Pseudo-conservatives
To me,
the real conservatives are what many people call “paleoconservatives.”
What people now often call “conservative”
strikes me as being more accurately called “pseudo-conservative.”
Most of the neocons I would consider as pseudo-cons.
Here are some other examples of the pseudo-con class.
By Michael Gerson
Washington Post, 2010-07-09
[Michael Gerson spewed the following:]
In America, the ideology of libertarianism is itself a scandal.
It involves not only a retreat from Obamaism
but a retreat from the most basic social commitments
to the weak, the elderly and the disadvantaged,
along with a withdrawal from American global commitments.
[What a joke of a columnist!
Do “America’s most basic social commitments” call for
spending 17 percent of the GDP on “health care”?
I don’t think so.
That amount can and should be pared back to
the 1950s level of five percent of the GDP.
Sure, some old folks would have to forgo their joint replacements,
and no doubt would not live thirty or more years after their retirement,
as many view as their, literally, entitlement.
Fewer grandmas would be out on the dance floor
dancing on their seventieth wedding anniversary.
Perhaps they would do as grandparents traditionally did,
relinquish the center stage to their daughters and grand-daughters.
Perhaps they would achieve contentment and fulfillment
from seeing how well their offspring were doing.
Perhaps they would not be so self-centered.
In any case,
that pre-Great Society level of spending on the elderly
would hardly qualify in a sane world as
the “a retreat from the most basic level of social commitment.”
Rather, it would be viewed as
a sane move to batten down the hatches of the ship of state
so that it could withstand
the fiscal storms ahead.
Gerson, in that sentence, shows indelibly what he truly is:
a Great Society liberal.
To bill himself as a conservative, and for the media to so bill him,
is clearly a case of (intellectual) fraud.
As to “America’s global commitments,”
Gerson in past columns has shown himself to be a full supporter of
the insane passion of the “elite”
to bankrupt America on foolish and unnecessary commitments abroad,
from the whole range of involvement in the Greater Middle East
to such foolishness pushed by
the white trash that forms the Zionist occupation government
as a commitment to, of all places, the country of Georgia in the Caucasus region.
What on earth does America care who rules South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
Why do the media/political elite first demand, and then give,
an American commitment on that subject?]
the real conservatives are what many people call “paleoconservatives.”
What people now often call “conservative”
strikes me as being more accurately called “pseudo-conservative.”
Most of the neocons I would consider as pseudo-cons.
Here are some other examples of the pseudo-con class.
Michael Gerson
2010-07-09-Gerson-Tea-Party
For the GOP, a risky wave to ride or turn backBy Michael Gerson
Washington Post, 2010-07-09
[Michael Gerson spewed the following:]
In America, the ideology of libertarianism is itself a scandal.
It involves not only a retreat from Obamaism
but a retreat from the most basic social commitments
to the weak, the elderly and the disadvantaged,
along with a withdrawal from American global commitments.
[What a joke of a columnist!
Do “America’s most basic social commitments” call for
spending 17 percent of the GDP on “health care”?
I don’t think so.
That amount can and should be pared back to
the 1950s level of five percent of the GDP.
Sure, some old folks would have to forgo their joint replacements,
and no doubt would not live thirty or more years after their retirement,
as many view as their, literally, entitlement.
Fewer grandmas would be out on the dance floor
dancing on their seventieth wedding anniversary.
Perhaps they would do as grandparents traditionally did,
relinquish the center stage to their daughters and grand-daughters.
Perhaps they would achieve contentment and fulfillment
from seeing how well their offspring were doing.
Perhaps they would not be so self-centered.
In any case,
that pre-Great Society level of spending on the elderly
would hardly qualify in a sane world as
the “a retreat from the most basic level of social commitment.”
Rather, it would be viewed as
a sane move to batten down the hatches of the ship of state
so that it could withstand
the fiscal storms ahead.
Gerson, in that sentence, shows indelibly what he truly is:
a Great Society liberal.
To bill himself as a conservative, and for the media to so bill him,
is clearly a case of (intellectual) fraud.
As to “America’s global commitments,”
Gerson in past columns has shown himself to be a full supporter of
the insane passion of the “elite”
to bankrupt America on foolish and unnecessary commitments abroad,
from the whole range of involvement in the Greater Middle East
to such foolishness pushed by
the white trash that forms the Zionist occupation government
as a commitment to, of all places, the country of Georgia in the Caucasus region.
What on earth does America care who rules South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
Why do the media/political elite first demand, and then give,
an American commitment on that subject?]
Labels: conservatism, politics, pseudo-conservatives
posted by KHarbaugh at 11:00
<< Home