... and I am NOT a "conservative" ... or am I?

My Nolan Chart

According to the Nolan Chart (based on the "World's Smallest Political Quiz"), I definitely am not "conservative" in the sense that I generally favor social restrictions with my economic liberty. In fact, I appear to be just a bit left of center, a fact that never ceases to amaze me.

However, in 2007, Harrison Bergeron gave a rigorous definition of conservatism in Conservative Heritage Times that also appeals to me, even down to the defense of marriage (though we probably disagree as to whether government should bolster that defense).

In Mr. Bergeron's view, conservatism essentially takes three political positions: to favor limited, decentralized government, preservation of traditional culture, and a rejection of intervention "at home and abroad." What he means by the last is that conservatives are opposed to social re-engineering projects, taking of property to effect equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity; and of course, military adventures abroad.

By contrast, neoconservatives favor big centralized government, universalism ("local culture at home and abroad are impediments to their globalist agenda"), and global interventionism.

Leon Trotsky

Mr. Bergeron then goes on to show how neoconservatives have even admitted that their philosophy is based on that of Soviet Communist Leon Trotsky. Here are two examples:

President George Bush follows the Neocon/Trotskyite agenda of global liberation in his second inaugural address:

Because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts we have lit a fire as well, a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power; it burns those who fight its progress. And one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

And here is a confession from Stephen Schwartz in 2003 published in National Review, long thought to be a "conservative" publication:

“And the fact is that many of the original generation of neoconservatives had a background of association with Trotskyism in its Shachtmanite iteration; that is, they belonged to or sympathized with a trend in radical leftism that followed the principle of opposition to the Soviet betrayal of the revolution to its logical end. The Shachtmanites, in the 1960s, joined the AFL-CIO in its best Cold War period, and many became staunch Reaganites.
This path had been pioneered much earlier by two Trotskyists: James Burnham, who became a founder of National Review, and Irving Kristol, who worked on Encounter magazine.”

And how does that author feel about Trotsky today?

“To my last breath I will defend the Trotsky who alone, and pursued from country to country, and finally laid low in his own blood in a hideously hot little house in Mexico City.”

Click to enlarge
Trotsky appropriately depicted at lower left

Both liberals and neocons have this agenda, as observed by the Chicago Tribune April 21, 1934 (cartoon at left -- the link explains the roles of the men riding the donkey and the cart).

In other words, neoconservatives are liberals in sheep's clothing. Keep this in mind the next time that Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, or even David Webb try to confuse you or your friends into thinking that neocons are "conservative." And for my part, I will consider the possibility that I am.

Virtual buckeye to Rebellion.

Look familiar?

Cartoon from the Chicago Tribune in 1934, but it could have been today. Look carefully at the plan of action in the lower left corner, and who is showing approval on the lower right corner. One writer has suggested that the character writing the plan of action appears to be Leon Trotsky.

Click on the image to enlarge.

Virtual buckeye to Rebellion.

Why we should welcome the decline of empire

Those of us who have been involved in secessionism have become accustomed to the United States being referred to as an empire; possibly beginning with Kirkpatrick Sale’s article in counterpunch in February 2005.

However, when an Ohioan other than myself writes a published letter to the editor of the Columbus Dispatch under the title “Empires are always dying from within” –well, that made me sit up and take notice.

What aroused Elizabeth Richter’s ire was Jonah Goldberg’s assertion that “empire” is a necessity if we are to achieve "globalism, military success, capitalism and liberty." She cited John Quincy Adams in an 1821 speech as expressing his opposition to what we now call “nation-building” in these terms: "We do not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy." Instead, Ms. Richter noted, we are to create such a free and prosperous nation that the rest of the world will try to imitate us.

President Adams also told Congress that if we did try to destroy the monsters of our world that we would become a "dictatress" of the world, and this would damage our liberty.
Ms. Richter then observes with considerable irony the resemblance between the neoconservative philosophy and those of Leon Trotsky and Machiavelli, especially the beliefs that lying is necessary for the state to survive and that the ends justify the means if those in power are virtuous.

She then concludes, “All tyranny is based upon an insistence of those in power to create utopia on Earth. This position is directly opposed to the non-utopian Christian worldview of our Founders, who believed in a messy and widely shared division of power inherent in our Republic.”

Amen!