R.R. Reno posted a piece on First Things a couple of days ago about Richard John Neuhaus, in which he made these points about so-called neo-conservatism versus liberalism:

While listening [to a Canadian radio program discussing Neuhaus's legacy] I was again reminded of how difficult it is for many, perhaps most, liberals to fathom reasons why someone (Neuhaus, for instance) would think American-style conservatism the best way to promote the common good.

This reflects, perhaps, a progressive conceit. Though no doubt it also reflects the fact that American conservatism is a freedom-emphasizing movement, not one that puts an accent on solidarity. Poor people want to enjoy freedom just as much as anybody. But a liberal rightly recognizes that poverty makes a person and family vulnerable. Our freedoms are more fragile when we don't have either resources or standing in society. And so the poor need advocates.

Which is something Neuhaus knew. First Things has never represented a dismantle-the-welfare-state conservatism. Instead, we've been associated with neo-conservatism, which means criticizing way in which the welfare state creates perverse incentives that harm the poor, too often isolating them from the dynamism of our capitalist economy and subsidizing dysfunctional behavior.

For example, to be in favor of charter schools or vouchers or tax credits for private school scholarship funds—new ideas often resisted by liberals—isn't to be “against government.” On the contrary, these reform ideas reflect serious and sustained thinking about how the taxing power of the state should be used to improve education for the poorest and most vulnerable.

These are policy debates. The more fundamental role of conservatism is moral. Here I find myself thinking that today's liberals almost entirely fail to express moral solidarity with the poor and vulnerable. As I've written on many occasions, the non-judgmental, flexible “make healthy choices” approach to sex, marriage, and family works reasonably well for rich people. It is hell on the poor. But liberals don't seem to care. The sexual liberal Jihad continues.

Hentoff has been a good egg since as far back as I can recall

so-called neo-conservatism

A nonsense term, as always.

Having realized that most of my Chrome lockups or near-lockups seemed to involve Flash, I removed it a couple of weeks ago. It's been interesting to see how little I've been inconvenienced by it, and how much more stable Chrome has been.

However, not having Flash means I can't view the video at that site. Too bad. I'm sure it would be interesting. I think Flash may still be running on an old laptop, so maybe I'll try it.

I don't think many conservatives, even non-politicians who don't have to curry favor with voters, would advocate dismantling the welfare state completely at this point. Certain not dismantling it quickly. Even if he thinks it's a bad thing, a conservative ought to recognize that doing away with it abruptly (supposing that were even possible) would be far too disruptive.

The most amusing abuse of the term "neocon" I've seen was at the hands of a movie reviewer, who found in some movie an occasion to denounce the fundamentalist Christianity of the neocons.

That cracks me up, Anne-Marie. Not my favorite person either.

AMDG