Trump

The short answer is that a neoconservative is someone who might embrace some of the social issues sometimes connected with conservatism, such as pro-life, but who rejects the core of conservatism, which has traditionally been limited government and non-intervention overseas. They don’t usually even try to do anything about any of these social issues once elected, as their efforts are focused on making America great through unlimited global military involvement overseas and on our own continent. In other words, big government overseas and big government at home.

Neocons are often associated with liberals by traditional conservatives because they share a desire for a strong federal government, and federal intervention domestically and overseas. They may use the rhetoric of a conservative but, once elected to office, their goals are very much the same as those of the liberals and the Democrat Party.

The way that I phrase it is that the neoconservatives want to take us to the same place as the Democrats do, but by a different route. John McCain or Mitt Romney would have taken us there on a paved road while Obama is taking a shortcut through the swamp, but they both have the same destination in mind.

A traditional conservative will believe in local and state control over issues not specifically given to the federal government by the constitution, while a neoconservative (and a liberal) will believe in a stronger federal government at the expense of the states, and in a stronger state government at the expense of counties and municipalities.

In recent years, neoconservatives have come to favor a stronger world government at the expense of national control. Also, in recent years, many neoconservatives have abandoned even the rhetoric of conservatism, and are just plain liberal. In this, I’m thinking of Republicans like Lindsey Graham.

Despite perhaps using the rhetoric of conservatism during an election year, neoconservatives will often oppose the appointment of true social conservatives to high government positions, choosing social liberals instead.

Despite running on the issue of repealing ObamaCare, the neocons in leadership positions within the Republican Party opted instead to fully fund it once elected.

Neoconservatives favor foreign intervention with massive federal spending, displacing people who were elected to office in foreign countries, often replacing them with someone who is worse. Neoconservatives and liberals continuously refer to the United States as a “democracy” rather than a “republic,” often using the two terms interchangeably, although they surely know the difference.

Traditional conservatives are not isolationists as the neocons often allege. They are in favor of a strong defense, and are willing to go to war overseas if necessary for the protection of this country, but they don’t feel the need to intervene in ever other country’s affairs.

Neoconservatism began in the mid-1970s, and played a role during the Reagan Administration. Although I don’t believe that Ronald Reagan was himself a neoconservative, he was surrounded by neocons. As a consequence, the federal government got bigger during his Administration. Although one of the issues that he ran on was a promise to abolish the Department of Education, the Department of Education got bigger and stronger during his administration.

Following the September 11, 2001 World Trade Tower attacks, neoconservatism dominated Republican politics, and that has pretty much been the case ever since.

Like most everything else in life, real people aren’t necessarily one thing or another. You and I both hold some conservative positions, some liberal positions, and probably some neoconservative positions.

Well known politicians and political pundits who (I think) embody neoconservatism include all of the Bushes that I am familiar with, Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio and Trump’s VP pick, Mike Pence. Others you might be familiar with dominate the Fox News channel, including Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer.

Although his rhetoric often suggests otherwise, Newt Gingrich was a pure neoconservative while he held office, and probably still is.

Liberals often consider neocons to be their opposition due to the conservative rhetoric they use during election years.

 

So was I, but I see now that we were led into it under false pretenses. It didn't take too long for me to wonder why, because a bunch of people from Saudi Arabia, attacked the United States, we were going to war with pretty much every country in the Mideast except Saudi Arabia.

Because I am a Christian, and the kind of Christian who believes that God meant it when He said that homosexuality was an abomination, I do not approve of homosexuality, and I certainly don't believe that churches should be forced to conduct gay marriage ceremonies or that Christian schools should have to hire gay teachers. However, because our government is secular, I do believe that gays should be able to be married in churches that approve of gay marriage, and that these marriages should be recorded through the government clerk's offices. I have employed gay people as EMTs and paramedics, and have worked with gay people in other positions, and see no reason why they should be denied employment or housing on the basis of sexual orientation except when their rights would intrude on the rights of others.

If you do a search on "tania dunbar" you will find that my daughter was not only gay, and married to a woman, but that she was one of the founders of SPARTA, the primary organization that brought about an end to "don't ask, don't tell" in the military. She knew full well what both myself and her mother felt about homosexuality, yet we had a very good relationship, and I loved her very much. We also had a great deal in common, and there was no point in arguing about the things we did not have in common.

Many Christians believe that they should mandate a Christian lifestyle on everyone, and Christians were able to do that for many years. While I strongly believe that Christians have as much of a right to bring their values with them into political office as anyone else, and when they have the vote there is nothing wrong with that. But the important thing for a Christian should not be to dominate American politics (or any other country), but to make Christians out of those who are not Christians.

Jesus didn't tell his followers to go out and run for political office, win a majority, and force everyone else to act like Christians. No, He told his followers to preach the gospel. A non-Christian is not helped by being forced to act like a Christian. If Christians are correct, then a non-Christian is only helped by accepting Christ.

There is a lot recorded in both the Old and New Testaments about how people should live. But the Old Testament instructions were for the Hebrew people, and New Testament instructions are to Christians. So, while I will vote my conscience whenever I have a say in the government that I live under, I don't feel as if my world has come to an end because Christians aren't winning elections anymore. Christianity thrived in a climate of persecution.

So gay marriage doesn't bother me. I voted against it when it came up for a vote here in Maine, but it doesn't threaten me. My daughter's problem wasn't that she was gay or that she was married to a woman. Her problem was that she didn't know Christ. Had she remained married to her husband, gone to church, and read the Bible every day, that wouldn't have saved her unless she came to believe it. There is some hope there that we want to cling to, but that's another matter.

Despite the fact that I disagreed with her lifestyle and goals, I was very proud of the accomplishments that Tania made. It took a lot of courage for an active-duty soldier to take a stand, and I'm proud that she had the courage to do so, and whatever it took to actually put together, and the intelligence to pull it off. She was an accomplished person. I loved her very much and I'm proud of her. She also didn't require that everyone she loved agree with her in everything.

Thinking people aren't necessarily one thing or the other. Tania was gay and largely black, and that was a large part of who she was, but that wasn't all that she was. She was also a soldier, a mother, and a person who held many viewpoints that would not have been considered liberal at all. I think she voted for Obama in 2008, but I don't think she voted for Obama in 2012. I know she wasn't happy with him. I know that she voted for Bush in 2000 but, like many of us, did not vote for him in 2004.

As for some of the other social issues, I am very much pro-life. But I don't believe that life ends at birth, so I am also opposed to capital punishment and participation in war. Someone who is opposed to abortion but not to capital punishment and war is actually anti-abortion rather than pro-life. Words mean something to me, and that's simply a fact. Recognizing that no one who runs on a pro-life agenda is likely to even try to do anything about it once elected, or to be successful if he did, that is not an important election issue for me. While I wouldn't be able to vote for someone who is pro-abortion, I don't demand that a candidate run on an issue of making abortion illegal. As for capital punishment, there are certainly people whose deaths I wouldn't lose any sleep over, but the facts are that our legal system is too often wrong, and saying "oops" later doesn't help. As a Christian, I recognize that there is a role for the government in waging war, but I don't see a role for Christians participating in it. Don't blame me, I'm a Mennonite.

Conservatives tend to get caught up with making sure that no one ever gets anything for nothing, and will go to all lengths to ensure that only those who truly need public assistance receive it, and many would like to put them through a lot of hoops. While I don't disagree with that, on principle, I have a lot of trouble getting excited about programs of domestic austerity while we're spending billions of dollars that we don't have dropping bombs on people with brown skin throughout the world. If we have money to waste bombing countries and people who haven't done anything to us, then it doesn't bother me to learn that Americans are getting their hands in the pie too.

On the environment, why are we raising costs and lowering the standard of living for Americans in order to combat global warming while we're dropping bombs on people all over the world? Surely, the bombs that we have dropped have had a greater environmental impact than all of the SUVs in America combined. Besides, I don't believe that global warming is man-made to begin with.

I believe we're safer when the good guys have guns.

 

I believe in microevolution but not in macroevolution. In other words, I believe that living things evolve within their species, but not that one species becomes another species.

I believe that there are certainly people who the earth can do without. I just don't feel comfortable with the death penalty, knowing that innocent people have been put to death.

Yes, there is one way in which we differ. I am perfect, and everything I say and do is wholly reasonable.

 

I think that Donald Trump did exactly the right thing in allowing Ted Cruz to speak. Not only did it show that Trump was willing to let bygones be bygones if Cruz wanted to fall in line with Trump; but it was an excellent way to see what Cruz actually intended.
It also exposed Cruz for the person that he is, and did it to the whole world.
It seems that Donald Trump was following that old saying about giving a man enough rope, and see if he climbs up the rope, or hangs himself with it.
This had much more impact than if Trump had simply denied Cruz the right to speak because he knew that Cruz would not support him.