A British way of looking at neoconservatism

[TainanCowboy]

Interesting examination of that much bantered about term…“neoconservative.”
In this light…I think I like it.

[quote]Against Relativism
A British way of looking at neoconservatism.
by Peter Berkowitz
10/23/2006, Volume 012, Issue 06

(a review of a book)
Neoconservatism, Why We Need It
by Douglas Murray

“Murray emphasizes that, among the debilitating prejudices fostered by liberal democracy, was one that Strauss called relativism, and which consisted of the belief that the diversity of human views about right and wrong, and morality and immorality, were rooted in the diversity of cultures, and were all equally valid. Strauss diagnosed relativism as a decayed form of the admirable liberal doctrine of tolerance, and warned that it led to nihilism, or the belief that
nothing is true and everything is permitted.”

“The first generation of neoconservatives–led by Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Nathan Glazer–entered the 1960s as liberals and Democrats, but rebelled against relativism’s political symptoms, finding in the Johnson administration’s Great Society welfare programs an inability to draw crucial moral distinctions and an obliviousness to the dependence
of free and democratic institutions on character and culture. But by far the biggest and most dangerous expression of the relativist tendency, against which the first generation of neoconservatives
rebelled, was the failure to grasp the menace of Communist tyranny and to recognize the monumental stakes of the Cold War.”

"In contrast to traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are more comfortable with capitalism, always accepted the moral and political necessity of the welfare state, and consistently sought a prominent role for America in creating a stable and just international order.

In contrast to progressives, neoconservatives are more concerned about the costs of modernity’s disruptive ways to the family and traditional morality, strongly doubt the ability of the federal
government to improve America through higher taxes and more aggressive social policies, and are skeptical of the integrity and efficacy of the United Nations, while maintaining confidence in the
ability of the American armed forces, when diplomacy is exhausted, to advance American interests and ideals."

[color=blue]“Although the label neoconservative was originated on the left as a term of reproach, it captures an important truth. In post-1960s America, neoconservatism elaborated a new kind of
conservatism, one that made conserving and revitalizing the material and moral preconditions of a free society the top political priority.”[/color]

“Neoconservatism in America today, according to Murray, continues to do battle against relativism, which, he argues, fuels opposition to the global war on terror. To be sure, as Murray points out,
there has been no shortage of voices echoing Noam Chomsky’s incoherent assertion that U.S. support for Osama bin Laden against the Soviets in the 1980s, and for Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran during the 1980s, should disqualify America from fighting terrorists and the nations that harbor them. And there are plenty, he adds, who, glossing over the U.N.'s sorry record of coddling dictators and failing to prevent bloodshed, argue in the name of cosmopolitanism, democratic humanism, or the international community that Americans who put American interests and American ideals first pose a leading threat to world peace. Yet these criticisms of the war are less an expression of relativism than an expression of poorly reasoned moral disapproval of the United States and its role in the world.”
Weekly Standard[/quote]

Selected excerts from quite an interesting view of ‘neoconservative’ in todays world

[mofangongren]

The Brits actually believe this nonsense? Anybody who tries to ague that the choices are between neoconmen and Chomsky doesn’t know America very well. The strawman alert is at Ray Bolgerian levels.

[politbureau]

@TainanCowboy

. . . Selected excerts from quite an interesting view of ‘neoconservative’ in todays world

TC, if “you guys” don’t consider yourselves traditional conservatives (". . . In contrast to traditional conservatives . . . ") and you object to the term ‘new’ conservative then what are you? How should someone refer to what is undeniably a distinctly new philosophical viewpoint in a way which is both respectful but reflective of the reality that it’s a new school of thought?

[TainanCowboy]

spook -
Did you actually read the article?
It clearly gives the lineage of the term ‘neoconservative’ and its origins. Which appear to be in the Democratic party.

Admittedly, labeling is handy in the short time, but it can lead to false assumptions as the term becomes used more and more. For example, labeling a fiscal conservative who may be a social liberal. One term may conflict with another.

I see the term ‘neoconservative’ used primarily as a derisive and denigrating label here. I’ve mentioned before that this is only occasionally accurate and usually inappropriate. But it makes the user…feeeeel good.

Off topics -
You posted about cluster bombs used by Israel in the Lebanon toss-up, something about the US as the supplier. While I personally think these were not US made, the IAI does its own work, I have not looked into this further to post any definite statements, I did run across this for you -
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901825.html]Cluster Weapons Used by Hezbollah
The Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah fired cluster munitions during its 33-day war with Israel last summer,
in strikes that caused one death and 12 injuries, according to a report released this week by the New
York-based Human Rights Watch. The group expressed alarm over the rising supply of these controversial
weapons to non-state armed groups.

Hezbollah reportedly fired Chinese-made Type-81 122mm rockets, the first known use of that weapon in
the world. Each of those rockets carries smaller munitions that can shoot out hundreds of 3.5mm steel
spheres.[/url]
Spook -
I look forward to your strongly worded letter of dis-approval to the PLA and their weapons export comrades.

[politbureau]

The point, of course, isn’t the origin of the term ‘neoconservative’ but why a distinct, avowedly new political philosophy objects to be identified by any name. How is someone supposed to discuss “you guys” and your philosophical tack without being able to identify it somehow – unless that’s the point?

Consider it done. The PLA is the mailed fist of a repressive, unprincipled regime which has no compunctions about exporting the tools of war to anyone – including terrorists – for profit.

Hezbollah is a terrorist organization which has no respect for innocent human life.

The current U.S. government has no scruples about sacrificing innocent human lives on the altar of its ideology while all the while portraying itself as a protector of the innocent.

Have I left anyone out?

"The US is investigating whether Israel’s use of American-made cluster bombs in Lebanon violated an agreement that the weapons not be used in populated areas, officials said yesterday. . .

During the Israeli-Hizbullah conflict, the state department was reported to have sought to suspend delivery of M-26 anti-personnel cluster rockets because of fears about how they would be used. It was unclear yesterday whether they were delivered over its objections. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) has previously bought M-26 rockets and US-made cluster artillery shells, and CBU-26 aerial bombs. Bomblets from all three have been found by UN investigators in southern Lebanon. . .

Israel’s use of cluster bombs in its 1982 invasion of Lebanon provoked a congressional enquiry, which concluded Israel had broken the conditions on their sale. Ronald Reagan’s administration then imposed a six-year ban on deliveries of the munitions to Israel."

[H5N1]

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]
It clearly gives the lineage of the term ‘neoconservative’ and its origins. Which appear to be in the Democratic party.

Admittedly, labeling is handy in the short time, but it can lead to false assumptions as the term becomes used more and more. For example, labeling a fiscal conservative who may be a social liberal. One term may conflict with another.

I see the term ‘neoconservative’ used primarily as a derisive and denigrating label here. I’ve mentioned before that this is only occasionally accurate and usually inappropriate. But it makes the user…feeeeel good.[/quote]
Back in the day, Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz actually used it as a self label for a short time, before it became pejorative. One of the shades of meaning contained in the term was the idea of being new to conservatism, especially for some Democrats who supported the Vietnam war and were opposed to counterculture.

[bob]

[quote]Murray emphasizes that, among the debilitating prejudices fostered by liberal democracy, was one that Strauss called relativism, and which consisted of the belief that the diversity of human views about right and wrong, and morality and immorality, were rooted in the diversity of cultures, and were all equally valid. Strauss diagnosed relativism as a decayed form of the admirable liberal doctrine of tolerance, and warned that it led to nihilism, or the belief that
nothing is true and everything is permitted.[/quote]

Utter bullshit. The vast majority of people have reasonably clear ideas about right and wrong when it comes to big ticket issues. What this neoconservative propoganda is intended to convey is the notion that the neoconservatives, through their connection to the Christian church or Judaism, are somehow more plugged in to the truth than the rest of us. Sorry, but judging from what you have actually done recently it’s a little hard to believe.

[quote]"The first generation of neoconservatives–led by Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Nathan Glazer–entered the 1960s as liberals and Democrats, but rebelled against relativism’s political symptoms, finding in the Johnson administration’s Great Society welfare programs an inability to draw crucial moral distinctions and an obliviousness to the dependence
of free and democratic institutions on character and culture. But by far the biggest and most dangerous expression of the relativist tendency, against which the first generation of neoconservatives rebelled, was the failure to grasp the menace of Communist tyranny and to recognize the monumental stakes of the Cold War.[/quote]

Here we are implicitly comparing Reagan who, with a great deal of help, defeated the Soviet Union without firing a single bomb, to Bush who has killed thousands and succeeded mainly in creating a more dangerous world.

In contrast to traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are more comfortable with capitalism, always accepted the moral and political necessity of the welfare state, and consistently sought a prominent role for America in creating a stable and just international order.

And quite a job they’ve done recently too.

Neoconservatism in America today, according to Murray, continues to do battle against relativism, which, he argues, fuels opposition to the global war on terror.

Nobody is opposed to making the world a safer place through increased security and police action. Branding the thing a “global war on terror” because your intelligence, law enforcement and security forces were so inept as to have allowed 911 to have occured in the first place is perhaps not going to sit so well, particularly if you are an Iraqi citizen. The terrorists were not coming from Iraq TC, what part of that don’t you understand?

And there are plenty, he adds, who, glossing over the U.N.'s sorry record of coddling dictators and failing to prevent bloodshed, argue in the name of cosmopolitanism, democratic humanism, or the international community that Americans who put American interests and American ideals first pose a leading threat to world peace. Yet these criticisms of the war are less an expression of relativism than an expression of poorly reasoned moral disapproval of the United States and its role in the world."

What, more bullshit? Suprise, suprise. There are plenty of people around who consider the UN a failure and who also condemn the US for it’s incredible bungling of the Iraq situation. Nice too how the terms “democratic humanism” and “the international community” are snuck in there and made to look like foolish concepts, which of course they are if what you worship at are the twin alters of Jesus and profit.

For a more balanced discussion…

nytimes.com/2006/10/22/books … 8bu&emc=bu

[TainanCowboy]

[quote=“bob”]For a more balanced discussion…

nytimes.com/2006/10/22/books … 8bu&emc=bu[/quote]bob -
Balanced?
Beg pardon but your link goes to a review of a different book by a different author. And dog-gone-it, I didn’t see the word “neoconservative” on either page of the article you linked to. And clearly, that is the word under discussion on this thread.
Perhaps the “Moderators” could start a thread for you regarding your linked article.

[bob]

@TainanCowboy

I didn’t see the word “neoconservative” on either page of the article you linked to.

From the article…

Sullivan periodically distinguishes between the Muslim fundamentalism of the terrorists and the Christian fundamentalists he says now dominate the Republican Party, but he sees them as part of the same continuum, and often leaps between the two. He argues that Nazis, Communists, Wahhabists and certain orthodox Protestants, Catholics and Jews are all fundamentalists. He throws Osama bin Laden onto the fundamentalist pile, as well as the Princeton philosopher Robert George, the former presidential speechwriter Michael Gerson, William Kristol and Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor (“the quintessential voice of fundamentalism”). Fundamentalists, he concludes, reject “the entire premise of secular democracy: that religion should be restricted to the private sphere.”

I don’t imagine they are talking about the communist party, or even the democratic party, do you?

[mofangongren]

The tactic is a fairly old one. Some Brit writes about the neocons with a glowing eye, basically defining them with a whole series of patronizing fictions that make it seem as if the neocons are the only ones daring to speak out against all sorts of “terrible” strawmen. For example, with a few subtle changes to the text one could also write:

[quote]MacMurray emphasizes that, among the debilitating prejudices fostered by neoconservativism, was one that Strauss called relativism, and which consisted of the belief that the diversity of human views about right and wrong, and morality and immorality, were rooted in the diversity of cultures, and were all equally valid. Strauss diagnosed relativism as a decayed form of the admirable conservative doctrine of pragmatism, and warned that it led to nihilism, or the belief that nothing is true and everything is permitted. In the neoconservative viewpoint, the ends justify any means, even those that betray the core principles of the American nation. In this amoral universe, people, objects and organizations are thus only tools for the use of the small “leadership group”, a phrase helpfully adapted from the original German.

In contrast to neoconservatives, progressives are concerned about the costs of the neconservatives’ political reliance upon fundamentalism and its disruptive ways to the traditional split between church and state necessary fundamental to the secular democracy envisioned by the founding fathers as well as the oft-hypocritical statements about “family” and “traditional morality” coming from conservative televangelists who espouse political ideas that often contradict the Bible’s text. Progressives strongly doubt the ability of the federal government to improve America through lower taxes and corporate welfare targeted to millionaires and Republican cronies. Progressives are skeptical of the integrity and efficacy of the United Nations but see it as a useful forum for building consensus; they maintain confidence in the ability of the American armed forces and question why the neoconservatives rely so heavily upon using military force as its first resort.

The label neoconservative can be swiftly shortened to “neocon” and its supporters charcterized as “neoconmen”, thus efficiently conveying an important truth: The neoconservative movement aims for its own practitioners’ power above all else including the good of the American nation. These men will say anything to get power.

Neoconservatism in America today, according to MacMurray, continues to engage in a lengthy bout of French-kissing with relativism, which, he argues, fuels the global war on terror. There have been no shortage of voices from the political “right” supporting the lies told to support the invasion of Iraq, making excuses for the complete lack of planning for the invasion’s aftermath, supporting the turning over of our energy policy to crony corporations, and cheering on House Speaker’s Hastert’s decision to supervise and allow Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) to molest small children. And there are plenty, he adds, who, glossing over the Bush Administration’s sorry record of coddling Middle Eastern oil monarchs and “friendly” dictatorships, ignore the growth of anti-American sentiment for the sake of increased oil-industry profits.[/quote]

[politbureau]

[quote=“mofangongren”]The tactic is a fairly old one. Some Brit writes about the neocons with a glowing eye, basically defining them with a whole series of patronizing fictions that make it seem as if the neocons are the only ones daring to speak out against all sorts of “terrible” strawmen. For example, with a few subtle changes to the text one could also write:

[quote]MacMurray emphasizes that, among the debilitating prejudices fostered by neoconservativism, was one that Strauss called relativism, and which consisted of the belief that the diversity of human views about right and wrong, and morality and immorality, were rooted in the diversity of cultures, and were all equally valid. Strauss diagnosed relativism as a decayed form of the admirable conservative doctrine of pragmatism, and warned that it led to nihilism, or the belief that nothing is true and everything is permitted. In the neoconservative viewpoint, the ends justify any means, even those that betray the core principles of the American nation. In this amoral universe, people, objects and organizations are thus only tools for the use of the small “leadership group”, a phrase helpfully adapted from the original German.

In contrast to neoconservatives, progressives are concerned about the costs of the neconservatives’ political reliance upon fundamentalism and its disruptive ways to the traditional split between church and state necessary fundamental to the secular democracy envisioned by the founding fathers as well as the oft-hypocritical statements about “family” and “traditional morality” coming from conservative televangelists who espouse political ideas that often contradict the Bible’s text. Progressives strongly doubt the ability of the federal government to improve America through lower taxes and corporate welfare targeted to millionaires and Republican cronies. Progressives are skeptical of the integrity and efficacy of the United Nations but see it as a useful forum for building consensus; they maintain confidence in the ability of the American armed forces and question why the neoconservatives rely so heavily upon using military force as its first resort.

The label neoconservative can be swiftly shortened to “neocon” and its supporters charcterized as “neoconmen”, thus efficiently conveying an important truth: The neoconservative movement aims for its own practitioners’ power above all else including the good of the American nation.

Neoconservatism in America today, according to MacMurray, continues to engage in a lengthy bout of French-kissing with relativism, which, he argues, fuels the global war on terror. There have been no shortage of voices from the political “right” supporting the lies told to support the invasion of Iraq, making excuses for the complete lack of planning for the invasion’s aftermath, supporting the turning over of our energy policy to crony corporations, and cheering on House Speaker’s Hastert’s decision to supervise and allow Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) to molest small children. And there are plenty, he adds, who, glossing over the Bush Administration’s sorry record of coddling Middle Eastern oil monarchs and “friendly” dictatorships, ignore the growth of anti-American sentiment for the sake of increased oil-industry profits.[/quote][/quote]

I’d give that an A+ for sorting things out clearly, MFGR. Prepare for the Wrath of Con. They hate having their rock lifted up.

[TainanCowboy]

[quote=“spook”]I’d give this article an A+ for sorting things out clearly, TainanCowboy, Prepare for the Wrath of the Looney Libs. They hate having their rock lifted up.[/quote]spook -
Gosh…that revisionism works great going the other way also…Thanks!

[politbureau]

[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“spook”]I’d give this article an A+ for sorting things out clearly, TainanCowboy, Prepare for the Wrath of the Looney Libs. They hate having their rock lifted up.[/quote]spook -
Gosh…that revisionism works great going the other way also…Thanks![/quote]

Well that ‘quote’ confirms something I’ve long suspected – spook is an idiot who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Speaking of idiots, am I to conclude that ‘you guys’ insist on remaining nameless for strategic reasons?

[TainanCowboy]

[quote=“spook”][quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“spook”]I’d give this article an A+ for sorting things out clearly, TainanCowboy, Prepare for the Wrath of the Looney Libs. They hate having their rock lifted up.[/quote]spook -
Gosh…that revisionism works great going the other way also…Thanks![/quote]
Well that ‘quote’ confirms something I’ve long suspected – spook is an idiot who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Speaking of idiots, am I to conclude that ‘you guys’ insist on remaining nameless for strategic reasons?[/quote]Spook -
Now now…no one has called you an idiot that you know of.

I’m afraid you will have to as “you guys” what their reasons are for requesting anonymity at this time. Get back to us with your version of their answer.

[TainanCowboy]

[quote=“spook”][quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“spook”]I’d give this article an A+ for sorting things out clearly, TainanCowboy, Prepare for the Wrath of the Looney Libs. They hate having their rock lifted up.[/quote]spook -
Gosh…that revisionism works great going the other way also…Thanks![/quote]
Well that ‘quote’ confirms something I’ve long suspected – spook is an idiot who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Speaking of idiots, am I to conclude that ‘you guys’ insist on remaining nameless for strategic reasons?[/quote]Spook -
Now now…no one has called you an idiot that you know of.

I’m afraid you will have to ask “you guys” what their reasons are for requesting anonymity at this time. Get back to us with your version of their answer.

[mofangongren]

[quote=“spook”][quote=“mofangongren”]The tactic is a fairly old one. Some Brit writes about the neocons with a glowing eye, basically defining them with a whole series of patronizing fictions that make it seem as if the neocons are the only ones daring to speak out against all sorts of “terrible” strawmen. For example, with a few subtle changes to the text one could also write:

[quote]MacMurray emphasizes that, among the debilitating prejudices fostered by neoconservativism, was one that Strauss called relativism, and which consisted of the belief that the diversity of human views about right and wrong, and morality and immorality, were rooted in the diversity of cultures, and were all equally valid. Strauss diagnosed relativism as a decayed form of the admirable conservative doctrine of pragmatism, and warned that it led to nihilism, or the belief that nothing is true and everything is permitted. In the neoconservative viewpoint, the ends justify any means, even those that betray the core principles of the American nation. In this amoral universe, people, objects and organizations are thus only tools for the use of the small “leadership group”, a phrase helpfully adapted from the original German.

In contrast to neoconservatives, progressives are concerned about the costs of the neconservatives’ political reliance upon fundamentalism and its disruptive ways to the traditional split between church and state necessary fundamental to the secular democracy envisioned by the founding fathers as well as the oft-hypocritical statements about “family” and “traditional morality” coming from conservative televangelists who espouse political ideas that often contradict the Bible’s text. Progressives strongly doubt the ability of the federal government to improve America through lower taxes and corporate welfare targeted to millionaires and Republican cronies. Progressives are skeptical of the integrity and efficacy of the United Nations but see it as a useful forum for building consensus; they maintain confidence in the ability of the American armed forces and question why the neoconservatives rely so heavily upon using military force as its first resort.

The label neoconservative can be swiftly shortened to “neocon” and its supporters charcterized as “neoconmen”, thus efficiently conveying an important truth: The neoconservative movement aims for its own practitioners’ power above all else including the good of the American nation.

Neoconservatism in America today, according to MacMurray, continues to engage in a lengthy bout of French-kissing with relativism, which, he argues, fuels the global war on terror. There have been no shortage of voices from the political “right” supporting the lies told to support the invasion of Iraq, making excuses for the complete lack of planning for the invasion’s aftermath, supporting the turning over of our energy policy to crony corporations, and cheering on House Speaker’s Hastert’s decision to supervise and allow Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) to molest small children. And there are plenty, he adds, who, glossing over the Bush Administration’s sorry record of coddling Middle Eastern oil monarchs and “friendly” dictatorships, ignore the growth of anti-American sentiment for the sake of increased oil-industry profits.[/quote][/quote]

I’d give that an A+ for sorting things out clearly, MFGR. Prepare for the Wrath of Con. They hate having their rock lifted up.[/quote]

The problem is that I couldn’t help writing out actual problems with the neocons and GOP. Had I really emulated their style, I should have just created a bunch of kooky stuff out of wholecloth. For example, their vague strawman accusations that everybody but the neocons somehow are morally deficient and supporting turning over U.S. foreign policy to wolves-in-UN-clothing has not quite been paralleled in my rendering.

In visualizing their mythic “liberal”, they imagine a 20-something vegan with hippie hair and sandals trying to talk “peace and free love” to a Stalin getting ready to break into maniacal laughter at the thought of our decadent society. Unfortunately, too many of the “neocons” too closely resemble the stereotypes we have of middle-aged white fatsos making pacts with Satan. We can’t really stretch the truth far to parody them – Jon Stewart’s Daily Show thrives off allowing GOP blowhards free rein to hang themselves with their own actions and words. Stephen Colbert’s “parody” is akin to a direct imitation – in many ways it is a mellowing down of what O’Reilly and other GOP pundits do rather than an exaggeration.

[fred_smith]

Excuse me for breaking up your love fest but really…

The problem is that I couldn’t help writing out actual problems with the neocons and GOP. Had I really emulated their style, I should have just created a bunch of kooky stuff out of wholecloth. For example, their vague strawman accusations that everybody but the neocons somehow are morally deficient and supporting turning over U.S. foreign policy to wolves-in-UN-clothing has not quite been paralleled in my rendering.

What? Er, so that means that you support turning more over to the UN? or you think that others BESIDES the neocons doubt the efficacy of the UN? or are you saying that YOU TOO doubt the UN and therefore are angry at the neocons for suggesting that you have not attacked the UN and its flaws with the same vigor?

In visualizing their mythic “liberal”, they imagine a 20-something vegan with hippie hair and sandals trying to talk “peace and free love” to a Stalin getting ready to break into maniacal laughter at the thought of our decadent society.

A fairly accurate picture. That is why spoofs and caricatures are funny I guess.

Unfortunately, too many of the “neocons” too closely resemble the stereotypes we have of middle-aged white fatsos making pacts with Satan.

That is why it is funny in return. All except the Satan part since we are mostly religious. OR are you suggesting that our religious demeanors are of an evil equivalent to that of the worst devil worshiper? But then are you not buttressing our view in the deficiencies of you lefties who cannot tell the difference between Judaeo-Christian ethics and Satanism. Please reread the section on moral relativism again. I think that you just proved the author’s point but no doubt you were merely attempting to make us laugh by doing so? Well consider yourself LAUGHED AT. haha

We can’t really stretch the truth far to parody them – Jon Stewart’s Daily Show thrives off allowing GOP blowhards free rein to hang themselves with their own actions and words.

You must have spent an AWFUL lot of time watching TV not only as a child but also as an adult. What was that funny line in Die Hard One (deliberate) about American orphans from a bankrupt culture waiting for John Wayne to yippikayeah come to the rescue? Might I suggest more reading and less TV sitcom “fun” in the future? I can almost hear the boxed laughter and groans whenever you tada step out with yet another of your DRUM ROLL PLEASE remarks…

Stephen Colbert’s “parody” is akin to a direct imitation – in many ways it is a mellowing down of what O’Reilly and other GOP pundits do rather than an exaggeration.

Again, this TV time. Didn’t your mother ever turn the damned set off?

[mofangongren]

[quote=“fred smith”]Excuse me for breaking up your love fest but really…

The problem is that I couldn’t help writing out actual problems with the neocons and GOP. Had I really emulated their style, I should have just created a bunch of kooky stuff out of wholecloth. For example, their vague strawman accusations that everybody but the neocons somehow are morally deficient and supporting turning over U.S. foreign policy to wolves-in-UN-clothing has not quite been paralleled in my rendering.

What? Er, so that means that you support turning more over to the UN? or you think that others BESIDES the neocons doubt the efficacy of the UN? or are you saying that YOU TOO doubt the UN and therefore are angry at the neocons for suggesting that you have not attacked the UN and its flaws with the same vigor?[/quote]

What do you expect from the UN? If you consider it a forum that keeps the major military/economic powers from lobbing missiles at one another by given them a place to nag and cajole, then sure it’s been useful. If you consider it able to build consensus on basic health, trade and certain other issues, then it’s also been useful. If you think the UN is going to be a body absent of international politics, then you and the neocons are nuts. We simply don’t live in that sort of utopia, and that’s why we have lots of diplomats stationed in and visiting to countries on a bilateral and regional basis.

There are plenty of non-neocon Americans who do not support turning over U.S. foreign policy to the UN, but the neocons love to claim that everybody else want America to get a “permission slip” before we can defend ourselves. What a load of hooey. Of course, what you’re posing is a false choice --the silly neocon idea that the only choices are between slavishly following the dictates of the UN and attacking it. This viewpoint is quite like that of a child who can’t figure out a jigsaw puzzle so he starts smashing the pieces. Good luck with that.

@fred smith

[quote]In visualizing their mythic “liberal”, they imagine a 20-something vegan with hippie hair and sandals trying to talk “peace and free love” to a Stalin getting ready to break into maniacal laughter at the thought of our decadent society.

A fairly accurate picture. That is why spoofs and caricatures are funny I guess.[/quote]

Yes, well, considering the dwindling number of those who think the neocons are up to any good, I suppose you’ll have to deal with a whole nation of people who aren’t 20-something vegans with hippie hair.

@fred smith

[quote]Unfortunately, too many of the “neocons” too closely resemble the stereotypes we have of middle-aged white fatsos making pacts with Satan.

That is why it is funny in return. All except the Satan part since we are mostly religious. OR are you suggesting that our religious demeanors are of an evil equivalent to that of the worst devil worshiper?[/quote]

Why is it that when I read the Bible I can’t find anything praising the craven pursuit of wealth? GOPpers love to cite the Parable of the Talents, but their take on it is at odds with those of most serious bible scholars. Considering the blatant disrespect that the top Republicans have towards the evangelicals they conned into voting Republican (see Kuo’s book), I do wonder whether hardcore neocons worship anything other than power and the dollar sign.

I’ll give you a hint – check out Jesus’ interactions with the rich man. [“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:24)]

@fred smith

But then are you not buttressing our view in the deficiencies of you lefties who cannot tell the difference between Judaeo-Christian ethics and Satanism. Please reread the section on moral relativism again. I think that you just proved the author’s point but no doubt you were merely attempting to make us laugh by doing so? Well consider yourself LAUGHED AT. haha

Go back and read the Bible a bit.

[mofangongren]

On a related note, check out this interview with David Kuo – a former Bush White House insider talking about faith, Jesus and the pursuit of wealth.

[fred_smith]

MFGR:

Do you have an inferiority complex when it comes to money? inherited wealth? class? Just curious since you seem to be so, how shall we say, “intense” when these subjects come up. Rest assured, most wealth these days is “earned” and not “inherited” and those who squander their resources end up poor or shall we say relatively poor. The system works. Those who are rich may start out with advantages of education, manners, confidence but these can be balanced by complacency, lack of initiative, etc. People “like you” therefore have opportunities to “get ahead.” Understand?