Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Ed & Dave Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-12-2013, 11:52 AM  
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
The label "Neocon" has lost all meaning

I don't agree with this guy's suggestion for an alternative, but he does a great job explaining why "neocon" is an essentially meaningless phrase now.

It's long, but if you're one of the people who likes to throw the neocon label around, you should read it so that you can clear up the confusion from which you're obviously suffering. It's one of the best, most succinct explanations of the origin of the term and it's nonsensical evolution over time that I've read.
‘Neoconservative’ Needs to Be Retired. Why Not Try ‘Imperialist’?
by Peter Beinart Jun 5, 2013 4:45 AM EDT
Sure, people love to bash them, but what exactly are neoconservatives? Are they hawks, or just Jewish hawks? Peter Beinart on the increasingly incoherent definition—and why we should try ‘imperialist.’
Earlier this week, I Googled “neocons and Syria” and learned that the former want America to go war in the latter. The first story Google offered me was by David Corn in Mother Jones. “How to Be a Good Neocon When It Comes to Syria,” read the headline. The subtitle read: “With Obama moving cautiously, some hawks are angling for a US invasion.”

Got it, I thought. “Neocon” is a synonym for “hawk.” But then, in the first sentence, Corn wrote that the “most hawkish neocons desire ... a full US military presence in the air and on the ground.” Hmm. If some neocons are more hawkish than others, then “neocon” and “hawk” can’t be the same thing. Four paragraphs later, Corn referred to former Bush-administration ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton as a “neocon favorite.” Why just a “favorite,” I thought. Why not a “neocon” himself? Then, in the next paragraph, Corn explained that “real neocons, it seems, do not get squishy when the question is US troops on Syrian soil.” So there are fake neocons? How do you tell the difference?

Bob Dreyfuss in The Nation made things worse. “Neocons, Hill Democrats Push for War Against Syria,” read the headline of his piece. So neocons can’t be Democrats or work on Capitol Hill? Three sentences later Dreyfuss made a distinction between “neoconservatives and right-wing military types,” which presumably means that you can’t be a neoconservative while in uniform.

After that I tried Ann McFeatters in the Chicago Sun-Times, who defined neocons as “the people who got us into war in Iraq and Afghanistan” but “most” of whom “personally have never been to war.” Then I gave up.

My beef isn’t with Corn, Dreyfuss, or McFeatters. They’re symptoms of a larger problem. For decades, but especially since the Iraq War, people have been bashing neocons without coherently defining who they are. Ostensibly, the term refers to a distinct foreign-policy perspective. But no such distinct perspective still exists. To really understand the way people use the term today, you have to fuse an ideological category with a religious or ethnic one. Frequently, what neocon really means is “Jewish hawk.” In that way, it’s a bit like “gangbanger,” “mobster,” “illegal” (the noun), or even “terrorist,” terms that could theoretically refer to someone of any religious, ethnic, or racial group but in America today are often reserved for members of only one. Liberals are supposed to abhor that sort of thing and find less loaded terms where they can. Which is why we should stop using “neocon” before any more damage is done.

Once upon a time, neoconservative did mean something distinct. In the 1960s and 1970s, a group of intellectuals with roots on the left began to critique their own side. They feared that in their zeal to overcome poverty and injustice, the liberal reformers of the day were eroding the institutions that upheld social order. Yes, the police were sometimes abusive and racist, but disempowering them and letting criminals run free might prove worse. Yes, urban slums were bad, but bulldozing them in favor of housing projects drawn up on some reformers’ blackboard might cause more suffering and alienation. When the New Left, which had emerged to fight racism and the Vietnam War, began arguing not only that America needed to be radically transformed at home but that the United States was a force for evil around the world, these intellectuals counterattacked. By the 1980s, some of them, like Jeane Kirkpatrick, Irving Kristol, and Norman Podhoretz, had drifted into the Republican Party and truly earned the name “neo”—or new—conservatives. Others, like Daniel Bell, Nathan Glazer, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, never did.

But whether or not they embraced the term, for a time in the 1970s the people called neoconservatives did believe something distinct. Unlike mainstream conservatives, they believed in government intervention in the economy. They did not consider the welfare state a threat to individual freedom. But unlike mainstream liberals, they thought government intervention had overreached. And despite Vietnam, they believed the Cold War was still worth fighting. Many of these early neoconservatives were Jewish. Some—like Kirkpatrick, Moynihan, and Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson—were not. But because the term referred to something ideologically distinct, it was at least possible to use it as something other than code for Jews.

By the 1990s, neoconservatism meant something very different. A younger group of neocons was gaining prominence: people like Irving Kristol’s son, William; columnist Charles Krauthammer, and former Bush-administration officials Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan, and Elliott Abrams. More firmly ensconced than their elders in the GOP, these “second generation” neocons did not champion a distinct domestic agenda. They either echoed the right’s hostility to the welfare state or ignored the subject entirely.

But when it came to foreign policy, these new neocons did advocate something distinct. In the 1990s, many on the right—including, ironically, some of the older neoconservatives—argued that with the Soviet Union gone, the United States could retreat from its global commitments. “Most of the important military obligations that we assumed were once important are now outdated,” wrote Kirkpatrick in 1990. Irving Kristol called for withdrawing U.S. troops from Germany. In 1996 Pat Buchanan, arguing that America must resign as global policeman, won New Hampshire’s Republican presidential primary. Speaking in 2000 about his Republican colleagues in Congress, Sen. John McCain observed that “an issue or crisis comes up, and their reaction is almost Pavlovian: don’t send troops.”

The second-generation neoconservatives, by contrast, argued that even without a clear global adversary, the United States should use its superpower status to prevent new contenders from arising. Instead of allowing anti-American regimes to gain the strength that might come from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, America should disarm or overthrow them, thus nipping potential dangers in the bud. “The United States may be faced with the question of whether to take military steps to prevent the deployment or use of weapons of mass destruction,” wrote a draft of the 1992 “Defense Planning Guidance” produced in Wolfowitz’s Pentagon office. Added William Kristol and Kagan in 2000, “The United States can set about making trouble for hostile and potentially hostile states rather than waiting for them to make trouble for us.”

Many prominent second-generation neocons were Jews. Some—like Zalmay Khalilzad, the Wolfowitz deputy who wrote the “Defense Planning Guidance,” and John Bolton of the American Enterprise Institute—were not. But in the 1990s, they all believed in expanding America’s global military dominance and confronting potential threats through preventive war, regime change, or both. And this made “neoconservative” in the 1990s, as in the 1970s, a term with some ideological coherence, a term that meant more than just “hawkish Jew.”

That’s less true today. In the 1990s, men like Kristol, Bolton, Wolfowitz, and Krauthammer differed from other prominent conservatives in their demand that the United States pursue an aggressive foreign policy even in the absence of a Cold War–style threat. But for almost everyone who mattered on the right, that kind of threat returned on 9/11. In an instant, the distinction between neoconservative and plain old conservative foreign policy shrank. Almost every Republican in Congress, even those who had been anti-interventionist in the 1990s, supported invading Afghanistan and Iraq. So did President George W. Bush, who in 2000, while Kristol and Kagan were calling for preventive attacks on potentially hostile regimes, had said in his second debate with Al Gore that “I just don’t think it’s the role of the United States to walk into a country [and] say ‘We do it this way; so should you.’”

It’s understandable that “neoconservative” became so ubiquitous after 9/11. Once the World Trade Center fell, Bush adopted the strategy of preventive war, regime change, and military expansion that the neoconservatives had advocated in the 1990s. But after he did, it stopped being distinctively neoconservative. Even today, more than a decade later, the Cold War mindset reborn after 9/11 enjoys broad support on the right. With the exception of Ron and Rand Paul, virtually every national Republican politician insists that America cannot accept an Iranian nuclear weapon. Virtually all oppose large cuts in the defense budget. Virtually all believe the United States remains at “war” with jihadist terror. If espousing these views makes you a neoconservative, then every major Republican presidential aspirant in 2012 except Paul and perhaps Jon Huntsman deserved the label.

I suspect this accounts for the ambiguity in Corn’s Mother Jones article about the relationship between neocons and hawks. If the two are synonymous, then neocon is too broad to serve much use, as the vast majority of Washington conservatives today are hawks. But if neocons are merely one kind of hawk, then what distinguishes them from all the rest?

One answer is faith in democracy. The neocons, some have suggested, are democratic expansionists. All hawks want America to extend its global dominance. The neocons believe extending democracy is crucial to that effort. Ergo: neocons are a distinct group.

The problem is that if you read the core statements of second-generation neoconservatism as it emerged in the 1990s—Krauthammer’s essays, the “Defense Planning Guidance” that Khalilzad wrote under Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney’s auspices, Kristol and Kagan’s call for a “neo-Reaganite” foreign policy, and the letters issued from their think tank, Project for a New American Century—they’re not primarily about spreading democracy. They’re about spreading American dominance.

It’s true that some neoconservatives believe the two are closely intertwined. In the 1990s, Kristol and Kagan backed Bill Clinton’s humanitarian wars in Bosnia and Kosovo. Kristol, Kagan, and Abrams all championed the revolution against Hosni Mubarak. But other key second-generation neocons disagree. Krauthammer called Clinton naive for expending blood and treasure to protect human rights and self-determination in the Balkans. “The essence of foreign policy,” he wrote during Kosovo, “is deciding which son of a bitch to support.” In 2002, he wrote of Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf that “we often need such dictators to win the larger struggle against a global threat to liberty.” In post-Mubarak Egypt, he’s argued that America should “do everything behind the scenes to help the military.” Bolton has also praised Musharraf, arguing that democracy is not “always the answer” and warning that letting the Muslim Brotherhood run in elections would put Egypt on the “road to disaster.”

One might argue that because they’re less enthralled with democratization, Krauthammer and Bolton aren’t real neocons. But it’s a mistake to put democratization at neoconservatism’s core. Kristol, Kagan, and Abrams are more optimistic than Krauthammer and Bolton that democracy can promote American hegemony, but even for them, democracy is valuable primarily as a means to that end. Kristol and Abrams, for instance, are sympathetic to bombing Iran even though it would be a disaster for the democracy movement there. And neither show much concern about the fundamentally undemocratic nature of Israeli control of the West Bank.

Besides, even if democratic expansionism were neoconservatism’s essence, journalists don’t define it that way. In February 2012, citing Abrams and Kristol’s support for the Egyptian uprising that brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power, an article in The Star-Ledger of Newark, New Jersey, asked, “How’s that Arab Spring working out for you, neocons?” Later that year, an article in the New Statesman, citing Krauthammer’s pessimism about Egypt’s revolution, declared, “Ignore the neocons—I refuse to give up on Egypt, or the Arab Spring.” Each article, in other words, identified “neocon” with a polar-opposite view of the Arab Spring.

Too often, what determines whether someone gets called a neocon is not what they believe but whether they’re Jewish. In his article, Corn identifies Richard Perle and the American Center for Democracy’s Rachel Ehrenfeld as neocons, while calling Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain hawks. But even if you believe neocons are especially interested in democracy promotion, Graham and McCain deserve the label as much as the others. Similarly, according to Google, articles including the words “neocon” or “neoconservative” comprise a far higher percentage of the references to Joe Lieberman than to McCain or Graham, even though the “three amigos” famously share similar foreign-policy views.

For his part, Dreyfuss sees Gen. Jack Keane as emblematic of “right-wing military types” while associating the American Enterprise Institute’s Danielle Pletka with “neoconservatives.” Yet he doesn’t in any way distinguish their beliefs, leading the reader to surmise that what makes Pletka a neoconservative isn’t what she believes but where she works and who she is.

There’s a better way. Retire “neocon,” which is rarely used coherently, if it even can be anymore, and often leads commentators (sometimes unwittingly) into dangerous territory. Call the people who want America to dominate the world militarily without the constraints of international institutions and international law “imperialists.” Yes, the term has negative connotations, but what distinguishes people like Kristol and Abrams from those liberals who also support military force in places like Bosnia and Syria is precisely the former’s open scorn for the idea that America should be bound by rules that other nations help craft. Liberal interventionists trace their intellectual ancestry to Woodrow Wilson, who tried to turn international affairs into a sphere regulated by law. Neocons scorn Wilson and revere Theodore Roosevelt, who believed, at least for part of his career, in unfettered American power.

Roosevelt is commonly called an imperialist. And some of his neocon disciples have embraced the term too. After 9/11, Max Boot argued in The Weekly Standard that the United States should “embrace its imperial role.” Niall Ferguson, who would be ranked among the world’s most prominent neoconservatives if he hadn’t been born a Christian in Scotland, has written an entire book arguing that America is an empire and should be a better one.

If people like Kristol and Abrams think “imperialist” undersells their commitment to universal ideals, they can call themselves “democratic imperialists,” thus distinguishing themselves from “realist imperialists” like Krauthammer and Bolton. This typology also offers a comfortable niche for Ron and Rand Paul, who, although commonly called isolationists, don’t want to isolate America from international commerce. A better term for them is “anti-imperialist,” or what Walter Russell Mead has called “Jeffersonian,” as their core belief is that America’s transformation from a republic into an empire imperils freedom at home.

I don’t know whether the “neocons” themselves will embrace this new terminology. But liberals should. It’s fine to criticize our ideological adversaries as long as it’s for what they believe. Just not for who they are.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2013, 08:37 AM   #91
InChiefsHell InChiefsHell is online now
Rockin' yer FACE OFF!
 
InChiefsHell's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
Casino cash: $5410
I don't even pay attention to the label, because I don't really know what it means. I never did actually. Myself, I believe in vastly reducing the power of the federal government, going to war when we are in danger, controlling our borders and coming up with a way to deal with the illegals who are here, abortion is wrong and should not be allowed.

I don't know what the hell I am...I suppose asshole fits...
__________________

We have a million reasons for failure, but not one excuse...
Die Donks, DIE!!

A quote:
"Oh well, there's always next year. We'll be better then, you'll see..." - Every Chiefs fan for the last 42...crap...43 years...

Quit listening to all that crappy new music and check out HEADSTRONG!
Posts: 12,845
InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2013, 09:15 AM   #92
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $5500
Quote:
Originally Posted by InChiefsHell View Post
I don't even pay attention to the label, because I don't really know what it means. I never did actually.
It was defined in this thread, if you didn't know before.


Quote:
Myself, I believe in vastly reducing the power of the federal government, going to war when we are in danger, controlling our borders and coming up with a way to deal with the illegals who are here, abortion is wrong and should not be allowed.

I don't know what the hell I am...I suppose asshole fits...
You're not an asshole. But let me ask you since you mentioned "going to war." Do you support the idea of going to war with out a legal Declaration? Do you support going to war in places that are not a threat? Are you willing to be skeptical about reports from our govt about going to war or do you question things that don't add up? Are you easily willing to go to war? Are you willing to have our people fight for the war of another country? For spreading "democracy", ideology, getting rid of rogue leaders, for the profits of the military-industrial complex, or the vagueness of our "interests" ( really the interests of the power elites). Or are you just for going to war when it's about another military threat to our own land ?

If you can't answer any of those, then you're playing dumb, or have remained purposely ignorant when "neo con" has been at the forefront of politics since 9/11. Because they go to the heart of conservativism aka limited govt as laid out in our Constitution.
__________________

Last edited by BucEyedPea; 06-15-2013 at 09:20 AM..
Posts: 56,985
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2013, 09:18 AM   #93
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $5500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
In what way? FYI, I'm not Jewish.
You don't have to be. Many Christians are NeoCons today. Take the Catholic Spencer who often writes about jihad.
The very fact, that you brought being Jewish into the debate, is one of the key arguing tactics of a NeoCon.
__________________
Posts: 56,985
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2013, 09:21 AM   #94
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $5500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey23545 View Post
"Niall Ferguson, who would be ranked among the world’s most prominent neoconservatives if he hadn’t been born a Christian in Scotland, has written an entire book arguing that America is an empire and should be a better one."


That's NeoConservativism right there too. This is the exact opposite of what many our Founders risked their lives for. Well, except maybe for Hamilton who wanted to be like the British Empire.
__________________
Posts: 56,985
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2013, 09:26 AM   #95
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $5500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
You get upset when I point out that you share the values of white supremacists like the guys at Stormfront though, don't you?
Upset? How would you know that unless you were actually in my presence? Are you sure it wasn't when you called me a "racist?" Or because you were just wrong and I challenged that Staussian lie?


Quote:
You and Stormfront's founder, Don Black, are RonPaulians.

Quote:
For entirely different reasons.
You and Progressive left use the racist card.

Quote:
RonPaulians are for non-intervention overseas, smaller government, and racial purity!
That's false except for a tiny minority...which exists in the D, R parties. If anything the NeoCons are for racial purity since they're focused on killing brown people, something Ron Paul and Paulians oppose.
__________________
Posts: 56,985
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2013, 09:29 AM   #96
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $5500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
OK, I'm going to grade myself on your checklist.



Hmmm. 5 yes and 12 no. Does that mean I'm not a neocon or is this something like the one drop rule?
No, because based on some of your posts over the past 6 years, you contradict yourself, are spinning your stands to appear differently and/or haven't answered honestly.

Sorry, pat, but you supported preemptive war in Iraq vigorously and Dick Cheney is your hero. <---that's another mark of a NeoCon that should have been in the earlier list.
__________________

Last edited by BucEyedPea; 06-15-2013 at 10:05 AM..
Posts: 56,985
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2013, 09:59 AM   #97
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $5500
Nearly, all conservatives today are NeoConservatives or lean that way, especially when it comes to the ME. This is due to religion largely.

X's are marked for giving a wrong aka untruthful answer or one with spin to make it seem like something else.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
So here goes an extensive list of what they believe in:
Quote:
•They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.

NO
X See next for the real answer.

Quote:
•They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so. [since before 9/11 I might add. Read "Clean Break"]

I'll give myself a very weak YES here, but only because I'm willing to see the map redrawn if that's what it takes to help those in the middle east throw off the oppression of their most radical elements.
X This is not a weak YES, let alone "very weak". It's NeoCon all the way.

Quote:
•They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.

I'll have to go with NO here because there are plenty of desired ends that wouldn't lead me to support preemptive war. Under some limited conditions, I could support preemptive war though.
X You supported preemptive war on Iraq and still think it was a good idea. This aligns with your above claim. "Under limited conditions" doesn't count. You therefore support it but are using a weasel phrase. Also, I've seen you support this vigorously in earlier debates but by spinning when it's not pre-emptive to provide an out.

Quote:
•They accept the notion that the ends justify the means – that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.[this is the same moral code as the communists]

Again I'm giving myself a NO because in most circumstances I wouldn't agree with this. In a few, though, I would.
X I've seen you vigorously support and vigorously defend the "ends justifies the means" before.
And example is your equating Stormfront with RonPaulians. No, you do believe this, and add most circumstances that you wouldn't doesn't clear you.


Quote:
•They express no opposition to the welfare state.

This one is a clear NO
X (partially) Theoretically yes, but not in practical terms. Actions speak louder than words. You consistently have defended the impracticality of trying to roll this back. The welfare-warfare state go hand in hand.

This relates to being a supply-sider too, which was not included but should be. That's because this idea is revenue neutral to them in order to maintain the welfare state.

Quote:
•They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.

I wouldn't call it an empire and it certainly wouldn't fit the traditional definition, but I'm in favor of global American influence so I'll give myself a YES.
X Okay, so you support empire whether you are in denial or not over it's proper name. We knew this. A- for being honest but the minus is for the spin on it not being an empire based on some of your past arguments. Again, the welfare-warfare state are just flip sides of the same coin. See ancient Rome.

Quote:
•They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.[like the communists]

And like every other state that has ever survived, including our own USA, YES.
Okay, clearly this is NeoConservative and a very large part of the ideology. It's also "the ends justifying the means" again. This is very Straussian.

Quote:
•They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.

A powerful military, yes. A powerful federal government in general, NO
X This is contradictory. Sounds like cognitive dissonance. You can't have one without other.
Of course the devil is in the details. Based on past debates, any cuts to the military are abhorrent to you. This is a NeoConservative position with some caveats only.

Quote:
•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.

YES
Okay, thank you for admitting it as being NeoConservative.

Quote:
•They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.

It's often ill-advised, but certainly not always. NO
Okay, thank you for admitting it as being NeoConservative.


Quote:
•They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.

I barely even know who he is. NO
X You don't need to actually know who he is. You follow his philosophy judging by your answer on the elite, lying and the ends justifying the means ( even if just some of the time).

You're answer here should be mostly a YES. This is in the NeoCon strain of thought.

Quote:
•They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate. [using force to spread democracy; nation building]

I don't care about the spread of democracy or nation building unless one or bother is important to advance American interests. NO
X In other words, your answer is YES. Including the use of the word "interests" which is vague in order to cover a wide latitude of reasons.

Quote:
• Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country. [ like the Soviets only not with Soviet values totally; with socialist democracies]

NO It should only be used in defense of our country. I'm not even sure it should be used in terrible humanitarian situations, but I'm willing to entertain exceptions in those cases on the theory that the bad will we would generate by standing by could damage our interests at some point in the future.
X In order words, your answer is really a YES, without calling it that. Since, you haven't supported a war that does defend our country, like Iraq and possibly on Iran.

Quote:
• 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.

NO I don't blame 9/11 on a lack of foreign entanglements.
Okay.

Quote:
•They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)

NO I like libertarians. I am a libertarian to a large degree.
X ( partially) No your not since you do not eschew aggression in FP and based on your answers here. You simply have some libertarian views—not enough to be considered libertarian to a "large degree."
You despise libertarians on FP though due to your attacks on RonPaulians, who are largely libertarians, as being racist and Stormfront supporters. The tactic is very NeoCon especially with the emotional venom it's delivered in. You do like libertarians on some domestic issues and the Balkan war. Although, I suspect the latter is because it was a Democratic presidents intervention whereby your critical thinking skills were less clouded due to partisanship.

I don't think you could ever support a Libertarian FP. I know I can't.


Quote:
•They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.

YES but only the necessary ones.
Okay, so this goes in the NC column too.

Quote:
•They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party. [some allegedly are actually members of the Likud party, who are hardliners]

NO
You're not being honest here. You sure could have fooled me. You have used the "anti-semite" card on those that don't. I've never seen you criticize a single thing Israel has ever done.


There, I graded your answers. You are a NeoCon, perhaps not all the way but definitely past the 50% mark. That puts you in their territory.
__________________
Posts: 56,985
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2013, 11:49 AM   #98
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
You don't have to be. Many Christians are NeoCons today. Take the Catholic Spencer who often writes about jihad.
The very fact, that you brought being Jewish into the debate, is one of the key arguing tactics of a NeoCon.
Uh huh. All it takes to be neocon is a difference of opinion with Ron Paul on anything. I understand your position.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2013, 12:20 PM   #99
KILLER_CLOWN KILLER_CLOWN is offline
Be HEALED!!!!!!!
 
KILLER_CLOWN's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Fascist State
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
Uh huh. All it takes to be neocon is a difference of opinion with Ron Paul on anything. I understand your position.
Ya that must be it, repeat the lie long enough maybe those short on Intelligence may believe you.
__________________
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father ... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 24,192
KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2013, 12:31 PM   #100
InChiefsHell InChiefsHell is online now
Rockin' yer FACE OFF!
 
InChiefsHell's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
Casino cash: $5410
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
You're not an asshole. But let me ask you since you mentioned "going to war." Do you support the idea of going to war with out a legal Declaration? Do you support going to war in places that are not a threat? Are you willing to be skeptical about reports from our govt about going to war or do you question things that don't add up? Are you easily willing to go to war? Are you willing to have our people fight for the war of another country? For spreading "democracy", ideology, getting rid of rogue leaders, for the profits of the military-industrial complex, or the vagueness of our "interests" ( really the interests of the power elites). Or are you just for going to war when it's about another military threat to our own land ?

If you can't answer any of those, then you're playing dumb, or have remained purposely ignorant when "neo con" has been at the forefront of politics since 9/11. Because they go to the heart of conservativism aka limited govt as laid out in our Constitution.
I used to be much more willing to go to war in my younger days. If you piss us off, we should just kick your ass. After Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm a lot more reserved about just "going to war". The world has changed, and since we don't fight to win, rather to win "hearts and minds", I don't think we should be going to war. It seems rather pointless to risk our soldiers for an ideology that doesn't fit the people we are fighting for. The only way to win is to go in with overwhelming force, kill a ton of people and take ownership. That's not practical or moral. So, I did agree with the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns at the beginning, but as time has gone on, I view them as futile.

Having said that, I must say that my son is a US Marine, and that has also gone a long way towards shaping my opinion. I'm proud of him and of all of our armed forces. I want them to be the best most lethal fighting force that is used extremely sparingly in the world. Protect our borders, first and foremost. But I also know it's not always that simple. I do believe in supporting our allies. I think Israel is an ally worth supporting. But I think the Middle East would be much less of a problem if we didn't buy any oil from them, which we could do if we had any brains.

I dunno. I'm wishy washy, and I'm tired of seeing our fine young men and women put in harms way for some bullshit reason. They don't like us, they don't want us there. Leave then. And don't go back. Unless you are kicking somebody's ass who deserves it. And then you KICK that ass. And then leave.
__________________

We have a million reasons for failure, but not one excuse...
Die Donks, DIE!!

A quote:
"Oh well, there's always next year. We'll be better then, you'll see..." - Every Chiefs fan for the last 42...crap...43 years...

Quit listening to all that crappy new music and check out HEADSTRONG!
Posts: 12,845
InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.InChiefsHell is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2013, 01:28 PM   #101
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
No, because based on some of your posts over the past 6 years, you contradict yourself, are spinning your stands to appear differently and/or haven't answered honestly.

Sorry, pat, but you supported preemptive war in Iraq vigorously and Dick Cheney is your hero. <---that's another mark of a NeoCon that should have been in the earlier list.
Incorrect. You're confused by your terrible definition.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2013, 01:56 PM   #102
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $5500
Quote:
Originally Posted by InChiefsHell View Post
If you piss us off, we should just kick your ass.
Really? Just pissing us off is grounds for starting a war now? Not just a physical attack?

After Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm a lot more reserved about just "going to war". The world has changed, and since we don't fight to win, rather to win "hearts and minds", I don't think we should be going to war.

Well, I agree if we do it, we do it to win but I think declaring war, officially, helps with that.

Quote:
I do believe in supporting our allies. I think Israel is an ally worth supporting.
Supporting or doing their fighting?

Quote:
But I think the Middle East would be much less of a problem if we didn't buy any oil from them, which we could do if we had any brains.
I think we can just buy their oil. No military is needed for that, unless we have to guide any tankers out of the area due to their own fighting. If anything the ME is more of a problem from our support for Israel but much more for putting military bases on their lands. The latter is what brought terrorism to America.

Quote:
I dunno. I'm wishy washy, and I'm tired of seeing our fine young men and women put in harms way for some bullshit reason. They don't like us, they don't want us there. Leave then. And don't go back. Unless you are kicking somebody's ass who deserves it. And then you KICK that ass. And then leave.
Okay, but I still want to know if you think we should declare war?
__________________
Posts: 56,985
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2013, 01:57 PM   #103
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $5500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
Incorrect. You're confused by your terrible definition.
Which definition? Preemptive? If it's NeoCon, that's not "my" definition. It is the definition.
__________________
Posts: 56,985
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2013, 01:57 PM   #104
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $5500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
Uh huh. All it takes to be neocon is a difference of opinion with Ron Paul on anything. I understand your position.
Nope
__________________
Posts: 56,985
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2013, 01:59 PM   #105
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
Which definition? Preemptive? If it's NeoCon, that's not "my" definition. It is the definition.
Your 17 point checklist for identifying a neocon. It doesn't matter whether it's your terrible definition or someone else's terrible definition. The fact is that it's terrible and fails to adequately define a coherent belief system worthy of a single, specific label.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.