Tuesday, January 24, 2012

The Neo-Con Quandary

I read something today that captures brilliantly the quandary that neo-cons are in. The National Review features a piece about the dangers of nominating Newt Gingrich, Hour Of Newt. This paragraph is the key  from this article (emphasis added):
Among the present candidates, we continue to prefer Romney and Rick Santorum over Gingrich and Ron Paul. Our opposition to Paul is based on our disagreement with a foreign policy based on what we consider a dangerously naïve and narrow conception of U.S. interests. Our opposition to Gingrich, by contrast, is not based on any philosophical disagreement. Among Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum, we find only minor ideological differences. None has been a consistent small-government conservative in office; all are running on conservative, and similar, platforms this year.
Did you catch that? Romney. Santorum. Gingrich. All have held office in the past. None have been a true small-government conservative when in office. All are promising to be that sort of conservatives if elected. One man is missing from that list. Ron Paul. No one can seriously charge Paul with failing to be a consistent small-government conservative. Yet he is treated like a leper by the National Review and other neo-con dominated organs. Why? Because of his non-interventionist stance on foreign policy, a foreign policy that is in line with the Constitution but out of step with the military worshipping mindset of the modern GOP.

So for conservatives the choice this year for the candidate to face Obama comes down to three men who have failed to lead as conservatives when given the chance but who say the "right" things about foreign policy and promise to be better conservatives this time arounf or the one man who has consistently over the years been an unwavering conservative voice for drastically smaller government. One actual conservative, three men who promise to govern differently now than in the past. The choice seems simple.
Post a Comment