Neocons are not Libertarians

[Vay]

[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.

[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.

[Flipper]

[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?

[Vay]

[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):

@Fred Smith

the underlying principles of Republican or Tory or Conservative politics have generally been about removing the State from the path of the Individual. The vast majority of Choices therefore whether with regard to Education or Family or Marriage or Career or Savings or Lifestyle therefore reside with the Individual and Behavior is not Mandated by the Government to Achieve “desired Aims.”

[rousseau]

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]