Comment: The whole point of my article

(See in situ)

Tom Mullen's picture

The whole point of my article

was to show that the "neo-conservative" platform is the true conservative platform. It is consistent with the Federalists, Whigs, and Republican Party from its birth in 1856 to the present.

The only exception is the "old right," which I argue were a group of classical liberals (Robert Taft, etc) calling themselves conservatives within the Republican Party. They were largely a reaction to the "liberals" abandoning their platform under Wilson and FDR, leaving anyone with "libertarian" principles nowhere to go except to the Republican Party. The conservative philosophy has advocated big government, a wealthy elite with government privileges, and alignment with religion to control the behavior and thinking of the populace, and a military empire to dominate the world since at least Aristotle. Hobbes was only an Enlightenmnet argument for it. The Old Right was certainly better than anything else in the first half of the 20th century, but philosophically there are still flaws that lead to conclusions that are anti-liberty. That's where I'm coming from.