Yuku free message boards

Quote:

---

Today the ex-Trotskyites are called "NeoConservative" and have read the old conservatives ("PaleoConservatives") out of the Republican Party for being, in the words of David "Axis Of Evil" Frum, "Unpatriotic Conservatives".

---

A minor nit, but I wouldn't equate old conservatives with paleocons. Paleoconservatives are a subset of old or classic conservatism, which has been dominated by the WFB/National Review conservative renaissance (WFB, Russell Kirk, etc) that began in the 1950s and culminated in the election of Ronald Reagan. Paleocons tend to be intellectual isolationist nationalists with nostalgia for southern agrarianism (an over-simplification, but there you are) and specifically part of the Thomas Fleming/Rockford Institute/Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture worldview. Neocons, though bred from anti-communist liberalism, now seem to be dominated by devotees of Leo Strauss. The key debate a decade or so ago was not so much whether the paleocons' anti-interventionist philosophy was right or wrong but whether or not certain key paleocon adherents were anti-Semitic.

I like to simplify it thusly: Classic conservatives love Lincoln; paleocons hate Lincoln, neocons love themselves.

And here I am, playing along when I'm supposed to be enforcing the no politics rule.

Oh my.

1. I responded to a post by Colonel Neville, specifically citing a quote from one of his posts (that I now see was posted back in March). I made a minor historical point about late-twentieth century conservative philosophy. It had nothing to do with the general topic or the main tangent that had already developed. It was an aside.

2. I don't like it when a post by any member (in this case moi) is used to club another member.

3. I don't like being accused of feeding anybody anything, especially when my post had nothing to do with the battle already joined by several members. I could have posted that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches taste good; it could have just as easily been used as a bludgeon.

4. I can't help but feel it's a tad strange to be criticized for not keeping the forum politics-free by someone who was engaged in political debate. It's a little like a germ complaining about the disease, no? Believe it or not, as this forum grows, the administrators cannot read every post every day. I used to, but it just isn't possible now. Therefore, we have to rely on members to A) not feed the monster themselves, or B) let us know when something is getting out of hand. I didn't find this thread until perhaps 30 minutes before I posted in it. Since it goes back several months or more, it's a bit late to put the genie back in the bottle.

So now let me post once again what is and isn't allowed politically. Debating the political issues of the the day is not allowable. There are plenty of places for that. It saps energy from the topical folders--it becomes very difficult for folks to keep away once the political guantlet has been tossed. As someone who has been a professional in the political arena, the last thing I want to see when I come here to enjoy the forum is raw political debate. It also creates ill-will between members; not everyone can handle political debate without getting personal. Sure, there can be inspiring moments, but those get pretty rare once the slings and arrows appear. (I recall the argument I was intrinsically a bigot in the old AOL days by a contingent no longer on this forum simply because I was a conservative; Bill Warren, politically very liberal, stood up for me.) Some people are also apt to post things in a way they would never say face to face. Keyboard courage makes for unpleasant experiences. I'm speaking from eleven years experience trying to help grow and nurture this forum. Sometimes I get it wrong--your friendly neighborhood administrators are mostly human. Mostly.

Discussing possible political subtext in horror and science fiction films is allowable. Like the initial posts in this thread. But the discussion cannot morph into a debate about communism, HUAC, etc., as topics in themselves. Another example would be discussion of feminist film criticism as it pertains to horror films. That would be fine. What would not be permissible would be to use the discussion as an opportunity to bash feminism or espouse feminism. It's a fine line to walk--I know it ain't easy. But it is possible. And if you're the type of person who cannot get into a genre discussion that intrinsically involves politics without unloading a political broadside, then don't involve yourself in the discussion. And if you're in the discussion and somebody else starts to play political games, don't respond likewise.

I'm going to use a post written by Ted as an example. (Ted, I'm not admonishing you; it's just that it works to illustrate a point. There are probably a godzillion examples I can use from several posters, but you're it!) Somewhere in this thread is a post by Ted and in it he makes the parenthetical aside that Ronald Reagan did not cause the collapse of the Soviet Union, but rather that it imploded because of other internal factors. That's the kind of thing I'd like to avoid because it is a point that is eminently debatable. In fact, ModPro (Kerry Gammill's cousin) and I debated that particular resolution--vociferously so--in the old AOL days. Boy, did I have to restrain myself here! That's the kind of aside that can fire up an "opposition" post.

We have folks from different backgrounds who have different social and political beliefs. We want everyone to feel welcome here, without feeling compelled to defend their core beliefs. This isn't the place for that. So everybody, please--try to avoid political gamesmanship during film topic discussions that justifiably have a political context. That's all we ask.