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.
Neoconservatism was initially based on ideals that we might even consider 'noble' - a universal belief in the primary of democracy as the best way to arrange human affairs, for example. A belief that the military power of the United States should be used to impose democracy on certain key nations which might lead to the 'spread' of democratic ideals in neighboring countries.
Unfortunately, neoconservatism as it was implemented on the ground by Don Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney, George Bush, and Paul Bremer was horrendously incompetent. Neoconservatism, due to politics, became conflated with the Rumsfeldian ideal of military 'lightness' - fewer troops, more technology, and faster results.
While Rumsfeld's model may have worked for the modest goal of deposing a third-world dictator, it did not hold up when it came to the broader neoconservative goal of 'democratizing' and 'westernizing' the invaded country. That is the fundamental tragedy of modern neoconservatism - the collision of Rumsfeld's limited war theory, and neoconservatism's idea that American influence and supremacy can only be assured through the democratization of hostile regimes.
Neoconservatism is starkly different from true conservatism. True conservatives believe in limited goverment and a military that is strong to PROTECT OUR HOME, not to go skipping around the world starting little fires that never get put out. If I remember right, the majority of the conservative base was not to happy with Clinton's military policy of playing world police. Then we voted in Bush......ooops...
The parsing of the definition or discussion of neoconservatism over a cup of tea means not a whit. Much more importantly is- Bush and his posse are proud neocons, and look where they have led us.
I think it is the height of arrogance that we should feel the need to "impose Democracy" on other nations through military force, when they have not asked for this or shown any remote capacity or desire to even begin to function in a Democratic society. In Iraq and the rest of the outside world -are they looking at us as liberators or as foreign occupiers?
Did our selfish national interests not have just a smidgeon to do with the invasion, or was it all just because we felt this incredible urge to let the Middle East in on our wonderful Democratic experiment?
IIRC - imposing a political/economic system is called colonialism. This is an effect of the basic problem of the militarization of our economy. Empires and the associated colonial wars enrich the militarists but eventually destroy the economy because of misdirected investment.
Both need to be changes so the military-industrial complex does not dominate us and we leave the rest of the world to develop however they want.
To me its the arrogant ones who created theories in the 90's on how to change the world, but lacked the historical basis to create sound policies. The greatest example of this is the PNACers whose ideas sound might sound great if you take out reality, history and plausible policies... unfortunately, those are the ones who made decisions this decade. Their Iraq strategy is especially a head scratcher considering the universal views on how bad invading Iraq would be in terms of creating a stable government.
It's as if the neo-cons completely ignored history and know nothing of geo-politics.
It's as if the neo-cons completely ignored history and know nothing of geo-politics.
I think that statement about summarizes just what the most fundamental difference is. The neocons in the Bush administration and in the Gingrich congress, implement myth as policy. Their myth is that the United States is always fair and always just and always comes as a liberator or protector when troops leave our soil. Neocons believe that America is favored by providence because America alone has the right blend of ideals and moral rectitude.
They believe their vision of America is under attack from within and without. Any means necessary to protect that America are justified in the end because ultimately America is good. If we torture it's because we're torturing evil doers, if we imprison without trial, it's because we're imprisoning evil doers.
The morality of the intention to do good outweighs the effect of the action that results in evil. This distinction is very western in outlook and not one shared by many non-western cultures. It's OK for Bush to call Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, "the axis of evil," because we, the west, understand he's separating the governments of those countries from the people within them. We imagine that the rest of the world would share this distinction. They don't. Imagine the US was invaded with the words, "It's not you the people we don't like, it's your government so don't worry. Have some Hershey bars and nylons."
If anything their fatal flaw is the inability to understand or even attempt to understand that our western ideals of democracy and individual liberties aren't self-evident despite what Thomas Jefferson said. Neocons also do not understand that America is not always perceived as good and just how much of the world is deeply suspicious of American policies and even culture. Words proclaiming our good intentions mean nothing to people with American bombers overhead.
The same ideology is seen in the neocon social agenda of reduced social services, reliance on charities, "faith-based initiatives," and a desire to spread and defend, "American" values at home and abroad. Neocons frequently state with much certitude that America was founded on Christian values and those are, therefore, America's values. If anything, this is what scares other Americans most because the neocons seem to want to restrict personal freedoms in the name of morality while extoling the virtues of corporatism and patriotism. That kind of thinking skirts dangerously close to fascism in a time when most of America has no clue what fascism is and has never seen it. Fascism is something that happened in Germany. It has nothing to do with America and in any event, it can't happen here.
Neocons imagine an America out of Norman Rockwell and base their policies upon that imagination.
Last edited by Jason_Els; 08-14-2007 at 01:07 PM..
I think it is the height of arrogance that we should feel the need to "impose Democracy" on other nations through military force, when they have not asked for this or shown any remote capacity or desire to even begin to function in a Democratic society.
You're right, they didn't ask for Democracy. Their mouths were too full of blood from the boot heel of the state-sponsored henchman that just kicked their teeth through the back of their skull...makes it a bit difficult to speak up and ask for help.
You're right, they didn't ask for Democracy. Their mouths were too full of blood from the boot heel of the state-sponsored henchman that just kicked their teeth through the back of their skull...makes it a bit difficult to speak up and ask for help.
Unbelievable.
Cap
What does it matter to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarism, or the holy name of liberty or democracy< quote from -Mahatma Gandhi
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.
