Barry Goldwater: On Christian Conservatives

Source:Melissa Blight- Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater, on the Christian-Right. 

Source:The New Democrat

When you look at Barry Goldwater and his politics, you have to look at Conservatives and conservatism and what Conservatives actually believe believe and what conservatism actually is and what it isn't. There are Conservatives and then there are Conservatives who are very different and don't sound like Barry Goldwater or William F. Buckley and other Conservatives who represent the Center-Right at least in America.

There are political Conservatives who are conservative in a constitutional sense and they believe in conserving the U.S. Constitution and our individual rights. If you want to use the term Conservative-Libertarian that would be fine, but that's what they're about meaning the job of government is to protect out individual rights and protect all of them for all of us and every America including our civil liberties. And not trample on them because our liberties and free choice violates one's religious beliefs like members of the Christian-Right in America.

And there are Religious Conservatives, or Cultural Conservatives, Christian Conservatives. I don't like using the term Social Conservative like the Family Research Council and other groups like that, because my definition of a Social Conservative is someone who believes in conserving our social or personal freedom, not trying to use big government to trample on our personal freedom and civil liberties. Political Conservatives are what's known as Constitutional Conservatives. People who believe in conserving our Constitution, not trampling on it because some of our rights protect what the Christian-Right would call immoral behavior. And not just abortion, but homosexuality, pornography, adultery, entertainment, and unfortunately I could go on.

The Ron Paul's of the world and to a certain extent his son Senator Rand Paul even though he goes to sleep every night with President Donald Trump politically, ( and I mean that figuratively ) represent what's left of the Constitutional-Conservative or Conservative-Libertarian movement. The Conservatives on CNN the so-called Never-Trumpers people like Tara Setmayer, Amanda Carpenter, S.E. Cupp, the faction of the Republican Party that use to dominate the GOP really until George H.W. Bush left The White House in 1993 and the Christian-Right essentially took over that party.

Conservatism, in a political sense is about conserving the U.S. Constitution. That's what conservative is about which is conserving what you believe in and value and in a political and governmental sense that means conserving the U.S. Constitution and our individual rights. Not trying to use big government to erase them, because our individual freedoms violates one's religious and moral beliefs. Christian-Conservatives, are different because they're not about the U.S. Constitution, but instead their interpretations of the Bible and conserving their Christian way of life. And believe that big government has a role to play in seeing that no one lives outside of their religious and moral values and outside of their cultural lifestyle. It's not individual freedom that they're interested in, but their religious and moral values.

When I think of Conservatives, I think of Barry Goldwater and the movement that he represented and still represents today. People who believe in individual freedom period and that it's not the job of big government to decide how free Americans should live in what they do in the privacy of their homes and free time, just as long as they're not hurting innocent people with what they're doing. I don't think of people who believe their religious and moral values should be forced on everyone else in America, including non-Christian or even non Protestants or non-fundamentalists. And I don't think of people who believe America is being going to hell since 1965 or so morally and are worried that modern America doesn't look like the America they grew up with culturally, or even ethnically and racially.

Politico Magazine: Larry Sabato: How Goldwater Changed Campaign Forever

Source:Politico Magazine.

Source:The New Democrat

Not many if any Republicans including Senator Barry Goldwater expected Goldwater to win the 1964 presidential election by defeating President Lyndon Johnson and for Congressional Republicans to do anything in Congress. They were expecting big defeats as it related to both the presidential election and Congress. But that wasn't what the 1964 general elections were about for Goldwater Republicans Goldwater Conservatives.

1964 to follow up about what I wrote yesterday, was to create a choice and give Americans a choice in who to vote for. Present a Republican Party that was completely different from the GOP from the 1950s and completely different from the FDR/LBJ progressive Democratic Party. A party that was a lot less government especially federal government oriented. A party that was lot more federalist and more individualistically oriented. That wanted to turn power over to the states and people over their own affairs.

They wanted to create a new party that Conservatives and other right-wingers would feel welcome in. And take power away from the Northeastern Progressives that had been running the GOP and perhaps even make Progressives feel unwanted in the GOP. 1964 wasn't about winning for Barry Goldwater and other Republicans, but building a winning coalition that could put Republicans back in power in the future. That they simply didn't have going into the 1964 general elections.

1966 was about Republicans winning right-wing seats in Congress in House districts and Senate seats. So they could become a factor in Congress again and no longer be buried in the minority in Congress. 1968 is when Richard Nixon figured out how Republicans can win back the White House and win more seats in Congress. And 1968 is where we really see the political flip in American politics. Where Southern states look Republican and Northern states look Democratic. But it all started in 1964 and Barry Goldwater deserves a lot of credit for it. 
Source:Cool Old Videos

Moog Rogue: Mr. Conservative (2006) ‘Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican National Convention’

Source:Moog Rogue- the 1964 Republican National Convention, in hippie-leftist San Francisco. How times have changed.

Source:The FreeState

“Mr. Conservative: Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican National Convention. From the documentary “Mr. Conservative: Goldwater On Goldwater” (2006)”

From Moog Rogue 

What sounded like an extreme statement in 1964 when America was still in the New Deal/Great Society Progressive Era of the Democratic Party, in a country that was just starting to move right, sounds like a very intelligent, logical, mainstream view today. Whether it was coming from the Right, because what Senator Goldwater was saying was what was called extremism back in the early and mid 1960s, was about individual freedom. And moving past the welfare state in America and giving more Americans individual freedom over their own lives.

And Senator Goldwater wasn’t just talking about economic freedom, but personal freedom as well. Which is why Ron Paul Libertarians like Barry Goldwater as well. And what he was also saying that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue, meaning that you are in favor justice and going to do what it takes to protect and advance justice in America. But you can’t get their with a half-hearted approach. That it has to be real and you have to go all the way.

The Republican Party certainly changed in 1964. They were still the civil rights party that President Johnson and the Democratic Leadership in Congress had to rely on their more progressive members in Congress for their votes. But you had this conservative libertarian faction in the party, that was already there, but now big enough where they became the mainstream faction of the party.

It would be nice to see the GOP today with there Northeastern Progressives and Conservative Libertarians in the Midwest and West without the Religious-Right. They would be a lot more competitive for the White House now.

NBC News: Meet The Press- U.S. Senator Robert Taft (1952)

Source:Guy John- U.S. Senator Robert Taft (Republican, Ohio) on NBC News Meet The Press, in 1952.

Source:The Daily Post 

“Meet The Press. January 20, 1952. NBC-TV net, WNBT-TV, New York City audio aircheck. Sponsored by: Revere Copper and Brass. The first question is, “You’re enemies say that in spite of all your disclaimers, you’re an isolationist at heart. Are you?” Robert Taft (Senator, Ohio), James Reston (The New York Times), Lawrence Spivak (Mercury Publications), Marshall McNeil (Scripps-Howard Newspapers), Ned Brooks (NBC commentator), Martha Rountree (moderator). 28:30. Audio condition: Excellent. Incomplete

“In the international field we have been victimized by such catch phrases as–“Making the world safe for democracy”, “One world or none”, “Freedom loving countries”‘ “the Four Freedoms”, “Human Rights” and a dozen others. ” – Frank E. Holman, 1953″

From Guy John 

America’s role in the world post-World War II and where is our place in the world and what we needed to do to defend ourselves and work with our allies so that Russia wouldn’t try to invade Europe and expand their Communist empire, is what they’re talking about here.

Senator Taft who truly was a Conservative Republican perhaps the Barry Goldwater of his time and the Barry Goldwater in Congress of his time, made a really interesting point about NATO which is responsible for defending Europe for the most part. And a position that I hold today about who should defend Europe.

Senator Taft wasn’t taking an isolationist position on foreign policy as it related to Europe. He wasn’t saying that if Russia invades Europe, then that is Europe’s business and America shouldn’t get involved. He was saying that if America is going to be part of NATO, then the European states that get most of the security and benefits from NATO should pay for that defense. Instead of America essentially being responsible for the entire defense of the United States, which twice the size of the European Union in land and have to defend Europe as well.

And Senator Taft was right then and he was right today. America is essentially responsible for the defense of both the United States and European Union. Canada can defend themselves and is now committing the resources to do that under the Harper Government. But while America is still at or around four-percent GDP as far as national defense, Europe is at around one-percent. With Britain, Germany and France being a bit higher than that.

One of the reasons why these social democracies in Europe spend so little on their national defense, is because they’re social democracies. They spend a lot on infrastructure and education and very little on defense. Because America is responsible for their defense.

Guy John: U.S. Senator Robert Taft- On Meet The Press (1952)

Source:Guy John- U.S. Senator Robert Taft (Republican, Ohio) on NBC News's Meet The Press, in 1952.

Source:The Daily Post 

"Meet The Press. January 20, 1952. NBC-TV net, WNBT-TV, New York City audio aircheck. Sponsored by: Revere Copper and Brass. The first question is, "You're enemies say that in spite of all your disclaimers, you're an isolationist at heart. Are you?" Robert Taft (Senator, Ohio), James Reston (The New York Times), Lawrence Spivak (Mercury Publications), Marshall McNeil (Scripps-Howard Newspapers), Ned Brooks (NBC commentator), Martha Rountree (moderator). 28:30. Audio condition: Excellent. Incomplete." 

From Guy John

Senator Taft not sounding like an isolationist at least in this interview, but more like a Barry Goldwater Conservative Republican, but from the 1940s and 50s. 

A good way to look at Robert Taft at least when it came to foreign policy would be to look at Senator Barry Goldwater. Both men were strong anti-Communists and anti-authoritarians in general and wanted a strong American military and American economy. But to use those resources to defend America and our national interests. Not to try to police the world at least by ourselves. That our allies especially Europe needed to do their part as well.

What they were talking is here is how should the United States respond if the Soviet Union were to invade Europe. What is now the European Union. If they were to attack Germany, or some other country. 

I believe what Senator Taft is saying here if that were to happen that the Europeans need to step up and defend themselves and not expect America to fight their war for them. Europe if it were a country, we would be talking about the second or third largest economy in the world even back then. As well as a wealthy developed country. So they should have done their part to defend themselves especially since they did border Russia.

I don’t believe what Senator Taft was saying here is that if Russia invaded Europe that America should say,:“Oh well, too bad and good luck to you.” And that we shouldn’t do anything and let the Russian take over Europe and expand their communist empire.

What Senator Taft was saying that we should help Europe and give them resources and perhaps even send them troops. But that Europe had to do their part as well. And not expect America to fight their wars and spend our money for them while Europe does nothing to defend themselves. Which I believe is a very mainstream position today and even back then.

Documentary Fan: 1952 Republican National Convention: U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen Defends Robert Taft

Source:Documentary Fan- U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen (Republican, Illinois) speaking in favor of Senator Robert Taft (Republican, Ohio) at the 1952 Republican National Convention, in Chicago, Illinois.

Source:The FreeState

“Republican National Convention 1952 Chicago, ILSen. Everett M. Dirksen gives his speech in support or Sen. Robert Taft for President against Dwight D. Eisenhower.”

From Documentary Fan 

The political wave or tide that Senator Everett Dirksen is talking about in this speech is the 1952 Republican sweep. Other than holding Congress from 1947-48, they were completely shutout of power in Washington and the Federal Government, at least as far as being in charge of anything from 1933-53.

The Democratic Party, won five straight presidential elections during this period. And again except for 1947-48, held both the House and Senate in Congress during this whole period as well. That changed in 1952 thanks to Dwight Eisenhower as he won the presidency and Congressional Republicans won back the House and Senate in 1952.

Senator Dirksen, initially supported Mr. Conservative (at least during his time) Senator Robert Taft for president in 1952. They were both strong Conservative Republicans, from the Midwest, who served in Congress together for twelve-years. They knew each other and the other’s politics and character very well.

Dwight Eisenhower, hadn’t announced he was a Republican until he decided to run for president in 1952. He could he being a career U.S. Army officer. So it wasn’t very clear really until General Eisenhower became President of the United States where the General was politically and ideologically.

The Republican Party in 1952 whether they nominated General Dwight Eisenhower or Senator Robert Taft for president, felt this year was definitely their time. Of course they felt that way in 1948 when they barely lost that election as well with Tom Dewey. But 1952 was different for them because they had a great nominee and perhaps the most popular person in America at the time in Ike Eisenhower.

Democrats held the White House for twenty-years at this point and held both chambers of Congress for most of that time as well. President Harry Truman, had been president for eight years at this point and he and his administration were unpopular. So Republicans had a lot to feel good about in 1952.

ABC News: ‘Everett Dirksen’s Washington (1968)’

Source:C-SPAN- ABC News anchor Howard K. Smith, interviewing U.S. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, in 1968.

Source:The Daily Post

“Everett Dirksen’s Washington

January 2, 1968

A tour of the U.S. Capitol with Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen and ABC’s Howard K. Smith.”

From Documentary Fan 

When was the last time that a Congressional leader was loved and respected by both parties? That is how much Congress has changed since Everett Dirksen was there because he was loved and respected by both parties when he was in Congress and when he was the Senate Republican Leader. But now Republicans and Democrats in Congress tend to look at each other as enemies and not colleagues or even opponents.

Not many people being more familiar with how Congress worked than Everett Dirksen, who served a total of thirty-four years in Congress. Both in the House of Representatives and Senate. House from 1933-49 and the Senate from 1951-69. And was also Senate Minority Leader from 1959-69.

You might be able to say that Minority Leader Dirksen had all the power in the Republican Party in Washington in the 1960s. Excluding 1960 with President Dwight Eisenhower and 1969 with President Richard Nixon. You might be able to say that from 1961-69 Minority Leader Dirksen was the Washington power structure for the GOP. Because Democrats held the White House and both chambers of Congress from 1961-69 in this period. Huge majorities in both the House and Senate from 1961-67. Which meant for Congressional Republicans to get anything done in this period or to stop legislation that the Congressional Democratic Leadership was pushing, they needed both Leader Dirksen and the Southern Caucus of right-wing Democrats in Congress.

The 1960s was also a much different time as far as Washington politics and Congressional politics. Not all Democrats were liberal or progressive. (At least in the classic sense) The Democratic Party had the right-wing Southern Caucus in the House and Senate. The Democratic Party leaned Left, but had a large right-wing faction.

In the 1960s, not all Congressional Republicans were conservative, but certainly leaned right. And they had a progressive faction in the Northeast. Which meant for either President Jack Kennedy or President Lyndon Johnson to get things done in Congress, especially in the Senate, they needed Minority Leader Dirksen’s help to cutoff filibusters from Conservative Republicans and right-wing Democrats. And to bring along some of his Progressive Senators.

Similar to Senator Robert Byrd and Everett Dirksen was sort of the Bob Byrd of him time, but if neither one of them weren’t in Congress for so long, they could’ve both been Congressional historians. And of course a lot of the knowledge they picked up about Congress had to do how long that they were in Congress. Both serving in the House and Senate, but also because they both served in the Congressional Leadership.

So when you hear Everett Dirksen talk about Congress, you know you’re hearing from someone who actually knew what they were talking about. Someone who was not just respected, but loved by both Republicans and Democrats and someone who represents the best of our Congress and its two chambers.

Jack Hunter: 'Downgrading Liberalism?'

Source:The Atlantic- the self-described Southern Avenger blogger, Jack Hunter.

Source:The FreeState 

"I’ve been mulling over Dan McCarthy’s rich meditation on intellectual splits in the right, evoked by the Jack Hunter controversy. Salon editor Joan Walsh was right to observe that the attack on Hunter was really an attack on Rand Paul for his father’s skepticism about imperial wars and American obeisance to the Israel, a skepticism assumed to have been at least partially transmitted to his more mainstream son. The writers who have gone to town in attacking Hunter—Alana Goodman,Jamie Kirchik, Jennifer Rubin—are all well-entrenched in right-wing Zionist advocacy journalism. Though photographs of a top Senate aide in a Confederate mask do make for entertaining imagery on the local news, no one else seems to care very much.

Walsh notes that in the modern GOP there are leaders “correct on the righteousness” of the Civil War or the Iraq War, “but rarely both.” If, as she and I assume, the smart positions are pro-Lincoln and anti-George W. Bush, the simple explanation is that northern moderates are now rare in the Republican Party. Five of the seven GOP members of Congress who voted against the Iraq war resolution were moderates from non-Confederate states, unlikely to have Stonewall Jackson memorabilia in their dens. Add to them Rhode Island’s Lincoln Chaffee, the sole GOP senator to speak out against the Iraq War, and you have a fairly representative slice of the vanishing brand of moderate Republicanism, absent perhaps its Rockefeller-Jacob Javits pro-Israel wing." 

You can read the rest of this article at The American Conservative

"Jack Hunter: Downgrading Conservatism?" 

Source:Jack Hunter- on the future of American conservatism.

From Jack Hunter

I blame the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress’s of the early 2000s with their two-trillion in tax cuts, that weren’t paid for and their two unpaid for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and their Medicare expansion, and their constant borrow and spending that stayed with President Bush throughout his administration. 

I also blame President Obama with his Democratic Congress in his first two years for failing to reverse the Bush neoconservative  policies. Leaving in the borrow and spending to deal with the Great Recession. And of course the Great Recession, as well as the Democratic and Republican leaderships for their inability to take on their fringes when it comes to the debt doing things they view as completely unacceptable, for the downgrade of 2011.

But Jack Hunter is dead wrong to blame what he views as liberalism, a warped view at that, for the American downgrade. Since it is really the Great Recession that has had a lot to do with the current debt situation. Along with two unpaid for wars that are now in the trillions of dollars and both Democrats and Republicans increasing the role of government. As they’ve both decreased the revenue sources to pay for that government expansion.

If you really want to blame the downgrade on anyone, blame it on the policies and people who put those policies in place for the downgrade. I know that sounds like a warped concept, but commonsense tends to sound warped in Washington to begin with. 

President Bush, comes in with a four-trillion debt and leaves with an eleven-trillion debt and the Great Recession. Which didn’t happen by accident. Again, the two unpaid for wars that are still not over. Three-trillion in tax cuts, that weren’t paid for, that didn’t have much if any positive effect in the economy. The seven-hundred-billion dollar Medicare expansion from President Bush that wasn’t paid for. Most of the spending in the Obama Administration, has been to deal with the Great Recession. Not to create new Federal programs. If you want to downgrade anything, downgrade Bush/Cheney neoconservatism.

Moog Rogue: Mr. Conservative- Barry Goldwater’s Opposition to The 1964 Civil Rights Act

Source:Moog Rogue- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona) talking about the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Source:The FreeState

“Mr. Conservative: Barry Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. From the documentary “Mr. Conservative: Goldwater On Goldwater” (2006)”

From Moog Rogue

I have a lot of respect for Barry Goldwater, he’s probably my favorite Conservative. But as Julian Bond says in this video, Senator Goldwater was just plain wrong about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And what I would add to that is that because here’s a man a sitting United States Senator probably the most effective and intelligent Conservative spokesmen in Congress who was constantly speaking out in favor of individual freedom, saying that states rights trumps individual freedom and the constitutional rights of individuals.

Senator Goldwater was essentially arguing that states have the right to deny their residents the same constitutional rights as other residents of their state, even by race that somehow states rights trumps individual rights which is of course unconstitutional. These civil rights laws weren’t about telling states how they can govern themselves, but that they have a duty just like the Federal Government to comply with the United States Constitution. And have to enforce their own laws equally for all of their citizens.

What the 1964 Civil Rights Act is about, is that all Americans regardless of race or ethnicity should be treated equally when it comes to their race and ethnicity. Not be treated better or worst and when it comes to public accommodations including business’s open to the public, that the public is everybody. That business’s can’t deny people access to their business because they don’t like race or complexion. Americans don’t have to like each other and think well and be nice to each other. But that is different from denying people access simply because you don’t like their race or ethnicity.

Conel Rad: The Choice (1964) Barry Goldwater Campaign Film

Source:Conel Rad- from Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign film.

Source:The FreeState

“The entire controversial campaign film banned by Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964.”

From Conel Rad

There’s a book that was written in 2005 or 2006 essentially called the The Choice: a Glorious Defeat For Conservatives. I’m paraphrasing, but that’s pretty close where the author argues that Barry Goldwater’s 1964 Presidential election landslide loss inspired so many young people. Especially Conservatives to join the American Conservative movement and get involved in American Conservative politics. And even work for Conservative Republicans, or become Conservative Republicans themselves.

And I agree with this because without 1964, Congressional Republicans do not pickup something like forty-five seats in the House in 1966. Still about thirty short of a majority, but put them in contention for 1968 to win back the majority in the House. And I believe they picked up 4-5 seats in the Senate, but they were in the low-thirties as far as Senators after 1964.

Barry Goldwater won ten states in 1964, but seven of them were in the South. Which was right-wing Democratic country. And what Senator Goldwater did in 1964 was expand the playing field for the Republican Party by bringing in new Conservatives to the Republican Party.

Without 1964 Richard Nixon doesn’t get elected President of the United States in 1968, because again Barry Goldwater expanded the playing field in 1964 and brought in more right-wingers to them Republican Party and out West. But in the South and brought in Libertarians from the West and Religious-Conservatives from the South, that use to back right-wing Democrats who were against things like civil rights. Barry Goldwater and Dick Nixon brought in right-wingers to the Republican Party as well especially from the South.

Pre 1964, the Republican Party was mostly a Midwest and Northeastern party, but Goldwater and Nixon changed that for the GOP. And all of these Southern right-wingers to the GOP kept moving along in the 1970s as well to the point that President Nixon is reelected in a landslide in 1972. More Southern and Western Republicans are elected Governor and to Congress (both House and Senate) in 1978. And of course go up until 1980 when Ronald Reagan is elected President and Senate Republicans win back the Senate for the first time since 1952.

I do not believe that Barry Goldwater ran for President in 1964 expecting to win. Even though I’m sure he would’ve taken the job had he won it. (He wasn’t William F. Buckley) But he ran against leftist big government basically from the New Deal to the Great Society. And to show Americans that there was another way to govern America and another competing vision of where to take America. And made conservatism mainstream in America.

Jack Hunter: 'Conservatism's Future: Young Americans For Liberty'

Source:The Southern Avenger- Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater, when he was running President in 1964.

Source:The FreeState 

"An editorial in the August 1960 edition of National Review described the conservative youth activists who agitated to get Barry Goldwater on the ballot with presidential nominee Richard Nixon:

Youth was everywhere at the Republican convention. Youth managed the various candidates’ booths. Youth waved the posters. Youth held the convention parade, and it was youth, primarily, that staged the Presidential demonstration Wednesday night … Lots of the young people had no ideological interest, they had come … well, because their family was Republican … But those who were serious, the ones who will be working hardest to guide the Republican Party in the future, were conservatives: and most of them Goldwater fans. They passed out 15,000 Goldwater buttons, handed out literature, rallied inside and outside the amphitheater. They greeted Richard Nixon at the airport with Goldwater signs, and did the same thing for President Eisenhower the next day. 

The editorial then noted: “They drove one Nixon aide into muttering in exasperation ‘Those damn Goldwater people are everywhere.’”

Youth might not show up in droves at the ballot box, but their activism and enthusiasm has long been a driving force behind the direction of both major parties. This has been particularly true of the Republican Party and the conservative movement.

The youth activists who so passionately championed Goldwater in 1960 and 1964 were at the forefront of a conservative revolution that would eventually take over the GOP and deliver Ronald Reagan the White House. The old Republican guard, which preferred Nelson Rockefeller, would push back in ’60 and ’64, and the establishment fought hard against conservatives again in 1976 when Reagan challenged President Ford. But by 1980, the old Republican guard was simply no match for the long-building Reagan Revolution, something everyone concedes started with Goldwater.

And it all began with youth." 

From The Daily Caller

The Barry Goldwater conservative movement of the mid 1960s and even late 1960s launched Ron Reagan into office as President of the United States in 1980. But actually Congressional Republicans didn’t get the majority back in the House, or Senate in the mid and late 1960s, but made them a strong minority in both chambers. As well as Richard Nixon elected and reelected President of the United States in 1968 and 72, placed Ron Reagan in strong place to be the GOP frontrunner for President.

After losing in 1976, Ron Reagan became the Republican frontrunner in 1980. The way Gerry Ford governed as President of the United States in the mid 1970s, fiscally conservative, as well as respecting personal freedom and civil liberties, all of these things started with Barry Goldwater when he ran for President in 1964. And took sixteen years for it all to come together with a Republican president in 1980, a Republican Senate for the first time, since 1952 and a large Republican minority in the House of Representatives in 1980 as well. Where House Republicans led by Minority Leader Bob Michael, could work in coalition with right-wing Southern Democrats in the House, to pass and block legislation.

What happened with the Barry Goldwater conservative movement of the mid 1960s and what it finally led up to and what’s going on with the Ron Paul libertarian movement of today in the Republican Party, both have one thing in common: neither one was big enough to be a governing coalition in the United States, or even a leading coalition in the Republican Party, where they hold a lot of leadership positions. Back in the mid 1960s, America was still in the LBJ Great Society Progressive Era. Where Americans by in large wanted and liked big government taking care of them. And we are obviously pass that now. But Ron Paul’s problem in the Republican Party are the Neoconservatives and Religious-Right are still in charge of the Republican Party. 

But what they also have in common with the Goldwater Conservatives of the 1960s, is the old-guard is dying off and losing influence. While the Goldwater Conservatives were growing back then. And the Libertarian Republicans are growing today, as the Religious-Right and Neoconservatives are dying off and losing influence.

As then U.S. Senator Jim DeMint said back in 2012 before he became President of the right-wing populist Heritage Foundation political action group: “The Republican Party needs to become more Libertarian for them to be successful in the future.” But they do not have to embrace all of their positions, but they have to move in that direction on social issues. And get back to being a real fiscally conservative party. And stop nominating presidential candidates who run as fiscal Conservatives, but have records that suggest otherwise. Who run as Religious-Conservatives, but have records that also suggest otherwise. And get back to being a real Conservative-Libertarian-Federalist party again, that can compete and be successful all over America.

Jack Hunter: ‘Libertarianism For Social Conservatives’

Source:The American Conservative- talk about your political odd couples: Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.

“At the Conservative Political Action Conference last weekend, the nation’s largest annual gathering of conservatives, many speculated that the GOP might be veering in a more libertarian direction—or at least influential leaders within the party might be prodding it or might be anxious for it to go in that direction. The Daily Beast ran the headline “Libertarians run the show at CPAC.” In his CPAC speech, former presidential candidate Rick Santorum warned that conservatives should not surrender their principles, referring specifically to social issues.

Some on both the left and right perceive libertarianism as inherently hostile to social conservatism. Some libertarians even think this. This is not only a misperception, but flat out wrong—libertarianism offers social conservatives a better hope for success in our current political environment than the nationalist approach often favored by some social conservative leaders.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference last weekend, the nation’s largest annual gathering of conservatives, many speculated that the GOP might be veering in a more libertarian direction—or at least influential leaders within the party might be prodding it or might be anxious for it to go in that direction. The Daily Beast ran the headline “Libertarians run the show at CPAC.” In his CPAC speech, former presidential candidate Rick Santorum warned that conservatives should not surrender their principles, referring specifically to social issues.

Some on both the left and right perceive libertarianism as inherently hostile to social conservatism. Some libertarians even think this. This is not only a misperception, but flat out wrong—libertarianism offers social conservatives a better hope for success in our current political environment than the nationalist approach often favored by some social conservative leaders.

Part of the beauty of libertarianism is that you can be socially liberal or socially conservative and subscribe to the label. For the millions of social conservatives who constitute a significant base of the Republicans Party, embracing libertarianism is not an all-or-nothing question of accepting or rejecting deep convictions about life, traditional marriage, or drug regulation. It simply means rethinking the approach to these issues.

The distance between mere rhetoric and tangible success for social conservatives essentially comes down to this question: Does the federal government always have to become involved? Or should certain decisions be made at the state and local level, as the framers of the Constitution intended?

The protection of innocent life is the number one concern of millions of Americans in both parties. Most pro-lifers believe that Roe v. Wade was constitutionally unsound, and indeed, some pro-choice advocates even admit that the legal reasoning was flawed. Given the gravity of what’s at stake, it is understandable that many would demand federal protection of the unborn.” 

From The American Conservative 

I guess I’m just old fashion here, but when I think of the term conservative, I think of someone who believes in conserving. And when I think of conservative in a political and governmental sense, I think of someone who believes in conserving the U.S. Constitution. Not someone who wants to blow up the U.S. Constitution and our Federal Republic to advance some fundamentalist, religious and cultural agenda and try to stuff their fundamentalism on the rest of the country, with the force of Uncle Sam.

Jack Hunter’s best line in his column was: “The distance between mere rhetoric and tangible success for social conservatives essentially comes down to this question: Does the federal government always have to become involved? Or should certain decisions be made at the state and local level, as the framers of the Constitution intended?” I mean this is what this is about really, which is the role of the Federal Government.

If you really are an American Conservative, do you really believe it’s the role of Uncle Sam to decide social and cultural policy for the rest of the country, as if America is now the United Theocratic or Unitarian States of America and we’re no longer a Federal Republic with sovereign states?

Or do you believe in American traditionalism and are a traditionalist when it comes to culture and religion, but you also understand that America is a Federal Republic with a strong Constitution and there’s only so much for the Federal Government to do constitutionally. And therefor the states are better left to deal with social and cultural policy both constitutionally, but also in practicality, since they’re the folks who are closest to the people.

I don’t think this is a question of whether Conservatives should be opposed to same-sex-marriage, pornography, adultery, gambling, abortion, alcohol, tobacco, dancing, rock culture, hip hop culture, women working and managing and owning businesses, all issues that Rick Santorum and his supporters made part of his 2012 presidential campaign. I think the real question here is whose best to deal with these issues; the states and localities or Uncle Sam? If you are a Federalist and a Constitutionalist, I think the answer is obvious. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Liberty Pen: Barry Goldwater- 'To The Future From The Past (1964)'

Source:Liberty Pen- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona Mr. Conservative, running for President in 1964.

"Goldwater warns of future Social Security insolvency, inflation, central planning and deficit spending. (1964) Liberty Pen" 

From Liberty Pen

Senator Barry Goldwater as part of his 1964 presidential campaign warning us of what he saw was a dangerous experiment with socialism in America and that it was time for Americans to get back to their constitutional roots and limit government.

George F. Will: 'Modern Progressivism See Constitution’s Limits As, Well, Unconstitutional'

Source:East Bay Times- U.S Senate Democratic Leadership. From Left to Right (not necessarily ideologically) Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Patty Murray.

"Ideas are not responsible for the people who believe them, but when evaluating Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s ideas for making the Senate more like the House of Representatives, consider the source. Reid is just a legislative mechanic trying to make Congress’ machinery efficiently responsive to his party’s progressivism. And proper progressives think the Constitution, understood as a charter of limited government, is unconstitutional.

They think the “living” Constitution gives government powers sufficient for whatever its ambitions are, enabling it to respond quickly to clamorous majorities. Hence the progressive campaign to substantially weaken the ability of senators to use filibusters to delay action.

Until 1917, it was generally impossible to stop extended Senate debates. Then — during the administration of Woodrow Wilson, the Democrats’ first progressive president — the Senate adopted the cloture rule whereby debate could be ended by a two-thirds majority vote. In 1975, the requirement was lowered to three-fifths. If there is now another weakening of minority rights, particularly by a change brought about by breaking Senate rules, the Senate will resemble the House. There the majority controls the process and the disregarded minority can only hope to one day become the majority and repay disregard in kind.

Wilson was the first president to criticize the American founding, which he did because the Constitution bristles with delaying and blocking mechanisms, especially the separation of powers. The point of progressivism, say its adherents, is to progress up from the Founders’ fetish with limiting government and restraining majorities. Hence progressives’ animus against the filibuster, which protects minority rights by allowing for the measurement of intensity as well as mere numbers." 

You can read the rest of George Will's column at the East Bay Times 

George Will's column is about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (Democrat, Nevada) attempt to reform the Senate to make it harder for the minority party (in this case the Republican Party) to block legislation by simply voting against cloture, instead of actually just filibustering legislation by holding the floor and speaking about whatever the bill on the floor is. Or blocking legislation by simply voting against the motion to proceed resolution, that also requires 60 votes for the Senate to just begin debate on any bill that needs 60 votes to break a filibuster. 

I agree with George Will that the Senate should not become like the House of Representatives and it should remain the upper chamber of Congress where minority rights are protected and where the Senate Minority Leader should remain a major player in as far as how legislation is written and passed. But right now the Senate is the Congressional graveyard where legislation goes to die. Where Senate Republicans led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, blocks any legislation that wasn't already passed by the Republican House, generally with just 43-47 votes out of a hundred. 

When the two parties and leaders in the Senate can't come together on any legislation, the Senate Majority Leader should be able to act on his own to bring legislation and executive nominees up for consideration. And the Senate minority party, led by the Minority Leader should be able to offer and indefinite amount of relevant amendments to the current legislation that's being offered, within a certain period of time. And after every amendment is offered and every member who wants to be heard on any bill and nominee that's being considered is given that opportunity, the Senate would then vote up or down. 

If the minority party, led by the Minority Leader, actually wants to hold the floor and filibuster the legislation, they could do that to block the legislation, until they give up the floor or are cut off with 60 votes or more for cloture. Instead of just voting against cloture, just to block legislation. If Republicans were in the majority in the Senate, they would want this same authority as well.  

Jack Hunter: 'Constitutional Conservatism'

Source:The Daily Caller- conservative blogger Jack Hunter.

"This is the third installment in Jack Hunter’s new Daily Caller video commentary series, “The Deal with Jack Hunter.” In this week’s installment, Jack argues that Rick Santorum’s insistence that the federal government should set national social policies threatens both our constitutional and moral values.

Jack Hunter (also known by his radio moniker the “Southern Avenger”) is a frequent guest on Fox Business, Michael Savage’s nationally syndicated radio program “The Savage Nation” and a frequent guest host on The Mike Church Show on Sirius XM. Hunter is the co-author of “The Tea Party Goes to Washington” by Sen. Rand Paul, assisted Sen. Jim DeMint with his book “Now or Never: How to Save America from Economic Collapse” and writes the Paulitical Ticker blog for the Ron Paul 2012 Campaign." 

From The Daily Caller

"Jack Hunter, radio personality & columnist, weighs in on today's definition of Conservatism. Liberty Political Action Conference (LPAC) in Reno, NV

Brought to you by Liberty News Network - a project of The John Birch Society." 

Source:The New American- conservative blogger Jack Hunter.

From The New American 

"In a heavily Democratic state, Goldwater became a conservative Republican and a friend of Herbert Hoover. He was outspoken against New Deal liberalism, especially its close ties to labor unions. A pilot, amateur radio operator, outdoorsman and photographer, he criss-crossed Arizona and developed a deep interest in both the natural and the human history of the state. He entered Phoenix politics in 1949, when he was elected to the City Council as part of a nonpartisan team of candidates pledged to clean up widespread prostitution and gambling. The team won every mayoral and council election for the next two decades. Goldwater rebuilt the weak Republican party and was instrumental in electing Howard Pyle as Governor in 1950. 

Goldwater's maverick and direct style had made him extremely popular with Republican Party's suburban conservative voters, based on the South and the senator's native West. Following the success of Conscience of a Conservative, Goldwater became the frontrunner for the GOP Presidential nomination to run against his close friend John F. Kennedy.[69] Despite their disagreements on politics, Goldwater and Kennedy had grown to become close friends during the eight years they served alongside each other in the Senate. With Goldwater the clear GOP frontrunner, he and Kennedy began planning to campaign together, holding Lincoln-Douglas style debates across the country and avoiding a race defined by the kind of negative attacks that were increasingly coming to define American politics." 

Source:Wikipedia- Mr. Conservative U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona)

From Wikipedia

Jack Hunter's brand of conservatism, is the same conservatism as Barry Goldwater's or Calvin Coolidge's or Warren Harding's conservatism, from the 1920s, perhaps even Robert Taft's conservatism from the 1940s, Gerald Ford's from the 1960s and 70s. 

This conservatism is known as classical or constitutional conservatism, conservative libertarianism, that's based on limited government and that the government that works the best, does the least, meaning only what we actually need it do to and is the government that's closest to home. Instead of having a Federal solution to deal with every social and right-wing cultural war issue that the country is debating. 

So when you have right-wing Christian populists like Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann stand up and run for high office, promising to fight and win the Cultural War with big government, Federal programs and policies, the Jack Hunter's of the world stand up and say, no. There isn't a Federal solution to solve every issue that the Christian-Right in America sees as problems that country faces. 

PBS Newshour: George McGovern & Barry Goldwater: 'On Divisive Politics & '88 Election'

Source:PBS NewsHour- former U.S. Representative and Senator George McGovern (Democrat, South Dakota) on the PBS NewsHour in 1988.

"On Oct. 13, 1988, only weeks before the presidential election of George H.W. Bush over Michael Dukakis, former Sens. George McGovern and Barry Goldwater dropped by the MacNeil/Lehrer Report to discuss the state of the race, the divisive politics of their parties and the legacy of conservatism and liberalism." 

From the PBS NewsHour 

"The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and non-commercial,[7][8][9] free-to-air television network[10][11][12][13] based in Arlington, Virginia. PBS is a publicly funded[14] nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing shows such as Frontline, Nova, PBS NewsHour, Sesame Street, and This Old House.[15]

PBS is funded by a combination of member station dues, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, pledge drives, and donations from both private foundations and individual citizens. All proposed funding for programming is subject to a set of standards to ensure the program is free of influence from the funding source.[16] PBS has over 350 member television stations, many owned by educational institutions, nonprofit groups both independent or affiliated with one particular local public school district or collegiate educational institution, or entities owned by or related to state government." 

From Wikipedia 

"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, private property and a market economy." 

From Wikipedia 

"Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy that seeks to promote and to preserve traditional social institutions and practices.[1][2] The central tenets of conservatism may vary in relation to the status quo of the culture and civilization in which it appears. In Western culture, conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as organized religion, parliamentary government, and property rights.[3] Conservatives tend to favor institutions and practices that guarantee stability and evolved gradually.[2] Adherents of conservatism often oppose progressivism and seek a return to traditional values." 

From Wikipedia

I'll give you Senator George McGovern's definition of what it means to be a Liberal and I'm paraphrasing: 

A Liberal is the champion of the underdog and someone who believes in using government, especially the national government, to meet the needs of the masses. And the supposed underdog in America is everybody between racial and ethnic minorities, to women of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, to gays, to the disabled, everyone in America whose faced racial, ethnic, sexual, or discrimination based on sexuality, or social and economic hardship  in America. That's essentially George McGovern't definition of what it means to be a Liberal in America.

"Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that supports political democracy and some form of a socially owned economy,[1] with a particular emphasis on economic democracy, workplace democracy, and workers' self-management[2] within a market socialist economy, or an alternative form of decentralised planned socialist economy.[3] Democratic socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the values of freedom, equality, and solidarity and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realisation of a socialist society.[4] Although most democratic socialists seek a gradual transition to socialism,[5] democratic socialism can support either revolutionary or reformist politics as means to establish socialism.[6] Democratic socialism was popularized by socialists who were opposed to the backsliding towards a one-party state in the Soviet Union and other nations during the 20th century." 

From Wikipedia 

Now, if you can tell the political differences between the so-called Modern Liberal (which is just another term for Socialist) and a Democratic Socialist, you must be using, or perhaps have stolen Superman's x-ray vision, because there no real differences. 

The real definition of what it means to be a Liberal (classical or otherwise) is the Wikipedia definition (that I linked on this post) someone who is a champion of individual rights for everyone, not just the special few. Someone who believes in quality of opportunity and freedom and responsibility for everyone, not just the special few

Jack Hunter: 'President Obama Kept Us Safe'

Source:The American Conservative- from Jack Hunter's page at TAC.

"When I repeatedly denounced George W. Bush’s doubling of the size of government during the last election, Republicans had one primary defense of their president: “Bush kept us safe.” Indeed, little else seemed to matter to most Republicans at the time, as the party rallied around their leader, his record and a GOP presidential nominee who ran on a virtually identical platform. The War on Terror trumped all else, Republicans insisted, as the party devoted itself fully to the Warrior in Chief—who also happened to be one of the most big government presidents in American history.

Last week, President Obama significantly out-Bushed Bush: We killed Osama Bin Laden. Judging by their top priority for most of the last decade, it would seem that most Republicans will now vote for Obama in 2012. Sure, Bush doubled the size of government and the debt. Big deal—we were fighting a War on Terror. Sure, it’s true that Obama is now tripling the size of government and our debt. But so what—President Obama just killed the world’s top terrorist! “Obama kept us safe” might even be enough to carry the president through the next election.

The mindless war rhetoric the GOP cultivated during the Bush years might just be the Democrats’ best election weapon. Just let possible GOP presidential contenders Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney try to bash Obama for only fighting three Middle Eastern wars instead of four (the neoconservatives are dying for a war with Iran). Just try to let Republicans bash Obama for “apologizing” for America, whatever the hell that means. It’s bumper sticker time, baby: “Obama killed Osama!” What’s “weak” about that? How many terrorists have Newt or Mitt killed?

Heading into 2012, could domestic policy once again take a backseat to foreign policy? After all, the “official” estimate for what it cost to kill Bin Laden from 9/11 to last week is $1.28 trillion. This is basically the dollar difference between Bush’s national debt and Obama’s. It seems that “freedom isn’t free”: It cost $1.28 trillion. This is only slightly more than the supposed “official” cost of Obamacare.

The truth is we could have captured or killed Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and other Al-Qaeda leaders for significantly less money, without invading Iraq or staying in Afghanistan for a decade, and most importantly, without losing so many American soldiers. Bin Laden was assassinated using military intelligence and a handful of highly trained soldiers, or as columnist George Will noted: “bin Laden was brought down by intelligence gathering that more resembles excellent police work than a military operation… the enormous military footprint in Afghanistan, next door to bin Laden’s Pakistan refuge, seems especially disproportionate in the wake of his elimination by a small cadre of specialists.”

There is a difference between the very real, if often overblown, war on Islamic terrorism in which we find ourselves, and the War on Terror narrative, in which virtually any foreign policy misadventure can be rationalized by invoking 9/11. But with the mastermind behind 9/11 dead, the question for America is now this: Is it time to come home? And if the death of Bin Laden is not the time, when will that time be?

The death of Bin Laden is a reason for all Americans to celebrate—and the celebration certainly cuts across party lines. But at precisely the moment many Americans and a majority of the Republican Party seem most concerned about the size of government and deficit spending, many conservatives are using the death of Bin Laden to vindicate Bush, the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, “enhanced interrogation” and all the rest. This takes us right back to the Bush era contradiction of supposedly being for limited government while supporting leaders who consider it unlimited. “Getting back to the Constitution,” as the Tea Party now demands, is going to be awfully hard while simultaneously defending a president who arguably did more violence to the Constitution than any other.

In the wake of Osama’s death, Republicans have been quick to point out that Obama basically continued Bush’s entire national security agenda, and he did. In fact, he expanded it. But Obama has also carried out and expanded Bush’s domestic agenda. This is not a coincidence. Big government abroad is impossible without big government at home, and both presidents have been unsurprisingly consistent in their statism.

On both domestic and foreign policy, America desperately needs a cost/benefit analysis, not simply a blind defense of cost during a time of national jubilation. The death of America’s top enemy—and the way in which we achieved it—should encourage national reflection and hopefully a major reassessment of what this country can realistically achieve militarily. We should also begin to consider what we can afford and what we cannot.

All Americans should be happy we finally got Bin Laden. No American should be happy with the amount of money we’ve wasted and the number of lives we’ve sacrificed to do so, precisely because most of it wasn’t necessary to get Osama.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates says that our debt is the greatest threat to our national security, which means neither Bush or Obama have kept this country safe. Now is not the time to forget it." 

From The American Conservative

Just the fact that a Conservative blogger would be willing to admit that President Obama kept us safe, says it all. No matter what arguments that they make about President Obama's economic record, this is more than Mitt Romney could do. 

Jack Hunter arguing that what Republicans have been arguing that it's OK to be a Big Government, borrow and spend Republican, if you keep America safe. Which is what he's saying that partisan Republicans were saying about President George W. Bush in the 2000s: 

"So what if President Bush doubles the size of the Federal Government and national debt. America is now safer than we were 10 years earlier." I think a lot of Republicans would disagree with Hunter's argument here, but he's right. The Republican Party forgot about, or ignored fiscal responsibility and limited government, once they had The White House and Congress in the 2000s.

Jack Hunter: 'Neoconservatism is Stupid'

Source:Liberty in Time- Jack Hunter talking about neoconservatism.

"Mitt Romney reminded everyone with his foreign policy speech this week." 

From Liberty in Our Time 

"Neoconservatism, variant of the political ideology of conservatism that combines features of traditional conservatism with political individualism and a qualified endorsement of free markets. Neoconservatism arose in the United States in the 1970s among intellectuals who shared a dislike of communism and a disdain for the counterculture of the 1960s, especially its political radicalism and its animus against authority, custom, and tradition." 

Source:Britannica- Jane Kilpatrick I guess is someone that Britannica identifies as a Neoconservative.

From Britannica 

I think before someone talks about Neoconservatives and neoconservatism, they should first know who and what they're talking about. Hopefully that sounds obvious and fair enough. 

Is neoconservatism a national security policy or is a broader political philosophy with a strong and national security and foreign policy that's part of it? I tend to look at it as a broader political philosophy the same way I look at socialism or communism as broader political philosophies as well. The only evidence that you need to know about that is to look at George W. Bush presidency that had that strong, hawkish foreign policy, to go along with a reformist-conservative (progressive-conservative, if you will) economic policy. 

President George W. Bush was never a hard core, right-wing, classical conservative ideologue, at any point during his political career. But someone as President and as Governor of Texas, was a reformist-conservative (Progressive Republican, if you will) as Governor of Texas, who brought those reform-minded reform conservative values to The White House. And became very hawkish on foreign policy and national security after 9/11. So ideologically I would put President Bush down as a Neoconservative Republican, which means he was very hawkish on foreign policy and national security, but very reformist, progressive even (in a Republican sense) on economic and social policy. 

So, my personal definition of a Neoconservative, is a Progressive Republican, or Right-Progressive. Men like Richard Nixon and Nelson Rockefeller fit into this ideological camp. The ideas of Welfare To Work and reforming the private health care and health insurance system, the Patients Bill of Rights, clean air, environmental standards, President Nixon was a pro-civil rights President and so were both President Bush's. School choice both private and public are neoconservative ideas. 

Newt Gingrich at least when he was in the House and even as Speaker was a Progressive Republican, or Neoconservative. Senator Joe Lieberman is a Neoconservative and so is Senator John McCain, even though they're from different parties.  Comprehensive immigration reform is a neoconservative idea, as well as reforming as public assistance system so it moves people out of poverty, with things like child care and job training, school choice for kids of low-income parents, incentivizing work, even low-income work, over not working at all, instead of just subsidizing people while they'll in poverty. Or just slashing and burning programs, which is what Conservatives has traditionally wanted to do with our public assistance programs. Medicare Advantage and giving seniors choice in how they get their health insurance and health care, instead of just eliminating Medicare or nationalizing the entire health insurance or health care system, these are all neoconservative ideas. 

Neoconservatism rose in the 1960s with Richard Nixon and perhaps with Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s, as a response to the New Deal and Great Society progressivism from that period. As well as a Center-Right alternative to the rise of Robert Taft/Barry Goldwater, classical conservatism of that period. That George W. Bush and his followers picked up again in the 2000s to respond to the right-wing conservative takeover of the Republican Party, to show Americans that there's a Republican third way in dealing with our domestic and economic issues that a lot of Americans are facing, without looking like Socialists, who just happen to be Republicans. 

To reply to what Jack Hunter said about neoconservatism: I think to label any philosophy outright as stupid, is stupid. So perhaps it takes an idiot to know an idiot. Actually, I don't believe Jack Hunter is an idiot, but there are plenty of people if not a lot of people who are very intelligent that come from all sorts of different political movements and philosophies. 

There are plenty of problems with the neoconservatism as it relates to foreign policy and national security, with their preemptive wars, putting national security over civil liberties, their borrow and spend, supply side economic policy and all the deficits and debt that we're still paying for that. But with one broad stroke to label neoconservatism as stupid, is stupid.