PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Neoconservatives


rrl308
10-20-2008, 07:43 PM
I have just got interested in politics in a big way the last month or so. That being said I am curious to know the views of various posters on here about Neoconservatives. I have been reading a lot of your threads and you guys for the most part seem to be up on things. I have been reading about the Project for the New American Century. Is this old news that I am just learning about or something that flies under the rader for the most part.

tiptap
10-20-2008, 07:46 PM
Have we invaded Iraq yet?

ClevelandBronco
10-20-2008, 07:46 PM
Where's the "Awww, not this shit again" guy?

Ultra Peanut
10-20-2008, 07:50 PM
Ken Adelman is voting for Obama. That's how fucked up the neocon movement is.

RJ
10-20-2008, 08:05 PM
As far as I can tell, all Republicans are neoconservatives, except for the Libertarians who run as Republicans.

I may be wrong about that.

Dr. Van Halen
10-20-2008, 08:48 PM
As far as I can tell, all Republicans are neoconservatives, except for the Libertarians who run as Republicans.

I may be wrong about that.

Not all Republicans are neoconservatives. Many of us are social moderates and financial conservatives. Neocons appear to be neither.

Ultra Peanut
10-20-2008, 08:49 PM
Not all Republicans are neoconservatives. Many of us are social moderates and financial conservatives. Neocons appear to be neither.Neocons basically could give a fuck about social issues. That's why the religious right has been such a useful tool for them.

Adept Havelock
10-20-2008, 08:51 PM
Ken Adelman is voting for Obama. That's how ****ed up the neocon movement is.

Adelman? WTF????

Just when I thought things couldn't get more odd...

Ultra Peanut
10-20-2008, 09:02 PM
Welcome to bizarroland.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2008/10/not-quite-colin.html

RJ
10-20-2008, 09:05 PM
Not all Republicans are neoconservatives. Many of us are social moderates and financial conservatives. Neocons appear to be neither.


I meant the politicians. My fault for the poor explanation.

Hey, based on your description I might be a Republican. But would I have anyone to vote for?

SBK
10-20-2008, 09:39 PM
Where's BEP?

BucEyedPea
10-20-2008, 09:54 PM
Where's BEP?

ROFL :D

I saw it early but I'm too sick of them to talk about them anymore. Now I have to worry about the Marxists. Oh wait, they're that too. Little Lenin ( Bill Kristol)

The the author of this thread:
Type my name and neoconservative(s) in the search. There's an abundance there. Happy hunting.

memyselfI
10-20-2008, 09:57 PM
Old news. Check the archives for posts (mine and others) from around 2001 and you will see that PNAC has been an often mentioned but largely ignored aspect of the political and events discussions of this board. Even though the PNAC laid the groundwork for much of DUHbya's administration and likely was the real reason for the invasion of Iraq.

See specifically the passage in the PNAC manifesto which states a major disaster or terrorist event would need to preclude the eventual use of force to implement their strategy.

Then see 9/11. Start putting the pieces together from there.

rrl308
10-20-2008, 10:02 PM
You guys are right. I should have researched the old posts first. I realize I have a lot of catching up to do. Try not to rub it in to much.:)

memyselfI
10-20-2008, 10:05 PM
You guys are right. I should have researched the old posts first. I realize I have a lot of catching up to do. Try not to rub it in to much.:)

Nah, don't take it that way. It is one of those aspects of politics that the left saw as dangerous and relevant and the right passed off as nonsensical tin foil conspiracy theories.

tiptap
10-20-2008, 10:06 PM
It is not you it is the fact we have this mess of Iraq and both those who defend and those who opposed the war would point to a body of thought of the NeoCons as strong in driving those policies.

rrl308
10-20-2008, 10:15 PM
It is not you it is the fact we have this mess of Iraq and both those who defend and those who opposed the war would point to a body of thought of the NeoCons as strong in driving those policies.

I hear ya. All along i believed there wasn't WMD but i never have followed or researched things until recently. These Neocons piss me off.

Taco John
10-20-2008, 11:19 PM
Here is a great place to start:

Introduction to Neoconservativism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north180.html) by Gary North


Neoconservativism Explained (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/neo-con-explained.html) by Llewelyn Rockwell

Logical
10-20-2008, 11:29 PM
You guys are right. I should have researched the old posts first. I realize I have a lot of catching up to do. Try not to rub it in to much.:)Welcome to the DC part of the BB. You probably saved yourself some time by asking the question.

SNR
10-20-2008, 11:31 PM
Remember when the Republicans used to be the party of reason waaaaay long ago?

Yeah, the neocons destroyed that, pretty much. As a result there's no strong backbone to stand up to the left, and thus, you have the mess we're in. A perceived difference between the parties when in reality it's just a bunch of liberals with one side posing as a religious base and the other posing as progressive thinking.

The two sides of liberals clash with each other and attempt to meet voters at the "middle" (which is not the middle at all if you hear how fed up people are with both candidates this year). This middle way is the way the country has been run for decades, and it's the reason our political system is as fucked up as it is.

In the meantime, both sides will act like shit-chucking apes and throw their own feces at each other in order to make the other side look worse to get votes this election. Once one side wins, little will actually be accomplished because of all the special interests in the country. What does get done will be wasteful spending and bullshit bills that are perceived to fix the problems in this country, but in reality all they do is throw money at the problem.

And there's no fucking way to stop it, either.

Pretty much, neoconservatives are the future of this country. Get used to it, because the government is not smart enough or moral enough to figure out the real problem at hand.

jidar
10-20-2008, 11:33 PM
Nah, don't take it that way. It is one of those aspects of politics that the left saw as dangerous and relevant and the right passed off as nonsensical tin foil conspiracy theories.

I'm usually the first to call out the tinfoil hat crowd, but in this case the evidence is very very strong.

I don't believe that the administration orchestrated terrorist attacks or anything crazy like that in an attempt to jump start their agenda, but when the opportunity presented itself they followed their PNAC blueprint to a T. Back when people still thought IRAQ was about WMDs, PNAC was a very strong argument against that line of reasoning.

Now that it's obvious that the WMD argument was bunk, PNAC is just a curiosity. Someone might be inclined to say "Okay.. so they had a blueprint all along, hardly surprising." .... funny how quickly things change.

'Hamas' Jenkins
10-20-2008, 11:36 PM
You guys are right. I should have researched the old posts first. I realize I have a lot of catching up to do. Try not to rub it in to much.:)

Go the PBS website and watch "Bush's War".

Taco John
10-20-2008, 11:41 PM
Irving Kristol, "The Godfather" of Neoconservativism:

"A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality."

wazu
10-20-2008, 11:58 PM
Irving Kristol, "The Godfather" of Neoconservativism:

"A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality."

I don't get it.

Taco John
10-21-2008, 12:34 AM
I don't get it.

It's not easy to explain, and would take a lot more energy than I have right now to even begin to try.

I'd suggest reading the articles that I linked. They provide some pretty good perspective.

rrl308
10-21-2008, 01:32 AM
Go the PBS website and watch "Bush's War".

I will check that out. Has anyone heard of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares

rrl308
10-21-2008, 01:35 AM
Here is a great place to start:

Introduction to Neoconservativism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north180.html) by Gary North


Neoconservativism Explained (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/neo-con-explained.html) by Llewelyn Rockwell

Thanks for the links Taco!

patteeu
10-21-2008, 07:28 AM
ROFL :D

I saw it early but I'm too sick of them to talk about them anymore. Now I have to worry about the Marxists. Oh wait, they're that too. Little Lenin ( Bill Kristol)

The the author of this thread:
Type my name and neoconservative(s) in the search. There's an abundance there. Happy hunting.

Warning to author of this thread:
You will certainly find an abundance, but it will be wrong in too many ways to count.

memyselfI
10-21-2008, 07:30 AM
Warning to author of this thread:
You will certainly find an abundance, but it will be wrong in too many ways to count.

Not when it's cut and pasted DIRECTLY FROM PNAC'S own manifesto. :D

patteeu
10-21-2008, 07:37 AM
I don't get it.

It just means that the original neocons were former liberals who had seen the error of their ways (primarily in the context of foreign policy).

patteeu
10-21-2008, 07:40 AM
Not when it's cut and pasted DIRECTLY FROM PNAC'S own manifesto. :D

I'm talking about BEP's warped understanding of neocons. The idea that neocon=secret marxist, for example.

I don't dispute that PNAC is neoconservative.

Here is an accurate definition for rrl308:

Neoconservatives: Neoconservatives constitute an intellectual current that emerged from the cold war liberalism of the Democratic Party. Unlike other elements of the conservative mainstream, neoconservatives generally share historical and social roots in liberal and leftist politics. Disillusioned first with socialism and communism and later with new Democrats (like George McGovern) who came to dominate the Democratic Party in the 1970s, neoconservatives played a key role in boosting the New Right into political dominance in the 1980s. For the most part, neoconservatives--who are disproportionately Jewish (although a number of influential Catholic theologians and political activists have also long been associated with the movement)--are not politicians but rather political analysts, activist ideologues, and scholars who have played a central role in forging the agendas of numerous right-wing think tanks, front groups, and foundations. Neoconservatives profoundly believe both in America’s moral superiority and in the necessity of a strategic alliance with Israel--convictions that facilitate coalitions with the Christian Right. Unlike either core traditionalists of American conservatism or those with isolationist tendencies, neoconservatives are committed internationalists who believe that the United States has both a moral obligation and national security interests in using military supremacy to maintain a Pax Americana free of totalitarian and rogue regimes. Reminiscent of their role in the 1970s, the neoconservatives were instrumental in the late 1990s in helping to fuse diverse elements of the right into a unified force based on a new agenda of U.S. supremacy. - Glossary of Right Wing Sectors (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/charts/glossary.html)

penchief
10-21-2008, 08:26 AM
Where's BEP?

I'll do it for her. Neocon = Liberal.

Which is why she has never been able to explain how it is that 100% of true liberals detest everything about the neocons.

The truth is neocons are the farthest thing from a true liberal. Nor are they conservative. They are right wing fascists who have joined forces with the economic elite and the corporate quo. They will employ any means necessary to usurp total power and impose their economic and political will both internationally and domestically.

BucEyedPea
10-21-2008, 08:47 AM
I'm talking about BEP's warped understanding of neocons. The idea that neocon=secret marxist, for example.

You're projecting due to personal denial. I did not say they were "secret" Marxists. They are Marxist period if one knows Marx's ideas, especially on FP by wanting permanent revolution/war to build democracies. That stems from Trotsky who was a Marxist. They had their camps and disagreements too. ( "Democracy is the road to socialism."—Marx)

The original founding members of the NC were originally Marxist and have not abandoned their Marxism completely. You need to stop reading National Review. Some libertarians call Kristol "Little Lenin." And I can show you a You Tube of Kristol gushing over Obama too ( save for ME FP). They have no desire to cut spending and reduce the welfare state but even grow it. Hence, their need for supply-side economics. Everything they claim or deny about themselves is a lie—a hallmark of the neoconservative. You're not looking at the substance but the rhetorical cover or label. They are NOT what they claim themselves to be which is conservative. Your definition does not conflict with mine but it needs more...like domestic policy.

BucEyedPea
10-21-2008, 08:54 AM
It just means that the original neocons were former liberals who had seen the error of their ways (primarily in the context of foreign policy).

It wasn't the error of their ways in FP, it was the error of the comrades in the New Left's ways. Their conversion to conservative principles is shallow and skin deep on domestic and fiscal issues. LMAO at the Times calling Krauthammer a fiscal conservative. You're not looking at the forest for the trees. They are big govt conservatives: love the welfare state and want it kept intact. These men are frauds.

BucEyedPea
10-21-2008, 08:59 AM
Warning to author of this thread:
You will certainly find an abundance, but it will be wrong in too many ways to count.

Warning to the author, this post is by the chief NeoConservative on this board.
He advocates pragmatic conservativism because conservativism is not achievable. That in essence is just a paraphrase for Neo Conservativism. Original conservative advocated small limited govt as we were founded and a relativelly humble foreign policy. It began to form in the anti-war movement of WWI as part of a coalition of libertarians, populists and socialists. It rose and opposed FDR's New Deal. That is conservativism. It is populist, anti-mercantilist, anti-socialist and favors a restrained reading of the Constitution to keep Fed power in check and respects state's rights.

BucEyedPea
10-21-2008, 09:12 AM
rrl308

Taco's articles are very good. The libertarians and paleo-Cons ( Old Right, Traditional Right) on Lew Rockwell have done an extensive study and expose on these cats.

The WSJ OP pages were taken over by them after 9/11 with a party purge of real conservatives. They've dominated the National Review [one is Jonah Goldberg who has a serious case of denial-- patteeu defends him though] these days too. Their main publications though are the Weekly Standard and Commentary. [ Bootlegged links to Commentary and appears to be a NeoCon too.]

Here's another from RonPaul.

We've Been NeoConned (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html)

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:

1.They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
2.They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so. [ wanted to do this before 9/11 Google "Clean Break" as well as PNAC [ AEI has recently been taken down unless back up. They're in retreat.]
3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means – that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity. [Communists support this idea too. Check out a revolutionary manual.]
5.They express no opposition to the welfare state.[What patteeu's definition omits.]
6.They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
8.They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
9.They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
10.They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
11.They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem. ( as in #7 and 9)
12.They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
14.9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
LMAO [They scorn and mock the idea of "blowback" and "neo-isolationism"]
15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
16.They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

patteeu
10-21-2008, 09:34 AM
You're projecting due to personal denial. I did not say they were "secret" Marxists. They are Marxist period if one knows Marx's ideas, especially on FP by wanting permanent revolution/war to build democracies. That stems from Trotsky who was a Marxist. They had their camps and disagreements too. ( "Democracy is the road to socialism."—Marx)

The original founding members of the NC were originally Marxist and have not abandoned their Marxism completely. You need to stop reading National Review. Some libertarians call Kristol "Little Lenin." And I can show you a You Tube of Kristol gushing over Obama too ( save for ME FP). They have no desire to cut spending and reduce the welfare state but even grow it. Hence, their need for supply-side economics. Everything they claim or deny about themselves is a lie—a hallmark of the neoconservative. You're not looking at the substance but the rhetorical cover or label. They are NOT what they claim themselves to be which is conservative. Your definition does not conflict with mine but it needs more...like domestic policy.

There is no neoconservative domestic policy. Neoconservatives can be found at all points of the domestic policy spectrum. That's probably the biggest flaw in your understanding of neoconservatism. Neoconservatism is a perspective on foreign policy.

BucEyedPea
10-21-2008, 09:37 AM
There is no neoconservative domestic policy. Neoconservatives can be found at all points of the domestic policy spectrum. That's probably the biggest flaw in your understanding of neoconservatism. Neoconservatism is a perspective on foreign policy.

No that's not true. Your's is flawed. Just because there are some disagreements they are still in the big govt camp overall. When not, they are in the mercantilist camp. And it is entirely true of the founding NCs. Their proclaimed conversion is skin deep. BTW I posted Ron Paul's words/understanding on it, not mine for back-up. He is a very smart well read man as well as an economist and Constitutional scholar. His data is impeccably accurate. You think Gingrich is a conservative. LOL!

patteeu
10-21-2008, 09:58 AM
You're just as wrong as always on this subject, BEP, but I don't see any reason to go round and round with you on it once again. rrl308 can listen to you and your ideological fellows at lew rockwell at his own risk.

BucEyedPea
10-21-2008, 10:14 AM
You're just as wrong as always on this subject, PAUL, GARY NORTH, RAIMONDO and LEW, but I don't see any reason to go round and round with you on it once again. rrl308 can listen to you and your ideological fellows at lew rockwell at his own risk.
FYP

Better than reading the wrong material on the subject—National Review loaded with your ideological fellows. Of course those guys deny, obfuscate etc. Because they are, most of them, in that camp.

Sorry, but some of my guys have been impeccably accurate in their economic predictions and results in seeking monsters to destroy abroad compared to NC publications which is loaded with lies.

jidar
10-21-2008, 10:20 AM
Arguing semantics on the Internet. Just don't do it.

patteeu
10-21-2008, 10:31 AM
Arguing semantics on the Internet. Just don't do it.

This isn't a semantic argument. BEP's understanding of neoconservatism is fundamentally flawed. She blames such things as big government domestic spending by Republicans on neoconservatism when the two have nothing at all to do with one another.

BucEyedPea
10-21-2008, 10:36 AM
This isn't a semantic argument. BEP's understanding of neoconservatism is fundamentally flawed. She blames such things as big government domestic spending by Republicans on neoconservatism when the two have nothing at all to do with one another.

It's not semantics. Words have definitions. And big govt spending is part of neoconservatism as well as some other ideologies. Just because two different groups have some overlap in their ideas doesn't change the FACT that NeoConservativs are BIG govt guys...they're just big govt conservatives or national greatness conservatives. Heck, the small govt right wing overlaps with the left on foreign policy.

Again, it's not just my understanding. It's the understanding of most small govt righties. I named a few. You conveniently leave that out to cherry pick. I gather it's because it's a personal thing to you.

Taco John
10-21-2008, 10:41 AM
I'm talking about BEP's warped understanding of neocons. The idea that neocon=secret marxist, for example.



Her understanding of them is not as inaccurate as you like to pretend. It's no secret that the founding members of Neoconism were admitted Marxists. So while it's true that the ideology is primarily foriegn policy related, it's also true that it's a foriegn policy born of Marxism. I'd say that I'm not sure why you'd refuse to acknowledge it, but I think that the answer is because you like to be associated with Neocon foriegn policy, but don't like to be associated with Marx-ism/ists. I can't blame you for that, but it doesn't change the fundamentals at all.

patteeu
10-21-2008, 10:46 AM
It's not semantics. Words have definitions. And big govt spending is part of neoconservatism as well as some other ideologies. Just because two different groups have some overlap in their ideas doesn't change the FACT that NeoConservativs are BIG govt guys...they're just big govt conservatives or national greatness conservatives. Heck, the small govt right wing overlaps with the left on foreign policy.

Again, it's not just my understanding. It's the understanding of most small govt righties. I named a few. You conveniently leave that out to cherry pick. I gather it's because it's a personal thing to you.

I didn't leave them out. I grouped them together as "your ideological fellows at lew rockwell". You're the leading proponent of this particular false assertion here at ChiefsPlanet though.

BucEyedPea
10-21-2008, 10:59 AM
I didn't leave them out. I grouped them together as "your ideological fellows at lew rockwell". You're the leading proponent of this particular false assertion here at ChiefsPlanet though.

So what. Look how many of them advocate strains of Marxism but deny it.
Group agreement doesn't meant something is true. It could be herd mentality too. I may just look up Krauthammer, Kristol and the rest of them to see where they stand on domestic issues as proof. Krauthammer's recent economic articles were being mocked the other day eventhough msm was touting him an economic conservative. They use rhetorical lies to cover their Marxism to disguise it.

patteeu
10-21-2008, 11:01 AM
Her understanding of them is not as inaccurate as you like to pretend. It's no secret that the founding members of Neoconism were admitted Marxists. So while it's true that the ideology is primarily foriegn policy related, it's also true that it's a foriegn policy born of Marxism. I'd say that I'm not sure why you'd refuse to acknowledge it, but I think that the answer is because you like to be associated with Neocon foriegn policy, but don't like to be associated with Marx-ism/ists. I can't blame you for that, but it doesn't change the fundamentals at all.

We can either talk about the original neocons or we can talk about those who took up their foreign policy positions during the Reagan administration and beyond. If we're talking about the originals, it's true that they were former leftists, but they switched sides because of foreign policy. Their primary foreign policy motivation was OPPOSITION TO THE SPREAD OF COMMUNISM. They were disillusioned with communist idealism (liberals mugged by reality). That's why they were welcomed with open arms and integrated into the Reagan administration.

If we're talking about those who embraced the foreign policy ideas of the neocons (which were basically the same as those of Goldwater as I've pointed out in the past), we're not even talking about former liberals in most cases anymore.

I don't know that it makes any sense to talk about foreign policy Marxism. I suspect that it's just as much a mistake to associate a specific foreign policy with Marxism as it is to confuse a specific domestic policy with Neoconservatism.

BucEyedPea
10-21-2008, 11:18 AM
I'd say sources like Human Events falls into that camp. It's more out of their religious beliefs and historical attitudes as Christians toward Muslims and also Israel, which ally with the NCs. They also believe some of the NC's lies too. If they were more skeptical it would help but again their beliefs lead them to believe the NC's rhetoric which is half-truths. Most of those guys will come right out and say, as the editor of HE said on Fox, they fully support Ron Paul's platform other than FP. So they are at least 50% NC which is nothing to snuff at. That's a lot. Question is how far would they take things after the ME? Those guys were against Clinton's interventions in the Balkans at least.

Let's go back to domestic: What is being used to rebuild Iraq? Govt central planning by an occupying military. All done with the help of the World Bank and IMF bureaucracies. That's not free market or minimal govt. They use central planning at home too. How about the bailout? It's just the fascist model.

Then there's this by the God Father of NeoConservatism himself:

Reagan's Welfare State (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/004812.html)

I clearly recall that during the 1984 presidential campaign the Reagan administration boasted that welfare spending had increased faster during its first term than it had during the Carter administration. I think Reagan even pounded on this point during the televised debates. So there was never any scaling back of the welfare state by the Republican Paty despite all of the rhetoric to that effect.

This tactic has been praised by neocon "godfather" Irving Kristol, who has stated that the only reason he supported the Reagan tax cuts of 1981 was his belief that a stronger economy would be more capable of financing an expanded welfare state (see his Sept. 25, 2003 Weekly Standard article). Thus, statism at home and imperialism abroad are the defining characeristics of neoconservatism, as Godfather Irv admits. This of course has always been the ideology of William F. Buckley, Jr., and is why he sought to purge the genuine Old Right conservatives from the movement during his entire career.

BucEyedPea
10-21-2008, 11:19 AM
Consider the above quote Exhibit A for evidence.

BucEyedPea
10-21-2008, 11:27 AM
I don't know that it makes any sense to talk about foreign policy Marxism. I suspect that it's just as much a mistake to associate a specific foreign policy with Marxism as it is to confuse a specific domestic policy with Neoconservatism.

No it isn't. Certain strains of Marxism are expansionist and conquest driven. Look at the Soviet Union. The argument among some of them was whether Marxism should exist in one country or all countries. Trotsky considered himself an orthodox Marxist, or Marxist-Bolshevik. They supported democratic rights in the Soviet Union too. That's where they also differed from Stalin.

Other groups define themselves as Trotskyite even if they've abandoned most of his principles keeping only some. Like the idea of permanent revolution to make over the world ( Bush 2nd Inaugural Address) into democracies.

They also support "social revolution in the advanced capitalist countries through working class mass action."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism

patteeu
10-21-2008, 12:26 PM
Consider the above quote Exhibit A for evidence.

I consider it rubbish in terms of it's relevance to our dispute. I've already pointed out that there are at least two different groups of people we could mean when we're talking about neoconservatives, the originals and those who came after. As you have always done, your analysis jumps freely between the two groups without drawing any of the necessary distinctions.

The common thread that runs through neoconservatism, to the extent there is one, is their foreign policy philosophy. For the originals, it was based on anti-communism. More recently it has been the stuff you read at PNAC. Irving Kristol's comfort with big government in domestic affairs, on the other hand, cannot be seen as a common thread. That's the difference that makes your exhibit irrelevant to your argument.

patteeu
10-21-2008, 12:33 PM
No it isn't. Certain strains of Marxism are expansionist and conquest driven. Look at the Soviet Union. The argument among some of them was whether Marxism should exist in one country or all countries. Trotsky considered himself an orthodox Marxist, or Marxist-Bolshevik. They supported democratic rights in the Soviet Union too. That's where they also differed from Stalin.

Other groups define themselves as Trotskyite even if they've abandoned most of his principles keeping only some. Like the idea of permanent revolution to make over the world ( Bush 2nd Inaugural Address) into democracies.

They also support "social revolution in the advanced capitalist countries through working class mass action."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism

You make exactly the same mistake here. Certain strains of Marxists snort coke instead of drinking vodka too, but that doesn't make either snorting coke or drinking vodka Marxist. If some Marxists favor one foreign policy and other Marxists favor a different foreign policy, what that tells you is that their view on foreign policy doesn't have much to do with them being Marxists.

Taco John
10-21-2008, 12:40 PM
We can either talk about the original neocons or we can talk about those who took up their foreign policy positions during the Reagan administration and beyond. If we're talking about the originals, it's true that they were former leftists, but they switched sides because of foreign policy.

This is where you err. They didn't "switch sides." That's preposterous. They didn't become conservatives. In fact, they did the opposite. They took on a liberal foriegn policy position, and then re-branded themselves AS conservatives. They aren't genuine conservatives. They just put on a new label and then sold their wares as "conservativism."

Indeed, you're right that there were genuing conservatives who bought these wares who did so out of concern for communism. But these people aren't the originators of neoconservativism. They are just folks who adopted the liberal use of the military as an acceptable foriegn policy.

Where you're right though, is that Marxism and Neoconservativism are mutually exclusive to the degree that neoconservativism is a foriegn policy focused ideology, wheras Marxism is a domestic policy position. But that doesn't change that the foriegn policy of neoconservativism sprang from the well of people who were Marxists. And right now, many of those Marxists have infiltrated the Republican power structure masquerading as genuine conservatives.

patteeu
10-21-2008, 12:50 PM
Yeah, the liberal foreign policy of Barry Goldwater, William Buckley Jr., and Ronald Reagan. :thumb:

jidar
10-21-2008, 12:58 PM
This isn't a semantic argument. BEP's understanding of neoconservatism is fundamentally flawed. She blames such things as big government domestic spending by Republicans on neoconservatism when the two have nothing at all to do with one another.

It's not semantics. Words have definitions

Lol. You ****ing fruit cakes.

Studying of semantics is literally discussing the definitions and meanings of words. You guys are literally arguing over what the words "neocon", "conservative" and "liberal" mean.

Who really cares what they mean? What's the point of that? Especially such loaded terms as these.

Now look at me, here I am arguing over the definition of the word semantics. The quote was right, arguing semantics on the Internet is retarded.

patteeu
10-21-2008, 01:42 PM
Lol. You ****ing fruit cakes.

Studying of semantics is literally discussing the definitions and meanings of words. You guys are literally arguing over what the words "neocon", "conservative" and "liberal" mean.

Who really cares what they mean? What's the point of that? Especially such loaded terms as these.

Now look at me, here I am arguing over the definition of the word semantics. The quote was right, arguing semantics on the Internet is retarded.

Fair enough. Just don't use any of those terms in your future arguments.

jidar
10-21-2008, 01:43 PM
Fair enough. Just don't use any of those terms in your future arguments.

I will if I think it will help get the point across. That's the purpose of language right?

If it causes confusion I'll try to clear it up outside of the label.

Taco John
10-21-2008, 01:44 PM
Yeah, the liberal foreign policy of Barry Goldwater, William Buckley Jr., and Ronald Reagan. :thumb:


Liberal is a bearing unto itself. I might like the south, but the north pole doesn't become the south pole just because I decide to visit it.

patteeu
10-21-2008, 01:46 PM
I will if I think it will help get the point across. That's the purpose of language right?

If it causes confusion I'll try to clear it up outside of the label.

Yeah, that's exactly what's going on here, fruit cake. The purpose of the thread is to describe neoconservatives.

patteeu
10-21-2008, 01:50 PM
Liberal is a bearing unto itself. I might like the south, but the north pole doesn't become the south pole just because I decide to visit it.

I just wanted it to be clear that what you were describing as a "liberal" foreign policy was in fact the foreign policy of Barry Goldwater, William Buckley Jr., and Ronald Reagan. As long as that's what you mean when you use that label, we're in agreement. :toast:

Taco John
10-21-2008, 02:00 PM
As far as I know, Goldwater wasn't in favor of pre-emptive war. Not sure about Buckley Jr. Reagan invaded Granada, so he apparently was.

But yeah, I don't base what's liberal by who does and doesn't use it. I base it on what is or isn't liberal.

BucEyedPea
10-21-2008, 02:29 PM
I just wanted it to be clear that what you were describing as a "liberal" foreign policy was in fact the foreign policy of Barry Goldwater, William Buckley Jr., and Ronald Reagan. As long as that's what you mean when you use that label, we're in agreement. :toast:

Many regular conservatives, even some Old Right ones agreed with the NeoCons in the Reagan administration on his FP because they were all anti-communist. The Reagan administration had a mix of the two camps in his govt. Not so under Bush. Most conservatives, except for a very few, felt that communist expansion had to be contained as it was a threat to America. Post Cold War though, Old Right'ist felt it was time to pack up and come home returning to our previous FP. Obviously some didn't. That wouldn't be the Baker/Scowcroft camp who are hopelessly internationalist. Libertarians, not big govt ones but ones like Lew and even Ron Paul, didn't even support the Cold War.

BucEyedPea
10-21-2008, 02:33 PM
Lol. You ****ing fruit cakes.

Studying of semantics is literally discussing the definitions and meanings of words. You guys are literally arguing over what the words "neocon", "conservative" and "liberal" mean.

Who really cares what they mean? What's the point of that? Especially such loaded terms as these.

Now look at me, here I am arguing over the definition of the word semantics. The quote was right, arguing semantics on the Internet is retarded.

No the problem is as Orwell stated, the meaning of words get changed as a means for political control and change. He wrote a whole treatise on it. Hence Newspeak. Ya' know like Clinton calling taxes "contributions" socialists stealing the label " liberal" or "progressive" and "neocons" trying to pass themselves off as "conservatives." Some of this is intentional as a form of political control. Actually our original founding was based on "classical liberalism".

rrl308
10-26-2008, 12:15 AM
Anne Norton defines Neocons


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6dappb82loo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6dappb82loo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Smed1065
10-26-2008, 12:18 AM
Not all Republicans are neoconservatives. Many of us are social moderates and financial conservatives. Neocons appear to be neither.

Financial conservatives? :D

Smed1065
10-26-2008, 12:23 AM
Nah, don't take it that way. It is one of those aspects of politics that the left saw as dangerous and relevant and the right passed off as nonsensical tin foil conspiracy theories.

I was right until I was wrong. I invested 22 years but was wrong, I am right in the independent party now. Fuck the demos that I supported for years and did I state I am independent?

ROFL

patteeu
10-26-2008, 09:22 PM
Anne Norton defines Neocons




I read her book. It was an incoherent mess that read like a criticism of a high school clique from a resentful outsider. I pretty much agree with this review (http://www.interpretationjournal.com/IJ32_3CostopoulosNorton.pdf):

Professor Norton, as the title of her book suggests, claims that there is a connection between the political philosopher, Leo Strauss (d.1973), via some of his students, the “Straussians,” and what she considers the imperial foreign policy goals of the current Bush administration. “In this book, I will tell you how the teachings of Leo Strauss made their way from the quiet corners of classrooms… into the precincts of power and what became of them when they came there” (33). What became of them when they came there was a plan “to establish a new world order to rival Rome”(179) born of “an enthusiasm for empire.” (186). This is why, she says, we are currently at war in Iraq and Afghanistan (176).

At first glance, this would seem to be a doubtful proposition since none of those chiefly responsible for the Bush foreign policy—Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, George Tenet, George W. Bush—would ordinarily be considered “Straussians.” One opens this book, then, expecting Professor Norton to connect the dots and make the case that seems to have captured the imaginations of so many Bush administration critics.

The author carefully avoids the usual kinds of evidence and argumentation that one would expect a university professor to use; and instead, deploys a full array of gossipy tidbits, innuendo, ad hominem attacks, unattributed quotes, anecdotes, insults, crude psychologizing and the like.

The sloppiness of its argumentation is reflected in the way the book is written: it is riddled with embarrassing typos, grammatical blunders, and syntactical lapses. In the end, this book is so insubstantial that it only intermittently rises to the level of caricature, and in that sense, it falls short even of Shadia Drury’s work on Strauss and the Straussians. It is not just a “missed opportunity,” as another reviewer would have it, but its weaknesses are so obvious, its failures so comprehensive, that it inadvertently calls into question the whole enterprise. Not only are dots not connected, but the dots themselves become increasingly indistinct until many simply fade into the background.

BucEyedPea
10-27-2008, 08:52 AM
I just wanted it to be clear that what you were describing as a "liberal" foreign policy was in fact the foreign policy of Barry Goldwater, William Buckley Jr., and Ronald Reagan. As long as that's what you mean when you use that label, we're in agreement. :toast:

No it's not the same fp of Goldwater or Reagan. You can't lump the Cold War era and call it the same as today.* Just as you can't invoke Churchill/Chamberlain and the necessity of WWII. What would be NC FP in WWII would be saying it was caused by too few entanglements. Traditional Old Right conservatives are against the continuation of a Cold War policy after the fall of the Soviet Union. NeoConservatives don't. They also invoke WWII analogies all the time.

The strongest objections to what traditionalist refer to as NConservatism comes from NCs. It's no different than the socialists on this board who deny their views as socialist.

* Didn't a Goldwater endorse RonPaul and later Obama?

patteeu
10-27-2008, 08:59 AM
No it's not the same fp of Goldwater or Reagan. You can't lump the Cold War era and call it the same as today.* Just as you can't invoke Churchill/Chamberlain and the necessity of WWII. What would be NC FP in WWII would be saying it was caused by too few entanglements. Traditional Old Right conservatives are against the continuation of a Cold War policy after the fall of the Soviet Union. NeoConservatives don't. They also invoke WWII analogies all the time.

The strongest objections to what traditionalist refer to as NConservatism comes from NCs. It's no different than the socialists on this board who deny their views as socialist.

As always, I completely disagree with your analysis on this issue. Without an agreed upon definition of neoconservative, it's impossible to evaluate who denies it and who embraces it. I deny being the kind of socialist that you mistake for neoconservative. I deny being the former (usually jewish) liberal that the term neoconservative originally described. I don't deny having a neoconservative foreign policy worldview.

* Didn't a Goldwater endorse RonPaul and later Obama?

Barry Goldwater has been dead for 20 years. No other Goldwater is relevant to my statement.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-27-2008, 09:00 AM
As always, I completely disagree with your analysis on this issue.



You're as far off on this as you are on your analysis of neoconservatism. Barry Goldwater has been dead for 20 years.

I believe she is referring to Barry Goldwater Jr.

BucEyedPea
10-27-2008, 09:01 AM
I believe she is referring to Barry Goldwater Jr.
That's right!

KILLER_CLOWN
10-27-2008, 09:03 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W7r27Az_Mns&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W7r27Az_Mns&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

BucEyedPea
10-27-2008, 09:03 AM
As always, I completely disagree with your analysis on this issue.
Of course you would. You forgot to add, in your opinion.



You're as far off on this as you are on your analysis of neoconservatism. Barry Goldwater has been dead for 20 years.

Pluease, not that one.
But Ronald Reagan didn't invade the Soviet Union or start a war with them to end the Cold War.

BucEyedPea
10-27-2008, 09:16 AM
Ivy League Dissects the NeoCon Cabal (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo80.html)

Professor Norton distinguishes between the students of Straussianism who are simply academics who are interested in Strauss’s philosophy, and the "lesser Straussians" who regard themselves as "a chosen set of initiates into a hidden teaching."

She names names too.

Straussians are not conservatives; they are statists and imperialists, which is the farthest thing one can imagine from the genuine, old-fashioned conservativism of an Edmund Burke or a Russell Kirk.

[quote]Professor Paul Gottfried [an Old Right Conservative ] and many other columnists for LewRockwell.com have recognized most or all of the things Professor Norton writes about for some time now (see the "Neo-Conservativism" archives on LRC (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/neo-cons-arch.html)). The fact that Yale University Press has gone to the trouble of having an Ivy League professor write a book about the Straussian neocon cabal is further evidence of what a menace to freedom, prosperity and security these power-mad propagandists truly are.

patteeu
10-27-2008, 09:41 AM
I believe she is referring to Barry Goldwater Jr.

When I reread her comment after I posted, I figured out who she was talking about and edited my post accordingly. It's a non sequitur. The Goldwater being discussed was Barry Sr..

BucEyedPea
10-27-2008, 09:44 AM
I know who she's talking about. It's a non sequitur. The Goldwater being discussed was Barry Sr..

The 2 Godwaters have the same philosophy. It's just as invalid for you to make claims for Godwater Sr and RR when you can't say because they're dead. Just doin' the same.

patteeu
10-27-2008, 09:55 AM
The 2 Godwaters have the same philosophy. It's just as invalid for you to make claims for Godwater Sr and RR when you can't say because they're dead. Just doin' the same.

It's not even close to the same. You are trying to pass one man off as another because they share the same genes, I'm using the man's own words. It's certainly possible that Barry Sr. would have changed his tune over the past 20 years, but that's more speculative than pointing out that the man's own words were virtually identical 40 years ago to the words of your boogieman neocons today.

BucEyedPea
10-27-2008, 10:07 AM
It's not even close to the same. You are trying to pass one man off as another because they share the same genes, I'm using the man's own words.

No I'm passing it off based on the same philosophy which is voluntarily consented to.

It's certainly possible that Barry Sr. would have changed his tune over the past 20 years, but that's more speculative than pointing out that the man's own words were virtually identical 40 years ago to the words of your boogieman neocons today.
The Cold War is not comparable to Islamic terror on America in that Iraq wasn't involved. It's a wrong target. Anti-social personalities ( aka NCs Def #1) habitually select wrong targets. That's the difference.

I understand your defensiveness on this topic. But I thought you weren't going to argue it with me in here.

patteeu
10-27-2008, 10:50 AM
No I'm passing it off based on the same philosophy which is voluntarily consented to.

Your argument is circular.

The son's views are his own, not his dead father's. The father's views, as articulated in his speeches, are virtually identical to those of modern, so-called neocons.