full-on invasion as opposed to a "proportional response" a la Clinton and even Bush I). There was a story in the Wash Post a couple of days ago about some potential rifts between the admin (and by that I mean especially Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al) and the republicans in congress. If I can find the link I'll post it.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Read the latest issue of National Review. David Frum has a cover story on conservatives (they are called paleo-conservatives) who are against the war. (Bob Novak was one of the ones listed.)
Paleo-conservatives. That's funny. If this is the piece I'm thinking of, Frum got POUNDED for it on all sides. Frum is, IIRC, the author of "axis of..." from the state of the union (he wrote, I believe, "axis of hatred," which was changed to "evil" since it sounded more biblical), and he's been out pimping his new book lately.
You should dig around antiwar.com and check out Justin Raimondo's columns.
Cheers
Scott
We live in a very liberal society, as a whole, so it's tough to guage the terms.
I am. And until I see real evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11th, I'll continue to be against it.
I'm also against protesters who shut down streets and bridges because they could hinder emergency services. When it comes to ambulances or fire trucks, seconds could mean the difference between life and death.
Originally posted by midwinter
Paleo-conservatives. That's funny...
It's not a new term. It's been bouncing around for a while.
If this is the piece I'm thinking of, Frum got POUNDED for it on all sides.
All sides? I don't doubt the paleos didn't like it but who else?
Frum is, IIRC, the author of "axis of..."
Yep. Same guy.
You should dig around antiwar.com and check out Justin Raimondo's columns.
Raimondo's name came up in Frum's article too.
At any rate...
Had never heard the term "paleo-conservative" before, and I thought it was funny because it sounded like it's the kind of term that neo-conservatives would come up with to describe old-guard conservatives in an attempt to at once "own" the term "neo-conservative" and jab at those members of the republican party who disagree with them on foreign policy.
As for Frum, I remember when a piece of his came out recently (the "Unpatriotic Conservatives" one), and it seemed that everywhere I turned he was getting hammered (I'm a leftie, but I read lots of conservative pubs and listen to right-wing talk radio every day). IIRC, some people were upset because he was a freshly-minted ex-administration member writing his tell-all (isn't his book the "Inside the Mind of George Bush" book?), Raimondo and others were livid at his deploying the "anti-American" rhetoric against members of his own party. There's also this (leftie). And Novak's response. Coulter, of course, was Coulter. As was the rest of the Fox News crew.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Read the latest issue of National Review. David Frum has a cover story on conservatives (they are called paleo-conservatives) who are against the war. (Bob Novak was one of the ones listed.)
Interesting. I've always thought of "Neocon" as referring to conservatives who are activists instead of conservatives who are more, uh, conservative, i.e., moderate and cautious. I suppose that type of conservative is more the opposite of "radical" rather than "liberal." And now that I think about it, some of the more "moderate and cautious" conservatives, like Brent Scowcroft, were against the war. An invasion of Iraq is pretty radical, that's for sure, and in that sense not very conservative.
On the other hand I don't have a clear picture of what "paleoconservative" means. Just anyone who's not a neo-conservative? And is there such a thing as neo-liberal and paleo-liberal? I get the feeling that there's not much of a difference between neo-liberal and neo-conservative.
Originally posted by midwinter
Frum is, IIRC, the author of "axis of..." from the state of the union (he wrote, I believe, "axis of hatred," which was changed to "evil" since it sounded more biblical), and he's been out pimping his new book lately.
That's "The Right Man" book?
Originally posted by groverat
We live in a very liberal society, as a whole, so it's tough to guage the terms.
How do you mean? I'm sure the vast majority of people in the US are more liberal than you, but the US is certainly more conservative than our peer countries in the industrialized world. Even a sizable percentage of our Democrats are self-labeled conservatives, and are as conservative as most of the conservatives in Western Europe and Canada.
Originally posted by sc_markt
"Any conservatives against the war?"
I am. And until I see real evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11th, I'll continue to be against it.
So would you consider your anti-war reasoning to be more from the libertarian perspective?
How do you mean? I'm sure the vast majority of people in the US are more liberal than you, but the US is certainly more conservative than our peer countries in the industrialized world. Even a sizable percentage of our Democrats are self-labeled conservatives, and are as conservative as most of the conservatives in Western Europe and Canada.
Well you've got to understand that when people designate themselves "conservative" or "liberal" in the United States they start out from a pretty liberal base.
Social security, medicare/medicaid, hell even public schooling are "liberal" ideas and universally supported ones in the US. The boiled-down essence of conservatism is libertarianism, which ideally shuns *any* government control or intervention. So when you look at it from the political science definition we live in a very liberal progressive society.
But since those values aren't even in question by the mainstream the rubric changes and the local vernacular definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" change.
Originally posted by groverat
So when you look at it from the political science definition we live in a very liberal progressive society.
Yup. And one that is attempting to claw its way back into the eighteenth century.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by groverat
Well you've got to understand that when people designate themselves "conservative" or "liberal" in the United States they start out from a pretty liberal base.
I don't get you here. By any comparison to similar countries, we are much more conservative in the US. You seem to be saying that any non-zero amount of government regulation or social programs is by definition liberal. I don't see how you can say that - conservatives want some amount of regulation and social programs (e.g., child labor laws, what have you), albeit less than what liberals want.
The other place I disagree is that conservatism = libertarianism. I think there are a whole lot of conservatives who would take issue with that. And almost all liberals want smaller/weaker gov't in many areas, e.g., abortion, criminal prosecutions, military funding, corporate welfare, etc.
Originally posted by midwinter
Yup. And one that is attempting to claw its way back into the eighteenth century.
???
Originally posted by groverat
Well you've got to understand that when people designate themselves "conservative" or "liberal" in the United States they start out from a pretty liberal base.
Social security, medicare/medicaid, hell even public schooling are "liberal" ideas and universally supported ones in the US. The boiled-down essence of conservatism is libertarianism, which ideally shuns *any* government control or intervention. So when you look at it from the political science definition we live in a very liberal progressive society.
But since those values aren't even in question by the mainstream the rubric changes and the local vernacular definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" change.
That's a good point. The United States is very liberal compared to Iraq, Cuba, China, North Korea, etc. We're also conservative compared to European countries with socialized this and that.
Originally posted by groverat
???
Heh. I suppose I should've qualified that by noting that I'm talking about economics.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by BRussell
I don't get you here. By any comparison to similar countries, we are much more conservative in the US. You seem to be saying that any non-zero amount of government regulation or social programs is by definition liberal. I don't see how you can say that - conservatives want some amount of regulation and social programs (e.g., child labor laws, what have you), albeit less than what liberals want.
I guess when you say "similar countries" you refer to Western European countries. I would certainly agree with you here, as they are classic liberals in that they value equality over freedom. Hence, laws against sedition and very forgiving law-enforcement systems.
The other place I disagree is that conservatism = libertarianism. I think there are a whole lot of conservatives who would take issue with that.
Well yes, those who call themselves conservative would because they are not "true" conservatives in the textbook definition.
If you're going to draw a disconnect between conservatives and libertarians it's probably in the moral police section. It seems they agree on most everything else.
And almost all liberals want smaller/weaker gov't in many areas, e.g., abortion, criminal prosecutions, military funding, corporate welfare, etc.
Yes but the liberal ideas for government net expansion. A nanny welfare state is the ideal for "true" liberals because that is the only real way to guarantee equality for everyone. Free healthcare for everyone, free education etc... which would all call for massive government growth. Social programs, obviously, make up the vast majority of the government's budget today. Which leads me to say it's a liberal and progressive society we live in. Perhaps not as liberal and progressive as many European states, but it is nonetheless.
So when you ask if there are any conservatives that are anti-war I contend that they aren't "true" conservatives if they are pro-war.
Of course, this is all too obtuse to be useful or interesting. I'll stop now.
But ... things have changed.