Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan
It is remarkable how neo-conservatism is able to find a candidate regardless of party. In 2016, it looks like the neo-conservative candidate will be a Democrat. It's impressive how, despite Hillary being a neo-con, she (and the movement) are able to rally the base. Liberals would never vote for a Republican with Hillary's hawkish and corporatist views, however, they are more than willing to vote for a Democrat with them. Totally fascinating and it just goes to show how entrenched and smart neo-conservatism is.
|
It's because most people, and you see it all the time on C-D, just look at the little letter behind the candidate's name without any real thought to their positions. There is also a large segment of America that will vote for a candidate if they have the potential to be a "first" i.e. "the first black president" or "the first female president." I'm willing to bet if you asked the average Hillary Clinton supporter or even the average Jeb Bush backer to name 5 reasons they support their candidate they couldn't. They'd throw out empty platitudes or shallow reasons. I bet Hillary lovers can't even name 3 accomplishments of she's had in career in the senate and at the State Dept.
We are really seeing neoconservatism laid bare this year. It was telling that Lindsey Graham said he supports Hillary Clinton's foreign policy over Rand Paul's. There is no party or ideological loyalty with neocons, it's all about continual warfare. People forget that neocons started out as liberal Democrats who supported aggressive foreign policy in the Cold War. It makes me sick that these wolves in sheep's clothing have convinced America and the GOP that an interventionist and aggressive foreign policy is "conservative." It's not, it's historically a liberal idea. The historic conservative and Republican foreign policy position is non-intervention.