Author Topic: "Neoconservatism"  (Read 4244 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeventhSon

  • Posts: 129
  • Gender: Male
"Neoconservatism"
« on: June 10, 2012, 07:26:58 AM »
I was thinking the other day about how it seems the right wing in American and Canadian politics seems to be drifting even further to the right, and I was wondering why that is. It occurred to me that it might be a response to the Red Scare/Cold War in the 50s-80s. Most of the people who are our present lawmakers grew up through that period, and anything resembling communism/socialism was strongly demonized. Might it be possible that this fear/distrust/fill-in-the-blank-with-something-generally-negative of communism is what has been spurring a push to the right in the last decade or two?

Offline snapple

  • Posts: 5132
  • The last hurrah? Nah, I'd do it again!
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2012, 08:52:40 AM »
I was thinking the other day about how it seems the right wing in American and Canadian politics seems to be drifting even further to the right, and I was wondering why that is. It occurred to me that it might be a response to the Red Scare/Cold War in the 50s-80s. Most of the people who are our present lawmakers grew up through that period, and anything resembling communism/socialism was strongly demonized. Might it be possible that this fear/distrust/fill-in-the-blank-with-something-generally-negative of communism is what has been spurring a push to the right in the last decade or two?

It's entirely possible.
MLB 2014 Thread
DTF Cookbook

Driftin' away like a feather in air. Letting my words take me away from the hurt and despair

Offline the Catfishman

  • Posts: 490
  • Gender: Male
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2012, 09:17:46 AM »
Aren't countries always moving towards the right when the economy is gping shitty?

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26444
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #3 on: June 10, 2012, 09:38:56 AM »
I think it can go both ways, but because the US demonized the left so much, it inevitably veers to the right. And it's not gonna get better; the days of the US being the dominant power are plain over. Asia and Europe (once they figure out their situation) will be equally strong.
That transition will be hard for a lot of people.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline kári

  • Meow
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7695
  • Gender: Male
  • şağ besta sem guğ hefur skapağ er nır dagur
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2012, 10:32:31 AM »
I don't think Europe would be as strong. The language barrier and the sense of nationalism are both too factors making sure economic unification is impossible.

You and me go parallel, together and apart

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26444
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2012, 10:45:50 AM »
I don't know. At the end of all of these trials and tribulations Europe has two outcomes: Either stay the frayed conglomerate of medium-power countries with no collective strength, or finally define what it means to be "European". It's been a very fuzzy concept that gave a lot of people fuzzy feelings, but I think it's now the time to work that out.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26444
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2012, 10:49:54 AM »
But, to get back to the OP subject: I think the US is getting somewhat towards the state that Israel was in politically for a long time (from what I could gather), where the tail wags the dog. That is, all these fringe elements of society (Evangelicals, Libertarians etc.) force topics on society that don't reflect the average person at all, but they have the leverage because the big parties need their support.
Take the supposed war on religion. There is no war on religion. All that is happening is an increasing apathy towards religion, but not because there is some left-wing conspiracy trying to do that, but plainly because religion doesn't give any of the answers people are looking for these days.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2012, 11:45:58 AM »
Quote
Libertarians

To some extent, I think this is true, but I'd say the bigger problem with libertarians in America, is that they split the left/right divide. A libertarian can appeal to Democrats and Republicans, but it can't appeal to enough Democrats to affect their platform, and it can't appeal to enough Republicans to affect their platform. Anarcho-capitalists are certainly on the fringe, but I don't think that anarcho-capitalists really define libertarianism.

As for the OP:

I think that it's basically right. Especially "thinkers" like Ayn Rand, who basically tried to make it immoral to do anything through government. Which is course is a load of crap. From the 30's to the 80's, this country pretty heavily "socialist" under today's definitions, and we that period also had the greatest growth and success in the American economy.

Communism is as unsustainable for a country as the current breed of "capitalism" is.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20550
  • Bad Craziness
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2012, 11:51:22 AM »
I don't think neoconserivativsm is as much about fear and paranoia as it is arrogance.  If you look into the basic precepts of these fucksticks, it's not so much that Commies (or more appropriately Muslims) are bad, but rather that we rule and should continue to do so.  All of this is outlined in the PNAC statement of principles.  The most important idea being that the world will benefit from American leadership and values.  These are the guys who invented the thing, and they're the same people that Dumbass put into his administration.  After which Cheney arranged them all neatly into a nicely aligned organization.  The problem of course was that their principles were flawed and their leadership inept.

It's actually quite striking how much of a role these guys had.  Their playbook is almost identical to how the first 4 years of Chimpy's reign of terror played out, and if you look at their membership within his administration, it's easy to see why.

As for the growth of the movement, that's largely a function of the divide/conquer approach to electioneering used so effectively by Karl rove.  The degree of devisiveness that we've seen is really something else, and one half of that division was created by people with those beliefs. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26444
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2012, 12:09:29 PM »
Btw, an honest question that might stem from my inherent bias: Do right-wingers perceive left views as much of a clusterfuck as my view of the right is? At this point it just seems that the GOP is trying to collect enough poop so it can fill the truck for delivery.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline adace

  • Posts: 2267
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2012, 02:20:24 PM »
I don't think you can define neoconservatism in economic terms except in regards to the fact that neoconservatives typically want massive increases in the defense budget and massive decreases in social services. I associate the term more with foreign interventionism than anything else. Basically, they all a bunch of chickenhawks who want the U.S. to act as the world's policeman. Thus Ron Paul and other hardcore libertarians definitely do not fall in the neocon camp. As far as the neocon economic philosophy goes, they pretty much all embrace neoliberalism/the globalization agenda. I see neoconservatism and neoliberalism as two sides of the same coin since they are both part of an agenda to build U.S. hegemony in the world.

Offline Riceball

  • It's the economy, stupid.
  • Posts: 969
  • Gender: Male
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #11 on: June 10, 2012, 05:48:22 PM »
I think at times of economic crisis its a much easier play for a politician to say: "lets close the borders, raise protectionist barriers, spend up big on new missiles" etc because they can be seen to be 'doing something' about protecting the country. When things are good, the base doesn't care about economics, but when the economics is bad they think policies like protectionism and jobs discrimination are the cure.

My two cents, anyway.
I punch those numbers into my calculator and they make a happy face.

A $500 Musical Odyssey: Now accepting nominations

Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #12 on: June 10, 2012, 05:50:24 PM »
Neoconservatism is actually rooted in the philosophy of Leo Strauss. Strauss endorsed Plato's concept of the Noble Lie and thought that with religion and nationalism waning, Americans would need a common enemy to unite them. That enemy of course turned out to be "radical Islam." Think I'm just pulling this out of my ass? Watch the documentary called "The Power Of Nightmares." Basically, neocons think it's acceptable to lie in pursuit of their own agenda. Publicly, they espouse the viewpoints they see as promoting the "unity" and "identity" of America, but privately, they may hold entirely viewpoints. Here's a very telling excerpt from an article on reason.com:
Quote
"One area we didn't lose, and that's religion." Probably the most remarkable part of Kristol's talk was his paean to University of Chicago political philosopher Leo Strauss. Kristol declared himself very much intellectually indebted to Strauss, although he never studied with him. "Leo Strauss became a significant factor in the culture war," said Kristol. "And neoconservatives brought Strauss in" to that war. Kristol noted that Strauss' contribution was to help neoconservatives to understand the importance of religion in the political life of a nation. "Religion was not part of elite culture found at places like Harvard," said Kristol. "It was not thought appropriate for highly educated people to learn too much about religion." Straussians, who were not well regarded in the academy, took religion seriously. " They played a very important role in the culture war by keeping neoconservative intellectuals pro-religion," says Kristol. This pro-religion stance gave neoconservative intellectuals a way to influence the wider American culture. Liberal and left intellectuals who disdained religious belief were distrusted by most Americans and this distrust helped check liberal influence and policies However, Kristol pointed out that Straussians were not generally themselves committed to religion. Kristol added that Americans "don't bother with theology. The fact is that the moral dimension of religion is what counts for Americans."

Offline snapple

  • Posts: 5132
  • The last hurrah? Nah, I'd do it again!
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #13 on: June 10, 2012, 09:51:56 PM »
Btw, an honest question that might stem from my inherent bias: Do right-wingers perceive left views as much of a clusterfuck as my view of the right is? At this point it just seems that the GOP is trying to collect enough poop so it can fill the truck for delivery.

rumborak

In short, yes. :)
MLB 2014 Thread
DTF Cookbook

Driftin' away like a feather in air. Letting my words take me away from the hurt and despair

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16159
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #14 on: June 11, 2012, 07:50:15 AM »
I don't know. At the end of all of these trials and tribulations Europe has two outcomes: Either stay the frayed conglomerate of medium-power countries with no collective strength, or finally define what it means to be "European". It's been a very fuzzy concept that gave a lot of people fuzzy feelings, but I think it's now the time to work that out.

rumborak

You are unusually optimistic about the nature of man in times of crisis. Unless Europeans are a different species from Americans.
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #15 on: June 11, 2012, 08:30:55 AM »
Btw, an honest question that might stem from my inherent bias: Do right-wingers perceive left views as much of a clusterfuck as my view of the right is? At this point it just seems that the GOP is trying to collect enough poop so it can fill the truck for delivery.

rumborak

Here's something interesting for you to ponder.  As a person who takes a liberal political viewpoint, I have a blog on my website where I collect videos and blog posts that I find online that support my view.  Just for fun, I leave it open for people to comment if they want.  Even anonymous comments.  Dangerous idea, I know.

So, anyway, I recently posted, without comment, this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fOaCemmsnNk (note the title of the video is "How To Get Fired In Under 5 Minutes"

Again, I made no comment on it.  Generally, I tend to get my news from CNN.com.  Mostly out of habit.  I don't find that they swing too hard in favor of either a liberal or conservative viewpoint.  They have opinion pieces posted from both sides fairly evenly distributed.

Anyway, hardly anyone ever comments on my blog, mostly because hardly anyone reads my website.  Which is fine, I don't put it out there for people to read, really, it's just a goof.....

But your question, rumborak, was "Do right-wingers perceive left views as much of a clusterfuck as my view of the right is?"

Let me answer you by quoting the comment that was left on my page in response to that video I linked to above:

Quote
You FUCKTARD.  Napolitano didn't get fired!!  He's still a contributor on fox news.  His show got cancelled due to poor ratings, that is all.  I KNOW YOU ARE A LIBERAL IDIOT, but get your OBAMA butt-licking facts straight.  BTW CNN is has lower ratings Fox News so you may want to rethink your news sources.   


Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16159
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #16 on: June 11, 2012, 08:37:37 AM »
Oh my God... :lolpalm:
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline PowerSlave

  • Posts: 1767
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #17 on: June 11, 2012, 09:51:22 AM »
Btw, an honest question that might stem from my inherent bias: Do right-wingers perceive left views as much of a clusterfuck as my view of the right is? At this point it just seems that the GOP is trying to collect enough poop so it can fill the truck for delivery.

rumborak

Here's something interesting for you to ponder.  As a person who takes a liberal political viewpoint, I have a blog on my website where I collect videos and blog posts that I find online that support my view.  Just for fun, I leave it open for people to comment if they want.  Even anonymous comments.  Dangerous idea, I know.

So, anyway, I recently posted, without comment, this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fOaCemmsnNk (note the title of the video is "How To Get Fired In Under 5 Minutes"

Again, I made no comment on it.  Generally, I tend to get my news from CNN.com.  Mostly out of habit.  I don't find that they swing too hard in favor of either a liberal or conservative viewpoint.  They have opinion pieces posted from both sides fairly evenly distributed.

Anyway, hardly anyone ever comments on my blog, mostly because hardly anyone reads my website.  Which is fine, I don't put it out there for people to read, really, it's just a goof.....

But your question, rumborak, was "Do right-wingers perceive left views as much of a clusterfuck as my view of the right is?"

Let me answer you by quoting the comment that was left on my page in response to that video I linked to above:

Quote
You FUCKTARD.  Napolitano didn't get fired!!  He's still a contributor on fox news.  His show got cancelled due to poor ratings, that is all.  I KNOW YOU ARE A LIBERAL IDIOT, but get your OBAMA butt-licking facts straight.  BTW CNN is has lower ratings Fox News so you may want to rethink your news sources.   

Great video. I've always liked the judge.

If I were you I would make some witty comment about popularity and how it equates to truth to the person that posted that comment. Nothing comes to mind at the moment but, it probably wouldn't be too hard to come up with something.
All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #18 on: June 11, 2012, 11:25:00 AM »

Great video. I've always liked the judge.

If I were you I would make some witty comment about popularity and how it equates to truth to the person that posted that comment. Nothing comes to mind at the moment but, it probably wouldn't be too hard to come up with something.

Your post = mission accomplished






Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #19 on: June 11, 2012, 12:10:06 PM »
I don't think neoconserivativsm is as much about fear and paranoia as it is arrogance.  If you look into the basic precepts of these fucksticks, it's not so much that Commies (or more appropriately Muslims) are bad, but rather that we rule and should continue to do so.  All of this is outlined in the PNAC statement of principles.  The most important idea being that the world will benefit from American leadership and values.  These are the guys who invented the thing, and they're the same people that Dumbass put into his administration.  After which Cheney arranged them all neatly into a nicely aligned organization.  The problem of course was that their principles were flawed and their leadership inept.

It's actually quite striking how much of a role these guys had.  Their playbook is almost identical to how the first 4 years of Chimpy's reign of terror played out, and if you look at their membership within his administration, it's easy to see why.

As for the growth of the movement, that's largely a function of the divide/conquer approach to electioneering used so effectively by Karl rove.  The degree of devisiveness that we've seen is really something else, and one half of that division was created by people with those beliefs.

I'd say this is the other half of the equation. But Roves tactics wouldn't work on a populace that didn't believe some of the crazy shit he said. My own grandmother, two years ago, actually said she wanted government to keep their hands out of her Medicare. I think there's definitely an element at play, where all the 50's propaganda made people think anything resembling communism was bad, mmmkay.

Also, as for what neoconservatism is, my political science professor in college described it as a union between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. There really isn't much common ground between the two, but in order to actually be able to win an election, neoconservatives adopted platform that was supposedly fiscally conservative, while throwing out stuff like bans on gay marriage, being tough on drugs, etc.

Offline PowerSlave

  • Posts: 1767
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #20 on: June 11, 2012, 12:48:39 PM »

Great video. I've always liked the judge.

If I were you I would make some witty comment about popularity and how it equates to truth to the person that posted that comment. Nothing comes to mind at the moment but, it probably wouldn't be too hard to come up with something.

Your post = mission accomplished



'Splain, Lucy.
All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #21 on: June 11, 2012, 01:36:50 PM »
Well, I think your comment was witty enough.

So, that means the person in question must have seen your comment, right?

Do the math  ;)



Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20550
  • Bad Craziness
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #22 on: June 11, 2012, 04:31:49 PM »
I don't think neoconserivativsm is as much about fear and paranoia as it is arrogance.  If you look into the basic precepts of these fucksticks, it's not so much that Commies (or more appropriately Muslims) are bad, but rather that we rule and should continue to do so.  All of this is outlined in the PNAC statement of principles.  The most important idea being that the world will benefit from American leadership and values.  These are the guys who invented the thing, and they're the same people that Dumbass put into his administration.  After which Cheney arranged them all neatly into a nicely aligned organization.  The problem of course was that their principles were flawed and their leadership inept.

It's actually quite striking how much of a role these guys had.  Their playbook is almost identical to how the first 4 years of Chimpy's reign of terror played out, and if you look at their membership within his administration, it's easy to see why.

As for the growth of the movement, that's largely a function of the divide/conquer approach to electioneering used so effectively by Karl rove.  The degree of devisiveness that we've seen is really something else, and one half of that division was created by people with those beliefs.

I'd say this is the other half of the equation. But Roves tactics wouldn't work on a populace that didn't believe some of the crazy shit he said. My own grandmother, two years ago, actually said she wanted government to keep their hands out of her Medicare. I think there's definitely an element at play, where all the 50's propaganda made people think anything resembling communism was bad, mmmkay.
That's priceless.   :rollin


Also, as for what neoconservatism is, my political science professor in college described it as a union between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. There really isn't much common ground between the two, but in order to actually be able to win an election, neoconservatives adopted platform that was supposedly fiscally conservative, while throwing out stuff like bans on gay marriage, being tough on drugs, etc.
I'd actually consider that more defining of tea-partiers.  I've always thought of the fiscal republicans as the old-school types.  Thurston Howell III kinda guys.  Back in the 80's they got seriously co-opted by the bible-thumping morality police, and we've been seeing that schism for quite a while now.  That's actually been their biggest undoing.  I think the tea-baggers are an attempt to unify both groups under one flag.  Like I've said all along, as much as they want to deny it, the tea-party people are just rebranded republicans. 

Neo-conservatism was really more of a foreign policy school of thought.  Thankfully I think we've seen the last of those guys for a while.  Waging war actually turned out to be much more tricky than they anticipated, and I think they burned up all of their support learning that lesson.  At the same time, these are the same people who insist that history's for losers, so there's no real expectation of them learning from their mistakes, so who knows.

In the end, none of these descriptions really matter, though.  Power in this country has coalesced to the point that it makes no difference what a politician wants to call himself. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline PowerSlave

  • Posts: 1767
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #23 on: June 11, 2012, 05:34:38 PM »
Well, I think your comment was witty enough.

So, that means the person in question must have seen your comment, right?

Do the math  ;)

Ahh. gotcha. My brain slipped a gear there for a minute.
All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #24 on: June 12, 2012, 12:26:51 AM »
I don't think neoconserivativsm is as much about fear and paranoia as it is arrogance.  If you look into the basic precepts of these fucksticks, it's not so much that Commies (or more appropriately Muslims) are bad, but rather that we rule and should continue to do so.  All of this is outlined in the PNAC statement of principles.  The most important idea being that the world will benefit from American leadership and values.  These are the guys who invented the thing, and they're the same people that Dumbass put into his administration.  After which Cheney arranged them all neatly into a nicely aligned organization.  The problem of course was that their principles were flawed and their leadership inept.

It's actually quite striking how much of a role these guys had.  Their playbook is almost identical to how the first 4 years of Chimpy's reign of terror played out, and if you look at their membership within his administration, it's easy to see why.

As for the growth of the movement, that's largely a function of the divide/conquer approach to electioneering used so effectively by Karl rove.  The degree of devisiveness that we've seen is really something else, and one half of that division was created by people with those beliefs.

I'd say this is the other half of the equation. But Roves tactics wouldn't work on a populace that didn't believe some of the crazy shit he said. My own grandmother, two years ago, actually said she wanted government to keep their hands out of her Medicare. I think there's definitely an element at play, where all the 50's propaganda made people think anything resembling communism was bad, mmmkay.
That's priceless.   :rollin

Ya, I was struck speechless.

Quote
Neo-conservatism was really more of a foreign policy school of thought.  Thankfully I think we've seen the last of those guys for a while.

If Romney doesn't win. Romney has zero foreign policy experience, and so he's really just using the same people Bush had.

And I think part of what they want has become too entrenched, or is too true of what America seems to actually want more.

Offline adace

  • Posts: 2267
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #25 on: June 12, 2012, 01:29:00 AM »
Time to stir the pot: Obama is a neocon. At least that's what this article I found claims. It's a bit dated, but it's just as relevant then as it is now. Personally, I believe that the Washington Consensus and PNAC dictate the bounds of acceptable policy for U.S. presidents. Obama may say things that sound different from Bush and Romney and may have a different attitude, but his policies aren't very different. For example, even though he opposed the Iraq War, he stuck by the Bush withdrawal plan and basically withdrew the troops when the majority of Americans supported it. He realized that an immediate withdrawal would jeopardize our "strategic interests" (oil) by running the risk of letting a poorly trained Iraqi security force be overrun by Islamic extremists and/or regional separatists. In terms of the economy (both domestic and global), Obama is just another globalization proponent. As Ralph Nader once said, the Democratic and Republican parties are just two wings of the big business party. Anyways, my rant is over. Here's the article.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/94211/are-obama-and-bush-really-the-same

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16159
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #26 on: June 12, 2012, 04:59:18 AM »
It's pointless to compare or contrast presidents based on their foreign policy record, because yes, foreign policy across parties is pretty much the same. The distinction always comes from comparing domestic policies. Political Science or International Relations 101.
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20550
  • Bad Craziness
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #27 on: June 12, 2012, 11:14:59 AM »
It's pointless to compare or contrast presidents based on their foreign policy record, because yes, foreign policy across parties is pretty much the same. The distinction always comes from comparing domestic policies. Political Science or International Relations 101.
It might be now, but our foreign policy made a prounounced turn in 2000.  While Daddy Bush was the ultimate pro-globalization president, he never thought it important for America to rule the world.  Gulf War I was primarily a PR move, and mostly related to getting us in bed with Saudi Arabia.  Clinton was really more about NATO and UN assistance than world domination.  Reagan was more of a behind the scenes, covert operations kind of guy.  It wasn't until Chimpy and the neocons took over that invading countries to spread democracy became the fashion.  As for Obama's foreign policy, I'm undecided thus far.  He's certainly continuing Bush's term with regards to Iraq/Afghanistan, but his Libya actions were decidedly moderate.  He's also far more patient with Iran than Bush's crew would have been.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16159
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #28 on: June 12, 2012, 12:17:05 PM »
It's pointless to compare or contrast presidents based on their foreign policy record, because yes, foreign policy across parties is pretty much the same. The distinction always comes from comparing domestic policies. Political Science or International Relations 101.
It might be now, but our foreign policy made a prounounced turn in 2000.  While Daddy Bush was the ultimate pro-globalization president, he never thought it important for America to rule the world.  Gulf War I was primarily a PR move, and mostly related to getting us in bed with Saudi Arabia.  Clinton was really more about NATO and UN assistance than world domination.  Reagan was more of a behind the scenes, covert operations kind of guy.  It wasn't until Chimpy and the neocons took over that invading countries to spread democracy became the fashion.  As for Obama's foreign policy, I'm undecided thus far.  He's certainly continuing Bush's term with regards to Iraq/Afghanistan, but his Libya actions were decidedly moderate.  He's also far more patient with Iran than Bush's crew would have been.

Actually it became fashionable some time ago, back in the 1890s.
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline adace

  • Posts: 2267
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #29 on: June 12, 2012, 12:34:44 PM »
It's pointless to compare or contrast presidents based on their foreign policy record, because yes, foreign policy across parties is pretty much the same. The distinction always comes from comparing domestic policies. Political Science or International Relations 101.
It's not pointless when you hear all these wingnuts complaining about Obama "apologizing to the Arab world" or "selling out Israel" or about other aspects of his foreign policy. There are people who genuinely believe that Obama's foreign policy and that of Bush are as different as night and day. The similarities between their foreign policies are just something that most ideologues, both right-wing critics and Obama supporters, don't see or don't want to see. While it may be obvious to you and I, I still think it's a topic worthy of discussion at least if it's just to make fun of the teabaggers' ignorance. Also, if we had a completely fair multi-party system in this country (i.e. no party gets ahead by taking special interest money) then I think we'd see some new approaches to foreign policy. Finally, as to El Barto's comment, you could call Bush a bullish neocon and Obama a bearish neocon.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #30 on: June 12, 2012, 12:40:14 PM »
It's pointless to compare or contrast presidents based on their foreign policy record, because yes, foreign policy across parties is pretty much the same. The distinction always comes from comparing domestic policies. Political Science or International Relations 101.
It's not pointless when you hear all these wingnuts complaining about Obama "apologizing to the Arab world" or "selling out Israel" or about other aspects of his foreign policy. There are people who genuinely believe that Obama's foreign policy and that of Bush are as different as night and day. The similarities between their foreign policies are just something that most ideologues, both right-wing critics and Obama supporters, don't see or don't want to see. While it may be obvious to you and I, I still think it's a topic worthy of discussion at least if it's just to make fun of the teabaggers' ignorance. Also, if we had a completely fair multi-party system in this country (i.e. no party gets ahead by taking special interest money) then I think we'd see some new approaches to foreign policy. Finally, as to El Barto's comment, you could call Bush a bullish neocon and Obama a bearish neocon.

I think you're conflating too many things with neo-conservativism. You're almost making imperialism neo-conservative! Our economic need for should not be conflated with political ideologies.

 Where Obama is not a night and day difference with Bush in terms of end goals, he does provide a night and day difference in approach.


Offline adace

  • Posts: 2267
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #31 on: June 12, 2012, 12:49:15 PM »
It's pointless to compare or contrast presidents based on their foreign policy record, because yes, foreign policy across parties is pretty much the same. The distinction always comes from comparing domestic policies. Political Science or International Relations 101.
It's not pointless when you hear all these wingnuts complaining about Obama "apologizing to the Arab world" or "selling out Israel" or about other aspects of his foreign policy. There are people who genuinely believe that Obama's foreign policy and that of Bush are as different as night and day. The similarities between their foreign policies are just something that most ideologues, both right-wing critics and Obama supporters, don't see or don't want to see. While it may be obvious to you and I, I still think it's a topic worthy of discussion at least if it's just to make fun of the teabaggers' ignorance. Also, if we had a completely fair multi-party system in this country (i.e. no party gets ahead by taking special interest money) then I think we'd see some new approaches to foreign policy. Finally, as to El Barto's comment, you could call Bush a bullish neocon and Obama a bearish neocon.

I think you're conflating too many things with neo-conservativism. You're almost making imperialism neo-conservative! Our economic need for should not be conflated with political ideologies.

 Where Obama is not a night and day difference with Bush in terms of end goals, he does provide a night and day difference in approach.
"Frank neoconservatives like Robert Kaplan and Niall Ferguson recognize that they are proposing imperialism as the alternative to liberal internationalism. Yet both Kaplan and Ferguson also understand that imperialism runs so counter to American's liberal tradition that it must... remain a foreign policy that dare not speak its name... While Ferguson, the Brit, laments that Americans cannot just openly shoulder the white man's burden, Kaplan the American, tells us that "only through stealth and anxious foresight" can the United States continue to pursue the "imperial reality [that] already dominates our foreign policy", but must be disavowed in light of "our anti-imperial traditions, and... the fact that imperialism is delegitimized in public discourse"... The Bush administration, justifying all of its actions by an appeal to "national security", has kept as many of those actions as it can secret and has scorned all limitations to executive power by other branches of government or international law." -from Wikipedia

Also, I don't think I'm conflating economic and foreign policy. I said in my earlier post that foreign military interventionism is neoconservatism while economic foreign interventionism (globalization) is neoliberalism. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment. What exactly do you mean by "economic need"?
Finally, I agree they have different approaches. I said as much in the last line of my post.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16159
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #32 on: June 12, 2012, 01:00:16 PM »
Honestly - and I'm speaking as a liberal here - liberal internationalism at least as America expresses and acts upon it is just a milder imperialism, a benign imperialism if you will. We believe in and work for the sake of the community of nations, but the end goal is still our national interests, and ours alone. The fact that our interests converge with other nations and we can therefore cooperate with them is a convenient side effect.

And believe me, this is coming from someone who would love nothing more than the swift and complete adoption of a positive-sum, fully cooperative state of affairs. But that has not happened yet in this country, and for now is not much more than a pipe dream.
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #33 on: June 13, 2012, 01:40:46 PM »
Also, I don't think I'm conflating economic and foreign policy. I said in my earlier post that foreign military interventionism is neoconservatism while economic foreign interventionism (globalization) is neoliberalism. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment. What exactly do you mean by "economic need"?
Finally, I agree they have different approaches. I said as much in the last line of my post.

And if that's your definitions, than Obama is clearly not a neo-con. He has some neo-con traits, but he also has pushed much heavier for what you call neo-liberalism. A neo-con in office would likely have invaded Iran already, whereas Obama is pushing for sanctions and open talks.

By "economic need," I mean that the President doesn't decide that this country has a horrible oil addictions. Economically, we need oil. That is why we are in the Middle East, and it doesn't matter what party or what ideology is in office. I'm not going to defend our actual policies on this, but it seemed to me at one point that you were saying Obama was a neo-con because of his involvement with the Middle East, etc. That is, I feel as if you're saying Obama is a neo-con because he hasn't pulled a Ron Paul or something, but our involvement in the Middle East, and our Imperialism, goes beyond the neo-con agenda.

Offline adace

  • Posts: 2267
Re: "Neoconservatism"
« Reply #34 on: June 13, 2012, 04:32:14 PM »
Also, I don't think I'm conflating economic and foreign policy. I said in my earlier post that foreign military interventionism is neoconservatism while economic foreign interventionism (globalization) is neoliberalism. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment. What exactly do you mean by "economic need"?
Finally, I agree they have different approaches. I said as much in the last line of my post.

And if that's your definitions, than Obama is clearly not a neo-con. He has some neo-con traits, but he also has pushed much heavier for what you call neo-liberalism. A neo-con in office would likely have invaded Iran already, whereas Obama is pushing for sanctions and open talks.

By "economic need," I mean that the President doesn't decide that this country has a horrible oil addictions. Economically, we need oil. That is why we are in the Middle East, and it doesn't matter what party or what ideology is in office. I'm not going to defend our actual policies on this, but it seemed to me at one point that you were saying Obama was a neo-con because of his involvement with the Middle East, etc. That is, I feel as if you're saying Obama is a neo-con because he hasn't pulled a Ron Paul or something, but our involvement in the Middle East, and our Imperialism, goes beyond the neo-con agenda.

I agree with your first point, but one has to keep in mind that Obama has never taken the military option off the table. He is certainly more rational and cautious, but if his patience runs on the nuclear issue out or if Iran does something stupid like attack Israel then all bets are off. Maybe he is neo-con lite. Also, I really think it's hard to disentangle neoconservatism from neoliberalism. I see them as two sides of the same coin. Here's a great article about the close relationship between the two ideologies: http://vermontrepublic.org/neoliberalism-neoconservatism-without-a-smirk

As your second point, I generally agree with that but our economic need for oil is somewhat relative. For example, if the country developed a comprehensive plan to switch to alternative fuels and tax the hell out of the oil companies, then our dependance on Middle Eastern oil could be significantly reduced along with the imperative to intervene politically and militarily in the region.