Can Paleo-Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives really Unite for Freedom?
It’s been proposed by various individuals that we put aside our differences and unite together in the “Freedom Battle”, or in standing up for Freedom.
I think the key is that we unite on Freedom, as the Founding Fathers did. They didn’t agree on everything except that they wanted Freedom from Tyranny. Some had different ideas regarding how to accomplish this.
A few issues come to my mind that sometimes create a big dividing line between what I see are the THREE main groups of people that often call themselves Constitutionalists.
1. Libertarian Constitutaionalists
2. Paleo-Conservative Constitutionalists
3. Neo-Conservative Constitutionalists
For the most part these groups are similar. They claim love of freedom and the Constitution.
To unite in standing up for Freedom, you must believe in Freedom. Therefore I’m not sure it would be possible, or suggested, that we should unite with those who claim to support freedom, yet support that which is anti-freedom. This would be like trying to server two masters (God and Satan).
I can accept that we’re not all going to agree on everything, but are there certain issues that we must agree on in order to truly unite?, to truly support freedom?
The main issues I see that Neo-Conservative and Paleo-Conservative Constitutionalists disagree on is pre-emptive war and United States foreign policy (world police, U.S. having military in many countries, israel, etc). (The Paleo-Conservatives support defensive war only and are non-interventionists – don’t meddle in the affairs of other nations – Let them resolve their own problems…. Whereas the Neo-Conservatives support pre-emptive, offensive war (Iraq) and other points of current United State foreign policy, world policing, etc.
I think that we can all agree with Libertarians at the Federal level because the Constitution doesn’t grant the Fed power to be involved in regulating vices and debauchery (gambling, porn, prostitution, drugs, etc)… however, it is often argued that at the State level, if the majority choose, they can regulate those things. Typically, Neo’s and Paleo’s agree that vices and debauchery can be regulated at a state/local level, and see it as an issue of protection of the rights of the members of the community.
That leaves the question: Are the issues of war/US foreign policy/world police/israel, that often divide Conservatives/Constitutionalists, something that should or should not keep us from uniting? And, is taking a stance on those issues, on one side or the other, “anti-freedom”? (and why?)