The neocon moment is over

[JamieinNH]

The term is thrown around here as an insult, .. .

Any label or term can be turned into an insult. Neocon doesn't have that distintion by itself.

It needs to stop. It's not at all like calling someone liberal or conservative, because those terms need not be explained.

It does need to stop, but so does all the labeling. Just because something can be "explained" doesn't mean when people use it they don't hurl it around like an insult. All you have to do is go back over the politics section of this site to see that. If your goal is to get the name calling or labeling to stop, then it should start with neocon, but should include all labels.

Jamie

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Good stuff, Jamie.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Any label or term can be turned into an insult. Neocon doesn't have that distintion by itself.


It does need to stop, but so does all the labeling. Just because something can be "explained" doesn't mean when people use it they don't hurl it around like an insult. All you have to do is go back over the politics section of this site to see that. If your goal is to get the name calling or labeling to stop, then it should start with neocon, but should include all labels.

Jamie

Umm...without labels how do you propose we describe these political ideologies? Should we go the Prince route and assign a symbol to them?

 

[LadyEagle]

I disagree that the neocon moment is over. We will be involved in a quagmire in Iran before Bush leaves office. And for the record, neocons are not true conservatives. Theirs is a global agenda which is succeeding quite well so far.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

We could have the people who use the term man up & explain themselves. Folks aren't so against being called "liberal", or "conservative". But neocon is always used in a negative way, like in L.E.'s, well, whatever that was.

 

[Rufus_1611]

I disagree that the neocon moment is over. We will be involved in a quagmire in Iran before Bush leaves office.

...and quite likely a quagmire at home when the next geological, meteorological, economical or terror-illogical event hits.

NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51

 

[Rufus_1611]

We could have the people who use the term man up & explain themselves. Folks aren't so against being called "liberal", or "conservative". But neocon is always used in a negative way, like in L.E.'s, well, whatever that was.

I'm not a big fan of being called a liberal but I have been called this a number of times because I do not support neoconservative policies. While I may take offense at the term, I do not desire that the term be eliminated but would prefer that people would get educated about all the terms so they understand what they are saying. Sticks and stones etc.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Aw c'mon Rufus, if you were called a liberal, you would consider the source. Nobody who knows anything at all would call you a liberal. But the term "neocon" has lost any meaning at all, and it comes at me from people I otherwise respect.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Aw c'mon Rufus, if you were called a liberal, you would consider the source. Nobody who knows anything at all would call you a liberal. But the term "neocon" has lost any meaning at all, and it comes at me from people I otherwise respect.

Well, I did consider the sources and moved on I know this is a tricky issue because the policies bleed across the labels. What philosophies do you believe you are conservative on and what are the causes that you feel people call you neoconservative over?

 

[carpro]

I would say fascists who admire the likes of Trotsky, Machiavelli and Strauss more than Marx. They seem to believe in perpetual change (revolution) "creative destruction" (order out of chaos) and the "noble lie". You, imho are not a neocon Bro Curtis. I'd say you're an honest guy caught up in the "noble lies" of others.

Curtis,

That means you are stupid and easily misled, or led , whatever the case may be.

It is no wonder you don't like being called a neocon. Most people that throw the label around actually mean it as an insult despite their protestations.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

double posted

 

[carpro]

I disagree that the neocon moment is over.

I don't know whether it's over or not.

No one has yet been able to tell us what it is.:BangHead:

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Well, I did consider the sources and moved on I know this is a tricky issue because the policies bleed across the labels. What philosophies do you believe you are conservative on and what are the causes that you feel people call you neoconservative over?

Low taxes, elimination of federal state watchdog departments, elimination of the department of education, the I.R.S., the E.P.A., autonimity for churches, tax breaks for business starters, elimination of welfare, a return to individual liberty & personal responsibility, no gun restrictions, disavowing & dismantling the U.N. & NATO, secure borders...North and South, tax breaks for private schools, and for those who home school, abortion returned to state's legislators, no internet ploice, no hate crimes, for starters.

People may call me a neocon, because I believe God wants us to help where we can, we should try and stop genocide, and we should try and eliminate tyrants, especially when they threaten other nations, and I stand by israel, 'cuz in '67, they occupied no land but their own, but were attacked on several fronts, and the land they took was fair game. I guess that's what it's all about, ain't it ? I'm not putting them above the U.S., but I think they deserve our help. And I base that on Christ's own words in the end of Matthew 25, and in the O/T, like Ezekiel 33. (I'm pretty sure yer not gonna go all tragic_pizza on me)

 

[Rufus_1611]

Low taxes, elimination of federal state watchdog departments, elimination of the department of education, the I.R.S., the E.P.A., autonimity for churches, tax breaks for business starters, elimination of welfare, a return to individual liberty & personal responsibility, no gun restrictions, disavowing & dismantling the U.N. & NATO, secure borders...North and South, tax breaks for private schools, and for those who home school, abortion returned to state's legislators, no internet ploice, no hate crimes, for starters.

People may call me a neocon, because I believe God wants us to help where we can, we should try and stop genocide, and we should try and eliminate tyrants, especially when they threaten other nations, and I stand by israel, 'cuz in '67, they occupied no land but their own, but were attacked on several fronts, and the land they took was fair game. I guess that's what it's all about, ain't it ? I'm not putting them above the U.S., but I think they deserve our help. And I base that on Christ's own words in the end of Matthew 25, and in the O/T, like Ezekiel 33. (I'm pretty sure yer not gonna go all tragic_pizza on me)

Based on your statements, in my humble discernment, I would consider you to be more conservative than neoconservative. However, I would maintain that the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, likely Iran and anywhere else the U.S. is trying to be globo-cop / empire builder is a neconservative / PNAC policy, though these policies and actions preceded PNAC as demonstrated by our military presence in 150+ of 190 (est) and the regime changing that occurred prior to W.

How 'bout we bequeath you Conservative with a twist of Neocon?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

:laugh: You do crack me up. Now if you could put a little Monty Python on it.

Hey, have a nice holiday weekend. Remember all of us poor slobs who put the uniform on, for years upon years. We did it for you, Rufus. You too, Poncho. :wavey:

And stay safe on the roads. The only computin' I expect to do until Tuesday is checking the baseball scores on the wife's blackberry.

 

[James_Newman]

And since I feel that Bush's spending policies are outta control, since 2002, and I don't buy the nation building either, but, like KenH, (who also throws the term around with no explanation) I supported the overthrow of Sadaam....why am I called one ?

I think in the beginning we pretty much all supported the overthrow of Saddam, because we were led to believe that they had weapons of mass destruction and were working to get those wmd's into the hands of Al Qaida who was determined to use them on US soil.

And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030322.html

Later on, we find out that Saddam had no WMD's, no ties to Al Qaida... is spreading democracy a valid reason to go to war? Were the other reasons, the reasons we supported the invasion in the first place, just the noble lie?

 

[KenH]

And since nobody can give a good description of the term

Ron Paul explained neo-conservatism pretty well a few years ago:

www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

 

[poncho]

In his famed Neoconned speech a few years ago for example, Paul outlined the fact that the self-proclaimed neo-conservatives are not conservative and there is nothing new about the disgraceful philosophy to which they adhere. Their philosophy of endless war and big government really finds its roots in Machiavelli’s obsession with the “greatness of the state” along with Trotsky’s belief in “permanent revolution.”

<snip>

Michael Scheuer, the former head of the Bin Laden unit at the CIA, backed up Ron Paul and asserted that it is absurd to believe that the "war on terror" has anything to do with a preservation of freedom or the way of life of the American people.
He stated that it is solely fueled by a consistent aggressive American foreign policy in the middle east and points out that there is no Presidential candidate other than Ron Paul who has even addressed the issue.
He then outlined six primers that he believes have led the US and the world into the precarious position it now faces:

• The ability to control the price of oil
  ​

  
  ​
• Unqualified support for Israel
  ​

  
  ​
• Presence on the Arabian Peninsula
  ​

  
  ​
• Military presence in Muslim countries
  ​

  
  ​
• Support for governments that are viewed across the world as oppressing Muslims - Russia in Chechnya, india in Kashmir
  ​

  
  ​
• Fifty year plus support of Arab police states and Tyrannies
  ​

It is clear however that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon know exactly what the reaction and fallout will be to and from their actions and is all too willing to use this to its own advantage to further its foreign agenda, rather than wasting their time analysing where it has come from.

Documents such as P2OG, which outlined a vast operational program of actually inciting extremism in order to widen the unrest and justify a more aggressive foreign policy have proven this. SOURCE

 

[EdSutton]

"Neo-con" is not a name calling tactic any more than labeling someone a liberal or a conservative is. It is a label for a political ideology promoted by Kristol, Podhoretz etc. and implemented with fervor by folks like Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove, Limbaugh, Hannity etc. Being a neo or new conservative does not make you a traditional conservative. Thus, those who support the policies of these neoconservatives are neo-cons or at the least neo-con supporters. Traits of these policies include "spending like drunken sailors" and engaging in pre-emptive wars and nation building for the purpose of empirical expansion. Many neo-cons are embarrassed by the term and prefer to be called "conservatives" without the burden of engaging in conservative beliefs. Thus, my encouragement to folks that do not want to be called neo-cons would be to abandon neoconservative principles and leadership.

I'm pretty sure that neither Sean Hannity nor Rush Limbaugh can do one thing to "implement" any political ideology, as neither has any elected or appointed political office. an they "influence" voters? Absolutely, and to a good degree. And the voters can elect those whom they think will do a particular thing. But only those actually in Government, such as President George W. Bush, Vice-President Richard Cheney, and Messers Wolfowitz, and Rove can "implement" anything in that regard.

Just for clarification.

Ed

 

[KenH]

I'm pretty sure that neither Sean Hannity nor Rush Limbaugh can do one thing to "implement" any political ideology

Limbaugh claims that he can singlehandedly pick the GOP nominee for president if he chooses to do so.