Paleo-Conservatives Dying Off in D.C.

Michael Moore is one of the most provocative entertainers of our time. His books and films have garnered him quite an impressive following.

You will never mistake Moore for a historian or a qualified political analyst. This summer, a summer of stump speeches for his new best friend (Kerry), he reiterated the sentiments of liberal think tanks in describing Washington D.C. as a place of two parties: a 'far-right' party and a party leaning to the right. President Bush was also brandished as our most 'far-right' President we've ever had.

Yikes.

I shake my head every time I hear people like Moore regurgitate these lines.

To call George W. Bush one of the most conservative or 'far-right' Presidents in our nation's history is the work of: flat out lies, ignorance, or a blind desire to see four years of Kerry/Edwards. With Moore, I'm willing to believe all three are responsible for his inept sense of the country. The two parties that sit atop Capitol Hill are hardly representing the interests of classical conservative thinkers.

Our political system is dominated by one party with two wings, rather than two parties. These 'wings' do not lean right as Moore and his buddies say. These parties, and their President, have killed off traditional conservatives and replaced it with a new kind of liberalism that dominates our political system.

Our contemporary politics is left leaning, if not FAR-left leaning. We've entered into a new political era, dominated by big government. Look at what's happened to the country over the last four years:

*Repeated instances of poor government planning (a result of too MUCH government, rather than not enough)

*A failure to hold any government officials accountable for their mistakes

*A Congress that has responds to a crisis by throwing more taxpayer money at the problem

*Government attempts to distribute prescription drugs

*Control of charities (religious) through the welfare system

*Making private schools dependent on federal vouchers

Tell me which of these presidents - George W. Bush or Bill Clinton -was in office when these things were occurring the last four years? Who was it that signed the ban on assault weapons, oversaw an increase in deficit spending, increased budgets for virtually every domestic program, and signed into law a massive increase in federal government regulation of political speech?

These events all coincided with the first term of George W. Bush, a "Republican" President.

Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are much more alike than anyone is comfortable admitting. Their visions for the country have involved keeping the country on a path to empire (granted Bush has seemingly accelerated efforts more effectively), a concept that is rooted in the so-called peace-wielding politics of the "left" or "progressive movement."

Like these disastrous, big government policies, the roots of American imperialism is buried in left-wing politicians, not the traditional conservative ideology that it is has been attributed to. It's no secret that big government politics at home will lead to big government thinking abroad. Vietnam, the creation of liberals in the establishment like LBJ, JFK, RFK, and others, was merely an extension of LBJ's domestic agenda ('The Great Society').

Today's (supposed) anti-war, liberal activists fail to see anything but a League of Nations-like solution to 'ending' our military involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan. The isolationist impulses demonstrated by our founding fathers has, for them, no place in contemporary discussions of U.S. foreign policy.

Isolationists realized that America should not be concerning itself with every ethnic dispute or tribal war going on in the world, and they certainly didn't want any part of the United Nations and their various "peacekeeping" efforts (so many of which seem to end up with these "peacekeepers" wielding M-16s at those they are trying to 'free' or 'aid'). This silent majority is detested by the Democrats and Republicans for daring to question the work of the establishment.

Many efforts to dissolve our civil liberties, such as compulsory military training, emerged from the progressive movement, not conservative think tanks. Theodore Roosevelt (Clinton’s favorite Republican President) endorsed conscription, Wilsonianism wanted an advanced form of national service, and LBJ got a real kick out of sending young men to do the emperor's bidding in a jungle.

Neoconservatives, like the Wilsonians before them, make the case for empire in the Middle East in the name of American security. In reality, there is an inverse relationship between our security and extending American hegemony in the Middle East. The Wilsonian agenda of the left-wing thinkers advocated global democracy, just as today's 'right-wing' dominated government advocates that policy to serve American security interests. In the last decade, we've seen the so-called 'conservatives' of the Republican Party issue no objection to Clinton’s intervention in the Balkans.

Liberal thought shares much more in common with these 'far-right ideologues' than has been discussed. The real ideological divide is not between liberals and conservatives. The only line of separation is the one dividing those supporting the bipartisan War Party, from the few remaining noninterventionists. It's sometimes difficult to locate this true conservative thought; luckily, there are still those who remain skeptical of all business the state involves itself in.

The country will not be saved by liberal activism, much less the Democratic Party. The hope lies in those old-time Republicans who are fed up with the Bush agenda of more government, deficit spending, perpetual war, and never ending nation building. Such cracks are already starting to take shape, despite not being highlighted at the Party's convention last week.

Factoid of the (Labor) Day

If you Google "9/11" or "9-11" - your first hit is this.

Thank Goodness! Who doesn't want to hear Moore tell us how 9-11 was all the result of Bush and Cheney's ties to the oil industry, business dealings with the Saudis, not enough government in place, or the government's secret need to protect the Bin Laden family. Moore's Web site, like his film, doesn't want to explore the real issues that would give us an idea of what lead up to 9-11. The Web site and his recent "documentary" fail to make any mention of American's atrocious dealings with Israel - a crime in itself - opting to instead to inundate us with information about Haliburton, Cheney, and other corporate conspiracies.

Way to go, Mikey. You skim over issues when they conflict with your buddy's bid to win the White House by capturing the votes of clueless Americans.