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.
A rose by any other name is still a rose. The same holds true for neo-cons. They are not only in the republican party. You have to remember that they are called Neo(new)Conservatives for a reason. By definition they were liberals who switched parties.
Who are these people and how do you spot them. Unlike Paleoconservative-Conservative -classic they are very hawkish and believe in strong interventionalism around the world. Also, unlike Paleo's they believe in big government, and are liberal on social issues. They are also very big proponents of Israel. They were not a natural fit in the Republican party, but they really don't care about party affiliation which is why they easily switch back and forth from party to party wherever they can gain power. Joe Lieberman is an example so is Arlen Specter.
The poster child for this group is Jane Harman - who some say should be in prison now for using her position as a representative to help spies from another government. Some say, if not for Alberto Gonzalez she would be.
Bombshell: Rep. Jane Harman Caught on Tape Agreeing to Lobby for Alleged AIPAC/Israel Spies? | Rights and Liberties | AlterNet (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/rights/137494/bombshell:_rep._jane_harman_caught_on_tape_agreein g_to_lobby_for_alleged_aipac_israel_spies/ - broken link)
They will attempt to get the wedge votes for democrats on social issues such as pro-choice, pro gay marriage. They usually will come down on the side of 2d amendment protections. Who knows how they really care about these issues. They are Interventionist Hawks most responsible for Iraq and afghanistan... not to mention Vietnam. Now that you know what to look for they are easy to spot. They are republicans or democrats.
Don't be suckered in. Look how they vote that will tell you. Watch what they do not what they say.
Well Neoconservatism is as difficult to define as terms like, "Democrat" or "Republican", as within these groups, there are liberals, conservatives, libertarians, blue dogs, blue collar republican's, etc...
There has also been an evolution of this group, from the days of Leo Strauss and his more academic and Platonic views which had a resonate distaste for classic liberalism and Trotskyism, in favor of Plato's notions that only an intellectual elite are fit to govern. From this school of thought born out of the University of Chicago, you ended up with students of this philosophy such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle and a few other like minded academics.
However, as time has progressed, others have adopted some of the positions of Neoconservatism but not all, so in a manner of speaking they became neocon-light if you will. Of this group, we see the more of the foreign policy militant interventionist more akin to a Rumsfeld. In my opinion, gun/weapon loving liberals with grand illusions of a glorious American empire in an almost biblical fashion. Sound familiar to the last administration?
I would say about mid 2004 when it became clear that contemporary Republicans beholden to this Neocon-light position were seeing the political mindset move further left, a shift began. William Kristol got on live TV during the Democratic National Convention when Kerry was doing well in polling and stated, "Neoconservatives should embrace their liberal roots". ( a tape I saved, btw)
Then after the the trouncing of the 2006 mid term elections and the all but assured rise of Hillary Clinton as the next President (early 08), many Neoconservatives began to hedge their bets, and began to warm up to the left.
Once a member of the Trotskyist Spartacist League and an officer in the Young People’s Socialist League, Wittmann, like many admirers of the Red Army’s founder, moved rightward during the Reagan era and eventually wound up as the Christian Coalition’s political director.
Quote:
From Leon Trotsky to Ralph Reed to Hillary Clinton is a long, torturous road to follow, yet the chameleon-like Wittmann—who styles himself a Bull Moose progressive in the tradition of his hero, Theodore Roosevelt—has navigated it expertly. Wittmann’s new role as Hillary’s unofficial Rasputin is perfectly suited to her current political needs
The argument of the reverters, at bottom, seems to be that neoconservatism needs to reboot. Indeed, the reverters even seem to have discovered a new female savior—Hillary Clinton. And so, if neoconservatism has a future, it’s in the Democratic more than the Republican Party.
By the way, the second article is a great read on the current state of the Neoconservative movement and one interesting line is the following:
I think what it is, it’s an ideology—it’s really an idealistic approach to things. But it’s a combination of idealism and, if you will, brute force.” As Scowcroft sees it
It seems there is a split among Neoconservatives with two camps which are starting to face off over the question of the true faith, with the first embracing orthodoxy and the second heresy
Then after the the trouncing of the 2006 mid term elections and the all but assured rise of Hillary Clinton as the next President (early 08), many Neoconservatives began to hedge their bets, and began to warm up to the left.
The problem, which is evident if you read these many threads, is that people are completely unaware of this philosophy. They see things as either democrat or republican my guy or your guy. They completley miss this little group which is able to morph from one party to another without losing its philosophy. The neo - neo cons, which is what they are now. Will have to push the moveon.org democrats out of the party to get what they want just like the neocons successfully accomplished with the mcgovern republicans in the republican party.
Hillary Clinton certainly falls within the neo neo con philosophy. Any others that you would point out?.
Well I think that among those folks who chat up politics, most are familiar with the term neocon and neoconservatism. Whether they understand anything about its origins or ideology is another matter. I mean we have people who think a Conservative is someone who pursues imperial, progressive and interventionist foreign policy. Who believe that starting two wars/occupations and funds them by placing the economic cost on future generations as sound fiscal policy, etc...
As I pointed out, neoconservatism is difficult to define as it has changed, morphed, and been adopted by many at varying levels of degree. Is someone a neoconservative of the Straussian flair, or just a neoconservative more akin to Jeb Bush? There are no clear distinctions so the term gets tossed around haphazardly and usually very clumsily.
Whatever you wish to call it and whatever were the reasons that constitute the current amalgam of thought which has culminated into mainstream acceptance is not nearly as important as recognizing the policies that are adopted. In other words, we have both Democrats and Republicans who generally agree that marching around the world, sticking a gun in other peoples faces and saying, Yo, were America, do this or else. Democrats and even many liberals have no problem with the expanding war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and anti-war rally's have all but went the way of the dinosaur. Which tells me most democrats and even many liberals weren't as much opposed to our wars and occupations as they were simply to Bush.
On that same note, those Repubicans for the past many years who have adopted this liberalized progressive foreign policy ignored traditional principles in favor of a more leftist foreign policy view. Additionally, they had no qualms about paying for this on the backs of future generations and all but abandoned fiscal responsibility.
Both left and right today love to shove a gun in other peoples face, be it in the name of fighting evil or protecting our national interest, which they also fail to remind people that in their eyes, all the world is our personal national interest.
So at this point it matters little where the neoconservatives wish to place their hat, as their vision of foreign adventure and expansionist foreign policy is beloved by both, so they should be equally at home in either.
On that same note, those Repubicans for the past many years who have adopted this liberalized progressive foreign policy ignored traditional principles in favor of a more leftist foreign policy view. Additionally, they had no qualms about paying for this on the backs of future generations and all but abandoned fiscal responsibility.
Both left and right today love to shove a gun in other peoples face, be it in the name of fighting evil or protecting our national interest, which they also fail to remind people that in their eyes, all the world is our personal national interest.
So at this point it matters little where the neoconservatives wish to place their hat, as their vision of foreign adventure and expansionist foreign policy is beloved by both, so they should be equally at home in either.[/quote]
I would have easier time with the philosophy and the people who adhere to it if they actually believed in it. Out of the Republicans and Democrats who vote based on this philosophy I wonder how many actually believe it or just beholding to special interest lobbist like AIPAC. In my mind, the latter should be considered Traitors.
I would have easier time with the philosophy and the people who adhere to it if they actually believed in it. Out of the Republicans and Democrats who vote based on this philosophy I wonder how many actually believe it or just beholding to special interest lobbist like AIPAC. In my mind, the latter should be considered Traitors.
Well I don't believe it is about specific special interests anymore. At one time these folks filled the ranks of places like the PNAC, AEI, etc... but anymore they are both beholden to American Exceptionalism. This notion that we as American's generally see ourselves as global overseers who are on the side of good in the grand struggle between good and evil. This simplistic notion creates an unrealistic and distorted view of the extremely complex issues in foreign policy.
I would recommend reading the book or at the very least excerpts from "The Limits of Power" by Andrew Bacevich, who is a conservative historian and former Army Col. He goes into great depth on the subject of American exceptionalism and our current views of the imperial Presidency.
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.
