Dennis Prager lists his beliefs.
The following is a list of beliefs that I hold. Nearly every one of them was a liberal position until the late 1960s. Not one of them is now.
…
Finally, I believe that there are millions of Americans who share most of these beliefs who still call themselves “liberal” or “progressive” and who therefore vote Democrat. They do so because they still identify liberalism with pre-1970 liberalism or because they are emotionally attached to the word “liberal.”
As a former “liberal,” I agree completely.
13 Comments
Of all the neocon talkn’ heds out-ere, I like Prager th’ best. He’s a good man. In a way the likes of Hew Hughitt & Co. ain’t. Too bad, tho’, like all neocons, he don’t understaind wut true conservatism really is.
He’s ohnly part way there, Richie. ‘N if’n ye thank Prager is th’ cat’s meow as far as conservatism is corncerned, so are you.
But keep diggin’, bro. The Orthurdox Faith will show you th’ way. Jus’ as lohng as ye pay close attenshun.
As sumthin’ of an aside. . .
What a restored Christendom wud look like, please God (though, admittedly, it wudn’t look like-iss in a free Dixie). A music video from Serbia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KwsN4tnvnE&feature=related
I say “sumthin’” of an aside. It very much relates t’ th’ issur at haind. Ever’thang that is good, noble ‘n pure ’bout th’ Orthurdox Faith, Richie, stainds in stark contraist t’ th’ neocon mindset. Please try t’ understaind-att.
Rich, I always enjoy Prager’s writing. Thanks for posting this. I’ve always voted Republican, spent 20 years in the Air Force, and have been working full time for 40 years, so I guess I never fell for the liberal bull—-. Snaggle-Tooth doesn’t even know what neocon (this is a liberal made up name) means, as shown by his completely nonsensical writings posted on your site. And, if he is taking a cheap shot regarding your Orthodox faith, he needs to shut up and post on DailyKos. He clearly does not understand that Christian faith is in agreement with Republican values (starting with the liberal’s position on killing innoncents—abortion and partial birth abortion and embryonic stem cell research) Snaggle-Tooth is not funny, not entertaining, and not coherent on what Republicans stand for.
Again, Thanks for this Prager piece on your site, which I enjoy reading every day!
‘L, att’s what th’ utterly benighted Sharon says, Richie.
But wudda you say? Inquirin’ minds want t’ know.
You have my e-mail correspondence, bro. ‘N you know where I’m-a comin’ from. Wut say ye?
P.S.: Sharon:
I’ve forgotten more ’bout neoconservatism thin ye know. Forgive me fir bein’ blunt, but thar it is.
Tell me, Richie ‘n Sharon: wut substantial gains have ye made in the pro-life cause under the GOP, from 1980 to 2008? Lotta rhetorical bluster, att’s all, from all I kin tell. Got some conservative-leanin’ justices on SCOTUS, but at th’ end of the day, will they really deliver? I thank not. SCOTUS is jus’ all too predictable. And even if they wuz to deliver some sorta substantial pro-life rulin’, wud the American people ‘n the states foller?
No, thangs wud be ’bout th’ same, far as I kin tell. See, it’s a cultural issur as much as it is a political one. You necons put yir misguided trust in th’ arm of the flesh, whin, ultimately, the arm of the flesh won’t deliver th’ Christian culture ye seek. Like Israel dependin’ ohn pagan Egypt: you put yir hope ohn-att, but yir days are numbered.
“Christian faith is in agreement with Republican values.” Ha! Wut a joke.
No dearie, Christian faith is in agreement with TRULY CONSERVATIVE values, but the GOP has long deserted th’ latter. Wake up, Ma’am.
Mr. Snaggle-Tooth. Since the liberals OWN the mainstream media,(we can get into the liberals view on the so-called Fairness Doctrine later)they have been able to control the “spin” most Americans see/hear on radio and TV. As a result, very few real conservatives get elected. Some of those that do, are actually a bunch of RINOs who ran on conservative principles, but are closet liberals once in office. The GOP didn’t desert conservative issues, but they have been negligent in supporting true conservatives. That’s ANOTHER reason I support term limits and will not vote for any incumbent. As for abortion, no Christian can support a pro-abortion candidate with a clear conscience. When Americans stop swallowing the liberal Kool-Aid that abortion is about “choice” and not about life, there will be an overturning of Roe vs. Wade. We Americans need to pray without ceasing, especially on the abortion issue. Our hard-won freedoms depend on it! Please, Mr. Jones, don’t be so condescending in telling me to wake up.
Miss Sharon, might I sujjest ye begin diggin’ a little deeper inta this issur by watchin’ this here video?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ns0NlUgcsY
Th’ GOP has abandoned true conservatism, ‘n I dohn’t believe it is intersted in a return to it.
Your Obedient Servent,
S. Jones
Here’s yet ‘nother discussion ’bout how th’ neocons who have infested th’ GOP are destroyin’ true conservatism. And Prager, as much as I like him, has corntributed to it:
http://www.dixienet.org/rebellion/2008/08/pastor-believes-gay-is-mark-of-gods.html
Mr. Snaggle T. Jones, I agree that the GOP has abandoned some of the true conservative values (enforcement of immigration law, for one). But, I contend, that these so-called conservatives aren’t conservative-minded at all. They are liberals posing as conservatives, hence the label, RINOS. Your links don’t convince me otherwise, Mr. Buckley notwithstanding. How old is this Self-Avenger? All of 30? Yeah, he’s got a handle on what today’s REAL conservatives stand for–please. And, what the heck does a female, lesbian “pastor” have to do with the GOP?
She admits being “progressive,” the current liberal buzzword.
Oops, ‘L first of all, I linked th’ wrong Rebellion blog entry. I mint t’ link-iss-un instead:
http://www.dixienet.org/rebellion/2008/08/orson-scott-card-versus-neocons.html
So never mind ’bout that lesbian. We’re dealin’ with th’ paleocon criticism of neocons here, ‘n the entry linked above deals with-att.
As fir th’ Southern Avenger, dohn’t matter how old he is. Wut matters is whether or not his assessment is sound. ‘N I say it is. Thar’s a reason, after all, it’s called *neo*conservatism. Means it’s new. ‘N if it’s new, th’ question is naturally prompted as-ta how it differs from th’ old. The Southern Avenger ably distills it all fir ye. The kind of conservatism you support, Miss Sharon, is a new, usurpin’ kind. Thar’s tomes of analysis out thar, online and in print, ’bout how neoconservatism came ’round in the 60s and 70s, and how, under Reagan, it largely displaced th’ paleocons, ‘n thin went on t’ infect the admins of Bush I and Bush II. Read, fir instance, ’bout the M.E. Bradford incident here (the seckshun ohn th’ NEH nomination):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Bradford
But this neoconservatism a-yourn is really an ekklectic mix of Straussian politicurl filosofee, old Hawk Democrat thought, Trotksyism, Likudism, Zionism, n’ big gummint/big business symbiosis posin’ as a commitment t’ th’ “free market”. As the SA shows, howeverm neoconservatism is really jus’ a form of liberalism that stands somewhat t’ th’ right of liberal/leftism. ‘Att’s why yir tawkin’ heds such as Hew Hughitt continually refers to yir stance as “center-right.” ‘L, I say it’s much more “center” thin it is “right.” Fact is, I dohn’t think neoconservatism has anythin’ t’ do with rightism wutsoever. Ohnly reason it’s commonly called “right wing” or “conservative” is cuz liberalism has moved so far t’ th’ left, that it seems cornservative by comparison.
So dohn’t you sell short the Southern Avenger. He’s a-tellin’ ye th’ truth, Ma-am.
Okay, okay.
My point with linking the Prager article wasn’t to compare my politics with his, but to bring up the thesis of his article. Ever one of those points used to be considered liberal but are now fundamental to a conservative position - be it neo- or paleo-con (or whatever other name has been bandied about for a modern conservative position).
Key to his article is the point that there are so many liberals now that hold on to the title of “liberal” and associate that with the Democratic party, when the beliefs they hold - the beliefs stated by Prager - are part of the Republican party. My boss and my mother come to mind. They hold beliefs that are fundamental to the Republican party but would never consider voting for a Republican. The irony is thick.
Well said, Mr. Snaggle, even though I don’t totally agree. I hate the term “neocon” as it is always used by liberals as a demeaning slur.
Also, well said, Rich. I agree many Democrats hold basically fundamental Republican beliefs, but can’t bring themselves to ever vote for a Republican.
The irony IS thick.