lol, antiwar.com. read some of the great anti-dpp/anti-chen editorials on that site. somehow i never understood how supporting unification was a “libertarian” goal.
this is exactly why the libertarian party never wins anything. nobody cares for a bunch of whining isolationists. pat buchanan without the grass roots support.
here’s a detailed history of “neo-conservatism”:
Like prophets?
False prophets of doom would be more like it, I think. The one time they could have shown their true powers of prophesy – pre 9/11 – they missed so many obvious signs of impending danger that the Bush Administration delayed the full release of the 911 Commission’s report for months out of embarrassment.
Neoconservatives are a puzzling bunch and they certainly don’t help clear things up about who and what they are because they dislike discussing themselves. They’re not conservatives. One need only note the fact that they themselves criticize traditional conservatism and actively expunge conservatives like Colin Powell, James Baker and Brent Scowcroft from their ranks.
Reading Flipper’s excellent reference “what is neo-conservatism” still leaves one still fundamentally unsure who and what they are.
It’s stated for example that they are strong supporters of besieged democracies like Israel and Taiwan but that doesn’t seem supported by the facts. I have a hard time believing neo-conservatives would really go to the same lengths to protect Taiwan militarily that they go to to defend Israel. Nuclear weapons technology is one example. At the same time the U.S. was clandestinely supporting Israel’s expansion and modernization of its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons arsenal to protect it from its hostile Arab neighbors, it was thwarting efforts on the part of Taiwan to acquire such weapons. If Taiwan today had Israel’s weapons of mass destruction arsenal, it would be nearly immune from invasion by the P.R.C. Does anyone also reasonably doubt that if North Korea were in the Middle East, that it would be treated with the same sort of sporadic neglect it’s being treated with by the Bush Administration?
I agree that the term “neoconservative” is an inappropriate label and should be discarded. I propose instead the term “Biblican” on the grounds that the 9/11 tragedy seems to have unleashed a groundswell of latent religious fundamentalism in American society that seems to hold that the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and other traditional bodies of law such as international law are obsolete and should be replaced by, what else?, a faith-based Biblical world view that trumps all other concerns. The fact that they represent the fringes of the Republican Party in normal times is almost beside the point.
flike -
Sen. McCarthy has been proven to be correct.
Google - Venona project…better yet, here, let me do it for you. This is one of the most remarkable projects I have ever came across in regards to the information it presents. All you have to do is start reading. And NO…this is not some wack job moonbat deal. Its the facts about the status of belligerents during the ‘Cold War’ years.
Venona Project search results on Google
You might also read the released KGB/NKVD archives of that period. It seems that Sen. McCarthy was way underestimating the number of agents/sleepers/moles in place in the US gov’t, media, acadaemia and entertainment/press fields.
Its quite interesting when you read what the facts actually are.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Sen. McCarthy has been proven to be correct…
Its quite interesting when you read what the facts actually are.[/quote]
Yes, and that makes McCarthy all the more pathetic.
I mean, let’s assume McCarthy was correct in 100% of what he had to say on the subject.
Like all good right wing wackos, he immediately assumed that any means he employed to bring this to the light of American justice was justified.
Do you think that - given our assumption that he was correct in all his claims, that there were indeed Communists who had infiltrated positions of power and influnce in the United States - that he picked, say, even the 100th best way to go about proving it? :loco:
flike -
Sen. McCarthy was indeed forceful, aggressive and determined in his execution. He was known for these traits, to expect otherwise would be wrong.
Also, as in so many things, it is also wrong to judge him by todays standards. His time was a different era. His resources were vastly inferior to what is now available. He was hampered in his investigation almost every step of the way due to his stepping on very powerful and influential feet.
Would he act the same in todays climate? Of course not.
Remember, he was the product of a much different era.
Does this excuse the errors you wish to see? No, but it does help to explain why he acted as he did. No attempt at justifying his methods, thats not for me to do, just putting things in perspective.
As to whether I think he proceeded in the best manner; probably not. But I cannot change history. It was a very politically charged atmosphere. I can remember my father and several friends having quite animated discussions of the proceedings. I was just a pup and didn’t have a clue wtf it was all about. But it was very controversial on many levels. Personal freedoms, anti-US actions, anti-Communist fears, personal privacy vs national security, 1st Amendment rights…gee…these things are still around…Hmmmm…
Leave it to Biblicans to rehabilitate Senator McCarthy as a misunderstood national hero. Figures.
The fact is McCarthy had no evidence whatsoever to base his accusations on. He accused innocent people without regard for the facts or due process which is why he ended up in disgrace.
Few if any doubted that the United States was locked in a vicious struggle for survival with the Soviet Union during the Cold War but victimizing innocent people in a misguided attempt to fight Stalinism with Stalinism was no substitute for the need for effective counter-espionage.
No evidence huh? How would that fit in with your demonization of neocons as putting Jewish or Israeli interests first?
Interesting. Apparently Joe McCarthy is in the process of being quietly rehabilitated by the Biblican Right:
“The myth of ‘McCarthyism’ is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times. Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. Everything you think you know about McCarthy is a hegemonic lie.”
Ann Coulter, Treason,
That’s the equivalent of the Pagan Left trying to rehabilitate Che Guevara on the sly after all these years – hoping that the odd inconvenient fact or two will have gotten lost in the mists of time by now.
I guess it’s just proof again of the verity that for ‘every action on the far left, there’s an equal and opposite reaction on the far right.’
GOP Agenda Conflicting with States’ Rights
I think this article underscores the point. Neocons love to borrow Libertarian language such as ‘keep the federal government off our backs’. They love to quote “Atlas Shrugged” and act as if they were all Objectivists (see my thread on [url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/republican-double-speak-part-ii/16559/1 Doublespeak II[/url] for explicit examples of this.)
However, when it comes to push and shove, they only mean that in the economic sense of lowering federal taxes and de-regulating industry; IE, keep the federal government off the backs of businesses and entrepreneurs.
On issues like medical marijuana, right to die cases, international relations, gay marriage, and many others, however, the Republicans are as BIG GOVERNMENT as they always accuse the Democrats of being.
you’re completely confusing neo-con’s with hardcore republican with the religious right.
neo-conservatism is, for all intents and purposes, a foreign policy position. most leading neo-conservatives are pretty secular or even gasp non-christian.
you’re just using all these labels interchangably and adding to the confusion of people who think neo-conservatism is just another term for conservative republican. it’s NOT.
[quote=“Flipper”]neo-conservatism is, for all intents and purposes, a foreign policy position. most leading neo-conservatives are pretty secular or even gasp non-christian.
[/quote]
That’s a new one on me. Of course, we’ve argued about the definition of “neocon” on a different thread, and the fact is that no where is it written in stone what neocon really means. But to say it’s only a foreign policy position. You might have something when you suggest they are non-Christian - I suspect that Bush is an atheist, and just prostitutes himself for the Christian votes.
My definition of a neocon, by today’s standards, is: An extreme right-wing Republican (which is the vast majority of Republicans, as the moderates have been mostly run out of the party). I do not count Libertarians as neocons. And yes, I see the neocons as being decidedly “big government” (ie a police state, Homeland Security, welfare for big corporations (but not for the poor). It would seem that unrestrained deficit spending is part of the package too. Taking deliberate joy in watching the environment being trashed also seems to be part of the neocon philosophy. I might as well throw in Neo-Nazi-style dirty political tricks such as faux news, smear campaigns, denying blacks the right to vote, gerrymandering (thanks Karl Rove).
But I do agree that there is a definite neocon foreign policy position - massive military interventions, to the point of bankrupting the country so that we’ll probably not be able to fight a real war when we finally have to.
Interesting times we live in. Feels like Germany in the 1930s. And it may end roughly the same way (with the USA’s collapse).
So I think I will join the Libertarians, who oppose just about all of the above (though they are weak on environmental matters, which I don’t agree with).
cheers,
DB
did you even read the link i posted which detailed the history of the term “neo-conservative”? it seems like you’re just making up any random definitions you feel like.
Yes I did, but history of words means little (except maybe to people like William Safire). It’s how the term is being used in today’s political context that matters. Indeed, the word “republican” and “democratic” have taken on whole new meanings once they became the names of political parties. And even political parties morph - remember, it was the Republicans (under Lincoln) who freed the slaves, and as a result blacks used to be solidly Republican (and Republicans couldn’t get elected in the southern states for nearly 100 years). But today blacks are something like 95% Democrats, and the south is solidly Republican. Indeed, the Republican Party I knew as a kid no longer exists - there used to be such a thing as a “moderate Republican,” but they are nearly extinct. So politics change, and words change with it.
Anyway, I appreciate your comments. No doubt you remember that the definition of a neocon was discussed in another thread:
[What does neoconservative mean? Thoughtful discussion please
Perhaps I should have titled this thread “Republicans are not Libertarians.” My bad.
And as a footnote, symbols change too. The swastika was an Indian Buddhist symbol, but Hitler gave it a whole new meaning.
cheers,
DB
Neocons are not Libertarians
does this really need a thread? i thought it would be obvious
[quote]Neocons are not Libertarians
does this really need a thread? I thought it would be obvious[/quote]
Sorry bud, but you are being a little naive. Posing as Libertarians to moderate secular-minded America while posing as Christian moralists to bible-thumping America is the Neocon strategy of late. And gotta give 'em credit - it’s a great sell!
Go back and read posts by this sites major conservative posters. Remember old ‘Cold Front’, for example (whatever happened to him, anyway?). “The Republican Party is the party of freedom - individual and economic” (or something to that effect). “Historically, the position of the Republican Party has been to keep the federal government out of the way of the individual.” (Can’t remember which of them said that to me…).
And I agree with Flipper as to the ‘actual’ definition of ‘neo-conservative’ – as opposed to ‘traditonal conservative’. Traditionally, conservatives were opposed to US involvement in foreign affairs except in extreme cases.
so you decide to ignore the historical foundation of the term and instead bash “neo-conservatives” based on the misuse of the term which you yourself perpetuate.
neo-conservatives don’t claim to be libertarians.
in fact, the tenents of neo-conservatism are the EXACT OPPOSITE of libertarianism. libertarians do not believe the us should EVER interfere in ANY international conflict. neo-conservatism is about spreading a certain set of ideals around the world forcibly.
so you make up a new definition for “neo-conservative” and then attack it for pretending to be libertarian when no such claim has ever been made.
[quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”]
Perhaps I should have titled this thread “Republicans are not Libertarians.” My bad.[/quote]
considering the huge debate in republican circles about the influence and role of libertarians in the party, i think the statement that “republicans are not libertarians” is pretty self-evident.
libertarians make up a portion of the republican base. many libertarians are democrats. most democrats are NOT libertarian. and most republicans are not libertarian.
should i draw a venn diagram?
[quote=“Flipper”]so you decide to ignore the historical foundation of the term and instead bash “neo-conservatives” based on the misuse of the term which you yourself perpetuate.
neo-conservatives don’t claim to be libertarians.
in fact, the tenents of neo-conservatism are the EXACT OPPOSITE of libertarianism. libertarians do not believe the us should EVER interfere in ANY international conflict. neo-conservatism is about spreading a certain set of ideals around the world forcibly.
so you make up a new definition for “neo-conservative” and then attack it for pretending to be libertarian when no such claim has ever been made.[/quote]
My heartfelt apologies. But when I say that I agree with your definition, I mean it in the sense that now, the Republicans are moving in the direction of international intervention, whadya-call-it regime engineering, neo-imperialism and all of that. They are “new conservatives” in the sense that they have changed that one aspect of their general ideology.
That one facet, however, does NOT redefine their whole outlook; nor does it change the fact that their ‘marketing’ strategies at home are clearly aimed at making themselves appear Libertarian when it comes to domestic policy. If you want to harp on the fact that being a neo-con ONLY pertains to one’s perspective regarding international policy and that therefore the faux-Libertarian accusation isn’t relevent to the label “Neocon”, I concede your point.
However, I think you’re nitpicking. Basically, the Republican party (OK? Not necessarily the Neocons? happy?) knows that Ayn Rand-ish sounding talk sells well, and they’re co-opting that language into their own propoganda machine. (No one paid much attention to the article I posted on The Language Police, but a lot of this is in there.) They’re always talking about Washington this and government red-tape that. Dems want to empower bureacrats and disempower “the people” (This always makes me laugh, particularly when pertaining to environmental issues – considering who they want to empower when it comes to the environment!)
I start slipping into a suthin’ draaawwwlll as I even think of their faux-bubba tone when they spout this crap.
Oh, and here’s a very Libertarian-sounding description of his (I’m assuming) perception of the Republican world-view by our own Fred Smith (no barb against you Fred, just making a point):
Further to this:
[quote]The Bush presidency often is called conservative. That is a mistake. It is populist and radical, and its principal energies have roots in American history, and these roots are not conservative…If we recall Leo Strauss’s formulation that “Athens and Jerusalem” – science and spiritual aspiration – are the core of Western civilization, American Evangelicalism is a threat to both, through ignorance of both.
Forum: The Evangelical effect[/quote]