No, the OTHER Other Conservatism!

Well, my friends, I've made a discovery: no one has any idea what "liberal" and "conservative" mean any more. Then again, I can't really blame them on liberalism: no one could possibly know what that means because it doesn't really mean anything at all. Allow me to clarify with a short description from a paper I wrote for no particular reason (which I may include in some later post or publication):

"One of the most difficult political ideologies to capture accurately is American liberalism. While most Americans simply call it liberalism, the word “liberal” was originally used to describe libertarianism (hence the term “classic liberalism”), neoliberalism is used to describe paleoconservative, free-market economic policies (called Thatcherism in the UK), and the Liberal Party of Australia is a neoconservative group in the mode of the modern Republican Party. Therefore, I choose to use another term often rejected by conservatives as a euphemism, but which I believe is the best way to sum up the beliefs of the Democratic Party base. That term is progressivism."

Needless to say, there is quite a problem getting exactly what "liberal" is, and modern American left-wingers aren't helping. In the much-hyped YouTube debates, Hillary Clinton shunned the liberal label in favor of the new phrase, "Modern American Progressive." However, Nancy Pelosi, who fits quite comfortably into the neoprogressive label, chooses to continue to use liberal. That helps ensure that this War of the Words will continue for a long time on the left. But what about the Right?

That question is a bit easier to answer. There is a relatively clear divide between the neoconservatives and the the paleoconservatives. It boils down to this: Isolationism vs. Interventionalism, Spending, and Amnesty. The neocons like spending more, granting amnesty, and intervening everywhere, while the paleos don't. This simple divide places me cleanly in the paleo side, along with many conservatives in the Boomerang Generation, Generation Y, and my own iGeneration.

However, there is a problem, one that places me outside of mainstream Gen X paleo/neoconservatism. I'm a libertarian. I want to shrink government to a managable size. I want to legalize marijuana. I like the motives behind Iraq, but wouldn't have wanted to go there to begin with. I like Ron Paul (although, I must say, I like Rudy more). However, I'm not quite the loyal libertarian, either. I support the death penalty. I'm pro-life. I think Reagan was a better president than Jefferson (but not by much). Amazingly, I've found that most young conservatives agree with me on these points. Therefore, we have a legitimate faction here. So where's our name.

I've been toying with a few options. The first is the most obvious: neopaleoconservatism. However, it doesn't quite roll off the tongue, and it's a bit long. I've also thought about using neolibertarianism, but that's also long. Paleoliberalism seems to be a good name, but the association with FDR/LBJ liberals will be strong. Right now, my favorite is one I came up with not too long ago: neofederalism. It seems to me to be the best option for the name of the best option for the future of America.

The Indie Factor: Republicratic Meltdown in 2008

(I know this is better suited for PaU, but I just couldn't resist putting it here. Enjoy.)

The 2008 Presidential Election is almost, kinda, sorta here-ish, and people are starting to wonder about the configuration of the final race, after the primaries are over. Will it be Clinton vs. Giuliani? How about Obama vs. McCain? Obama vs. Thompson? Maybe Edwards vs. Giuliani? Actually, think something like Clinton vs. Giuliani vs. Bloomberg vs. Nader. The notion that only Democrats and Republicans, Republicrats, as I like to call most of them, can win a presidential election may finally be meeting its well-deserved demise.

Although this may come as a surprise to many around my age or younger, the concept of a viable independent or third-party candidate isn’t brand new. It began in 1992, with a smart businessman by the name of Ross Perot. Perot, a centrist, found himself opposed to George H W Bush, the incumbent President, as well as Bill Clinton, Governor of Arkansas at the time. He decided to run as an independent, and although he didn’t win, he gained 20% of the vote. The next time around, he wasn’t so lucky, gaining only 8%. However, the damage to the system had already been done. A recent Unity08 poll showed that 78% of Americans wish that they had choices beyond the two major parties. In 2008, it seems like we just might get some.

Now, another man stands poised to improve on Ross Perot’s accomplishments. That man is Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg is a billionaire businessman and the Mayor of New York City. A centrist, he left the Democratic Party to join the Republicans in 2001, and he left the Republican Party to become an independent on June 19th of this year. Although he has not announced that he plans to run, many people want him to do so. In fact, in a recent CNN poll, he has obtained 17% of the vote when up against Clinton (41%) and Giuliani (38%), about double what Perot received in 1991 polls (around 8% before the debates).

Although not nearly the force Bloomberg would be, a run by Ralph Nader could also yield decent results. Nader first became famous in America in 1965, with a book attacking the auto industry. Since then, he has become the Green Party’s rising star, getting nearly 3% of the vote in the 2000 election. Although he has not decided whether or not he wanted to run, he has a decent support base and a strong dislike for Hillary Clinton, which could convince him to run simply to pull votes from her should she become the Democratic nominee. If he does run for this purpose, he could be successful in doing so: a February Fox News poll (in fact, the most recent one I could find with Nader) showed that he would get 5% of the vote when up against Giuliani (46%) and Clinton (40%).

And that isn’t even all that could pop up! Dan Carlin, host of the popular podcast Common Sense with Dan Carlin (which I highly recommend), devoted the first half of his June 23rd show to the topic of independents running for President in 2008, saying, “What might a Bloomberg candidacy prompt? If it looked like Bloomberg was getting in and Nader was getting in, might you not see a few more people jump in? There’s a lot of smart people out there that are going to realize the same thing that those two have realized: that this is the best chance to upset the apple cart in a generation.”

There are a lot of people with the desire to run who would be fun to speculate about. For example, Donald Trump lost the 2000 Reform Party (the party Perot founded in 1995) primary to Pat Buchanan, a famous paleoconservative. If the Donald decided he wanted to run in 2008, he could change the race a lot. Think about it: aren’t there people you would much rather have in Washington, DC, than the ones we have now? How about Andy Rooney? He’s a pretty smart guy, even though I disagree with his liberal politics. How about John Stossel from 20/20? I think that Stossel, a libertarian, is exactly the shock the system needs. And the speculation doesn’t need to stop there. Who’s stopping John McCain from running as an independent if he loses the primary? How about John Edwards? The whole idea of the presidential race could completely change.

However, even with all of this good news, a Republicratic victory is almost guaranteed. Although many Americans want an independent candidate, few are willing to actually cast a vote for one, especially since 2000, when Nader took 3% of the nation’s people who would have most likely voted for Gore, throwing the election to Bush. But things are changing. People have been voting for independents like Perot and Nader, and they’ll certainly vote for Bloomberg. In fact, I’d take Bloomberg over some of the true Republicans (Romney, for example). I suppose we’ll just have to wait (and wait, and wait) and see where this one goes.

Hi, Everyone...

I just got back from Philadelphai a few hours ago, so I didn't have an opertunity to get a post up today. Expect one at PaU tomorrow and one here either tomorrow or the next day. Also, try to tell people you know about my blogs. That way, I can actually have a sizable audience to rant at.

-tsg

Podcast Watch

I know reading blogs isn't totally convenient. However, ther is hope: political podcasting! Unfortunately, I don't have the spare time to podcast. Many people do, though. Here is my list of the top 5 political podcasts on iTunes.

5) Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points: If you don't watch Fox News every night (I know I don't), you probably miss Bill O'Reilly rambling about the news of the day. Worry no more! Bill podcasts the first couple of minutes of his show, giving us people with live an ability to hear whatever he's talking about. Be warned: he is very "traditionalist," so if you think my opinions on social issues are too strict, you'll think the same about Bill. I'm to his left on social issues and to his right on economic issues.

4) The Fred Thompson Report: Presidential candidate Thompson finally speaks the truth in Washington's world of lies. The information he talks about was enough to shake my total faith in Giuliani for president in 2008. His politics are near my own, but he's to my right socially. The show is short and sweet, and you won't lose your concentration - unless you hate Southern accents. The you're screwed.

3) Barack Obama's Podcast: He has a few, and he hasn't updated in a while, and he's quite a bit to the left of the center. However, he has an amazing ability to unite all people and make you like him and most of his ideas. I would rather have him in the White House than many Republicans. He could talk about nothing for hours and I'd still be interested. Even if you are afraid of liberal views, give Obama a chance. You'll be pleasantly surprised.

2) The Sean Hannity Show: Brilliant, conservative, insightful, and a great interviewer. These couple of minutes of Sean's radio show are always interesting to hear. He is to the right of everything else here (including Bill), but don't let that scare you, centrists. He interviews a wide variety of people all across the political spectrum, and it's always interesting to listen to.

1) Common Sense with Dan Carlin: A brilliant independent who has described himself as "the love child of Ann Coulter and Michael Moore," Dan's 40-minute show brings a great new perspective to the table. I can listen to his shows for hours (and I often do) because of his new ways of thinking with conservative, liberal, and Martian ideas. EVERYONE should hear his show. It's worth it.

I'm Baaaaaack!

Yes, it's true. I have returned to give my commentary on what happens in the world. I have also created my new blog for American politics, That Smart Guy's Politics as Usual. You can find it at tsgspoliticsasusual.blogspot.com . I will try to post there every Wednesday and here every Tuesday. If I'm not at home on those days, I will try to post either on the next day or on Saturday.

Thanks for your patience!

-tsg