Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are obviously confusing the Obama Administration with his predecessor. America is no longer the punchline of the world--that ended on 1/20/09.
To the OP, this is absolutely the most concerning thing about a Jeb! presidency, that he will simply reassemble all the old gang that his father and brother employed, giving these warmongers a third bite at the apple. We can't afford another Bush presidency.
You obviously live in an alternate universe. Our influence has declined world wide, respect for the US has, in spite of the lie Obama claims as truth, has never been lower and our political system is on the verge of being destroyed. All this since 1/20/09. And accelerating.
If anything, Hillary will select people from Bill Clinton's group of advisers. And as you may recall, Bill Clinton gave us a GREAT economy, with NO wars.
Jeb Bush is part of the Bush family, which SURROUNDS itself with Neo-Cons as advisers!
Why would things be ANY DIFFERENT if Jeb is elected?
A new Bush in the White House ... advised by same group of people that ruined our country!
Hillary has sworn allegiance to Obama and profited on all fronts from that allegiance. Look at her campaign advisors.
The so called "great economy" you claim was already starting to decline as Bill left office, we were attacked by those that Bill ignored months after he left office, having not dealt with them, and the liberals of the nation were already trying to bring down Bush.
Most of the lightweights who rant about "Neo-cons" can't even describe what they are; the term has become a scare-word among the Lefties, probably because it's associated with the breakdown of the Democrats' dominance in Congress which ended in the 1990's, and reasserted itself in 2014.
That's what happens when their power base is built upon the societal and economic ignorance of those who believe only Presidential politics matters; and that a handful of insiders (but not the likes of George Soros and the Hollywood Left) control everything.
Ignorant Righties made the same argument when I first started using the term in 2002. A neocon is a very specific type of conservative who happened to dominate the Bush administration. They are idealists who believe America should take an activist global stance and export its revolution. Many of them started out as liberals and Marxists. Their opinions about foreign policy are quite different than traditional conservatives who favor isolationism and believe nation building projects should be avoided.
Remember when Bush said there wouldn't be any nation building in his administration? That was before he got the new script. Obviously, he was an idiot who had no idea what kind of administration his advisors were going to establish. Maybe if he was more familiar with the neocon movement he could have made better guesses about what "his" administration was going to do.
You've already admitted that you started using the term "neocon" because others of a similar orientation found it a suitable label to lump a collection of conservative beliefs (I wouldn't characterize them as "principles") together, and to demonize the collection as a threat. There is no such thing as "monolithic conservatism".
If we date the birth of the organized conservative movement as beginning in the early Fifties, with the publication of Buckley's God and Man at Yale, then it has been characterized by dissent and the emergence of secondary movements almost since its birth. Buckley expressed his reservations about both Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy and the growth of libertarian groups on campus practically as soon as they gained enough influence to be recognized. After the Nixon/Watergate debacle of the early Seventies, the "small l" libertarians took a page from the Objectivists' playbook, and became ideologically-centered "Capital L" Libertarians.
In the intervening years, the Republican Party rebuilt its base by recruiting mostly among the disaffected morality-fixated conservatives of the Christian Right; in the process, it picked up a fringe of unreconstructed segregationists, just as the Democrats gained a fringe of unreconstructed socialists.
The election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, combined with the success in both reviving the market-based economy and dealing an eventually-fatal blow to institutionalized Marxism set the so-called "progressive" movement back for decades. But with the charismatic Reagan's ride off into the sunset, the heirs fell to fighting among themselves. Long before the term "neocon" came into common use, a commentator at the 1988 GOP convention coined the term "pop-con" (populist conservative) -- a blend of small-business-oriented economics, recognition of the need for a global policeman, and a "pragmatic" partnership with the religious conservatives.
That alliance failed to hold together -- the result of stridency by the Religious Right and the failure of the GOP's corporate wing to more completely divorce itself from the perceived elitism. The unfortunate fact is that no Bush has ever been able to make himself feel at home in a blue-collar bar.
But the Democrats have their own troubles -- having recruited heavily among a number of one-issue or ideologically-oriented factions, many of which share a common dismay at the workings of market pressures which inveigh against them, are determined to use the state's (meaning government at all levels) legal monopoly on the power to coerce in order to get it, and -- just as with some among the Republicans -- have been drawn toward more tinkering with the Constitution and upsetting the workings of the system of checks and balances.
A delicate system has been corrupted by both major parties, and it remains to be seen how much of it can be restored -- and how soon.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 07-09-2015 at 02:51 PM..
I wasn't using it as a derogatory term. I was using it as an accurate term to describe a strain of conservatism I learned about in the early aughts. (The movement itself began in the 1960s.) when used correctly, the term neocon refers strictly to foreign policy. It has nothing to do with the religious right or conservative populism.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,428,613 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandsthetime
Too bad you didn't address his points, instead you rambled on about leftists. When I think of "Neocon" I always think of pointless intervention. Is there anything Jeb's gang can do to break that stereotype that all they want is war, war, war???
You are obviously confusing the Obama Administration with his predecessor. America is no longer the punchline of the world--that ended on 1/20/09.
To the OP, this is absolutely the most concerning thing about a Jeb! presidency, that he will simply reassemble all the old gang that his father and brother employed, giving these warmongers a third bite at the apple. We can't afford another Bush presidency.
Warmongers? Every war the US has been involved with was started by Democratic presidents.
So why should we expect anything to be DIFFERENT if Jeb Bush wins?
The same people could be back in charge once again!
Well first of all, there was never a George Bush Jr so who are you referring to may I ask? And would things be different now, than when his dad was Pres? Can we say age of those you mention if nothing else? Oh, and where do you get the idea the PNAC led us into war? Do you realize, the congress overwhelmingly voted to enter the war? Maybe you were too young, at the time to realize this or you just simply choose to forget it?
If anything, Hillary will select people from Bill Clinton's group of advisers. And as you may recall, Bill Clinton gave us a GREAT economy, with NO wars.
Jeb Bush is part of the Bush family, which SURROUNDS itself with Neo-Cons as advisers!
Why would things be ANY DIFFERENT if Jeb is elected?
A new Bush in the White House ... advised by same group of people that ruined our country!
No wars? He just ducked the first attack on the world trade center, instead of addressing terrorist then. He choose to leave it to someone else. The only time he wasn't a whimp was in the bedroom I guess!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
