Quote:
Originally Posted by fp1978
If you believe(d) Bush when he says that he is a conservative then that's your problem. Neoconservative? Sure. Conservative? Absolutely not.
|
Bush is a neo-liberal institutionalist, just like his daddy, and just like the Clintoons.
The terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' are generally misapplied in all circumstances. For example, I am a flaming liberal with respect to economics, an ultra-conservative with respect to social and domestic issues and I am neither a liberal, a conservative, a radical, a neo-liberal institutionalist nor a neo-conservative with respect to foreign policy, rather I'm a constructivist.
A radical views foreign policy from a Marxian stand-point, that the history of country, particularly the history of class struggle and conflict within a country dictates the actions of the state.
A constructivist accepts the radical view as generally true, but recognizes that geography and demographics are factors that take precedence and are the greatest influence on how a state will act. For example, as a constructivist, I see no logical reason for Iraq to exist, since it is an artificial construct created by the pig-headed liquour-swilling fat oaf Winston Churchill. It was he who drew the borders of Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, and the states on the Arabian Peninsula, and he had no right, no legal, moral, ethical basis to do so, and he did so without the consent of the peoples (and to and insult to injury, he appointed the Sunni Saudi King Faisal as sovereign and lord over the majority Shi'a peoples in Iraq).
A constructivist recognizes that Iraq is neither a nation nor a nation-state, but rather a large group of nations, organized as tribes, supra-tribes, clans and supra-clans, and consequently, the best course of action would have been to create an independent Kurdistan, an independent Shi'a Iraq, and then merge the Sunnis with Syria and/or Saudi Arabia, or allow them to stand as an independent state, based on a referendum of the people.
A liberal believes that people and states are basically good, and that stability is best induced through cooperative security agreements, like the Warsaw Pact, NATO, SEATO, ANZUS, OAS, etc. Colin Powell and Alexander Haig are liberals.
A neo-liberal institutionalist also believes that people and states are basically good, but they place less emphasis on cooperative security arrangements, and more emphasis on GOs (Government Organizations like the UN and EU), NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations like Amnesty International, Red Cross, Green Peace, Doctors Without Borders etc), and MNCs (Multi-National Corporations like Coca-Cola, Ford, GM, Con-Agra, CremerGruppe, etc). The neo-liberals rely heavily on MNCs, supported by GOs, to maintain peace and stability. Again, examples would be Bush, his daddy, the Clintoons and many others.
A conservative assumes that people and states are basically selfish and will always act out of their own selfish interests, and for that reason, the threat of force or the use of force is necessary. They are willing to work within the framework of cooperative security agreements, but they see no value to them, as they are too bureaucratic to take swift and decisive action to avert a crisis, or intervene in time to lessen the impact of a crisis. There are too many conservatives to name, but Jimmy Carter was a prominent one that comes to mind.
A neo-conservative adopts the same view as a conservative, but adds two additional positions, one being the preemptive use of force, and the other being a fervently pro-Israel stance.
Sorry folks, but it wasn't Bush, it was Carter and his Carter Doctrine who first promogulated the neo-conservative position of the preemptive use of force, that the US could intervene and interfere in the Persian Gulf and Persian Gulf States for any reason or no reason at all to protect vital US national interests.
The Carter Doctrine was written by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Gary Sick, both neo-conservatives.
So, I'm laughing at the superior intellect. Y'all think getting rid of Bush will get rid of the neo-cons? It will not. You should look closely at Neo-Bama-con's foreign policy advisors, who include some of the biggest neo-cons around, namely Brzezinski and his son Mark, Tony Lake, Shapiro and half a dozen others.
And don't forget the 1 Million or so neo-cons in the alphabet agencies and cabinet positions. You can't get rid of them because they are hired as public servants, bureaucrats, civilian employees, not elected.
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.
