In my posting here, I've always made it a point to try to be moderate (much to the disgust, I suspect, of my liberal friends). But I have also made it a point to not disguise the fact that I do have political preferences and prejudices, no one can be completely neutral and someone who claims to be so is immediately suspect, and rightly so.

But although I've always considered myself "somewhat left of center", my objections to the New Right are more than just a matter of policy.
I'm not doctrinaire, I'm always willing to accept anything that works, regardless of where it originates, and I also recognize that on some issues the Right is right, and should not be opposed simply because of their ideology. I will also be the first to concede that some liberal policies are just plain wrong, and that any point on the political spectrum can be carried to excess, or can be polluted with corruption and partisanship for partisanship's sake.

My fundamental political philosophy is that excess power is inherently evil, and that economic power (business) cannot be trusted to operate without some form of supervision. It is equally to be feared as is government. The market place works fine to manage the relations between economic powers, but those who are familiar with that environment and comfortable with it soon learn that it is easier and more profitable to compete with the employee and the consumer than with each other. I believe the same criticism can be made about government. The optimum system is one which balances the two.

I think everyone on this board, indeed, most civilized people in the world, agree with me on this. It is certainly a philosophy which has made European civilization in general, and American civilization in particular, such a nice place to live in. The differences arise from questions of degree, not of kind. People simply cannot agree where to draw these lines; which is why we need dialogue and debate, and why the compromises we develop must constantly be reviewed and modified.

Ideology is the enemy because it is not based on results, it is based on philosophy: we must do it this way because it is the correct way. Deviation will not be tolerated. This attitude, whether it originates from Left or Right, is NOT the consequence of opinions on how to organize public policy, it derives from psychological prejudices people have about those who oppose them. Neither the Right nor the Left have a monopoly on this pathology, I've seen what happens when one side gets its way (Cuba) and I personally fear that it will happen here too if the other side gets its way. What extremes in both right and left have in common is the absolute contempt they have for their opponents--not just on political matters, but in everything. The ideologue not only cannot tolerate difference, he cannot tolerate compromise. Compromise implies that your opponent has something of value to contribute, and should be listened to. The ideologue can negotiate with his direct opposite, rationalizing it as an occasional necessity; but dealing with anyone else is to validate their counterpart's position, and they find that intolerable. What they fear most is people of their own persuasion who disagree with them. It threatens the very core of their belief because their opponent can claim immunity from attack.

I mentioned earlier that my objections to the New Right were not just about doctrine. They are about psychology. It is difficult to articulate exactly how one perceives another's mind is working, particularly when they have every right to disagree violently with your opinions. But my take on the Neocon mentality was summed up in my satirical post "The Entrepreneurial Mystique" (5/29/06). The fact that both liberal AND conservative responses to it seemed to accept it at face value leads me to believe I was right on.