|
Post by beth on Nov 15, 2009 22:23:42 GMT
For anyone (hi das ) who needs a bump toward knowing what Neo-conservatism is all about, here's a brand new article in the December edition of The American Conservative that will help. It doesn't go into naming names of all the major players (check the PNAC web site for that) but does quote Bill Kristol enough to allow for an idea. The article is too long to c&p but is a nice length for a semi-quick read. American Conservative: Kristol Reflections Those of us who have been posting or reading on the Ayn Rand thread may see some points for comparison. Here are the people who signed the statement of principles. This is from the Project for the New American Century web site, Letters and Statements, Statement of Principles. Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Nov 16, 2009 2:11:31 GMT
Beth - I've heard the term "neocon' bandied about by left-wing commentators but I never have known what it meant. Since I give zero credence to left wing commentators their 'spin' didn't interest me and I just ignored it. However, you've brought it up here and you've posted a list of names above many of whom I hold in high regard (Dick Cheney, Steve Forbes, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wofowitz). So I decided to research the term. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about Neoconservatism. Here is a link en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeoconservatismAccording to this source, Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. In economics, unlike traditionalist conservatives, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes. That really doesn't describe me. I'm certainly not comfortable with the welfare state. And I'm not concerned with 'social purposes.' So please don't hang that label on me.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Nov 16, 2009 2:16:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by beth on Nov 16, 2009 2:31:31 GMT
I'd like to suggest that you go to the origin post in this thread, access the link provided and read the Bill Kristol article in The American Conservative - then go to the PNAC site and read a bit as well. They do not try to hide their objectives. They are rather proud of them, I think.
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Nov 29, 2009 18:10:24 GMT
What's amazing is that given how they bungled foreign affairs, they have an ounce of credibility today. They are a collection of delusional fools and, in some cases, criminals. Small wonder that Daddy Bush pardoned those creeps and Sonny Boy sealed the records. For all their bluster about 'freedom and democracy', they sure as hell never practiced it.
One explanation for why people who advocate transparently idiotic policies that result in national disasters (the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, our current health care system, our drug laws, our prisons, our current financial crisis) generally don't lose their pundit credentials is that what gets you fired isn't being wrong: it's being perceived to be wrong while bucking the conventional wisdom. Indeed being wrong while repeating the conventional wisdom is generally more profitable than being right while resisting it.
That's why football coaches punt on fourth and one. It's idiotic and loses lots of games, but what gets them fired is doing something unconventional that doesn't work 100% of the time. And since nothing works 100% of the time they generally prefer to "manage by the book" as the baseball expression goes.
In American politics today, managing by the book means always being "strong on defense," which in turn means spending insane sums of money on wars and the weapons to fight them, and "tough on crime," which means throwing millions of people in prison at immense cost, often for behavior which in a more rational society wouldn't even be illegal, let alone grounds for incarceration. It also means doing nothing that would upset the economic status quo; hence bankers must receive immense bonuses 15 minutes after their firms were saved from extinction by the timely transfer of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. (This is known as "letting the market reward success.").
The conventional wisdom is the conventional wisdom because the establishment deems it to be simply the truth, and therefore not subject to question by serious people, such as themselves. This is why failed football coaches and baseball managers keep getting re-hired; this is why Bill Kristol now writes a column for the Washington Post, and Iraq war advocates aren't immediately laughed out of the room when they give their opinions on what "we" should do next in Afghanistan.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Dec 2, 2009 1:42:12 GMT
Clemie - Have you noticed that Obama seems to be pretty much following Bush's programs in both Iraq and Afghanistan? There is a good reason for that. Bush made the right decisions and set the proper course.
When finally able to access classified information Obama had little choice but to admit Bush and Cheney were right all along and cave in.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Dec 2, 2009 12:42:04 GMT
Clemie - Have you noticed that Obama seems to be pretty much following Bush's programs in both Iraq and Afghanistan? There is a good reason for that. Bush made the right decisions and set the proper course. When finally able to access classified information Obama had little choice but to admit Bush and Cheney were right all along and cave in. I say the reason the newest New World Order STOOGE who's President is following what Dubya did is because they both are just stooges for the elite, the 1's who REALLY run most of the leaders in the world. White I'm convinced Dubya did more evil than Obama has so far, I hate Obama also.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Dec 8, 2009 2:34:11 GMT
Pumpinette - Obama has continued down the same path that the Bush Administration established in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He's Bush Light.
The main difference is that Bush was surrounded by Republicans (the good guys) whereas Obama is surrounded by Democrats (the bad guys).
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Dec 8, 2009 14:38:04 GMT
I always enjoy your posts, BA, and I think it's great to have different perspectives on things.
On the other hand, it's a bit naive to suggest that the Republicans are the good guys and the Democrats are the bad ones.
There have been (and still are) good Democrats and bad Republicans just as there have been the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Dec 8, 2009 17:52:01 GMT
I'm going to pile on here because I think it's called for. It isn't naivety, it's head-in-sand ostrich tactics in regard to the woeful legacy of the GWB presidency, plus willful ignorance toward the project for the new American century. None of that will change things or convince anyone to the contrary because it's all documented and recorded for posterity.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Dec 8, 2009 20:17:03 GMT
I'm going to pile on here because I think it's called for. It isn't naivety, it's head-in-sand ostrich tactics in regard to the woeful legacy of the GWB presidency, plus willful ignorance toward the project for the new American century. None of that will change things or convince anyone to the contrary because it's all documented and recorded for posterity. The garbage from PHONY "Savior" Obama is also documented. This is a piece of FILTH who voted for immunity for the phone companies for illegally spying on us! Yes, DUBYA started that evil (at least what I've found out about it so far, but wouldn't be surprised if it started earlier than Dubya), but "Savior" is KEEPING IT UP! Isn't that as evil as PNAC? Spying on us? Spying on YOU? It also involves reading e-mails without our permission. Also, "Savior" is acting in a leadership position with the United Nations which is a DIRECT VIOLATION of the US Constitution. I don't know if you know about that 1 yet and before I get it remarked on I didn't learn about it on FOX (FAUX) news. There's JUST AS MUCH WILLFULL HIDING from the actions of the PHONY "Savior" Obama New World Order stooge than Dubya! What's the difference? NONE. There's all kinds of rationalizing going on with Dubya and Obama the 1 world government PUSHER and LOVER. I only had time to name 2 things about phony "Savior". If I had time, would list many more. Actually, may do that as I have time as it's needed.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Dec 8, 2009 20:22:28 GMT
To say nothing of war criminal Bill Clinton, his illegal war on Yugoslavia, his relentless assault on civil liberties and his judicial murders at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Dec 9, 2009 0:05:12 GMT
Lin and Laura, who knows, history may prove you right. This topic is, however, about Neo-Conservatives, and neither Obama nor Clinton fall into that category.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Dec 9, 2009 0:17:26 GMT
Lin and Laura, who knows, history may prove you right. This topic is, however, about Neo-Conservatives, and neither Obama nor Clinton fall into that category. I agree, Beth, though Obama is closer to them than Clinton who is a straightforward fascist!
|
|
|
Post by beth on Dec 9, 2009 3:57:46 GMT
Lin and Laura, who knows, history may prove you right. This topic is, however, about Neo-Conservatives, and neither Obama nor Clinton fall into that category. I agree, Beth, though Obama is closer to them than Clinton who is a straightforward fascist! Do you mind sharing your opinion of the Neo-Conservatives and The Project for the New American Century? No conspiracy theory junk whatsoever. All well documented and publically embraced by the members. PNAC site
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 9, 2009 13:37:28 GMT
I'm going to pile on here because I think it's called for. It isn't naivety, it's head-in-sand ostrich tactics in regard to the woeful legacy of the GWB presidency, plus willful ignorance toward the project for the new American century. None of that will change things or convince anyone to the contrary because it's all documented and recorded for posterity. exactly. our pal das totally follows the pnac party line to the max, but claims he knows nothing about it. unfortunately, for him, and others like him who do choose to keep their heads in the sand, as you say, it's in black and white, written by their own hands. and of course, the little article concerning neocons it TOTALLY without any credibility whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Dec 9, 2009 15:18:28 GMT
I agree, Beth, though Obama is closer to them than Clinton who is a straightforward fascist! Do you mind sharing your opinion of the Neo-Conservatives and The Project for the New American Century? No conspiracy theory junk whatsoever. All well documented and publically embraced by the members. PNAC site Beth, I have total contempt for the neo-con project and the pnac bunch as well. Just because I don't believe in socialism doesn't mean I support a bunch of clowns like THAT lot either. Half the trouble with politics is that it's seen too often in terms of an either/or divide rather than a 'some of this, some of that.' Broadly speaking, I consider myself a liberal though I've been called everything from a right-wing anarchist to a left-wing fascist! According to a member of the religious right in America who I know from a Christian board where I'm one of the few voices of reason and moderation, my moral views make me (in her eyes at least) a conservative. According to another member of the same board, I'm a conscious servant of Satan and according to a tenth-rate politician on a different board, I'm a socialist (if not a Communist!) Mind you, as that particular clown described Jumbo as (I quote) 'a socialist hillbilly' I don't take any notice of his rants. What America needs (what EVERY country needs) is to follow the liberal values of tolerance, freedom, and compassion. If you do that you won't go far wrong. Unfortunately, the world's like Yeats described it in 'The Second Coming,' where: 'the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.'
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Dec 9, 2009 15:37:24 GMT
I'm going to pile on here because I think it's called for. It isn't naivety, it's head-in-sand ostrich tactics in regard to the woeful legacy of the GWB presidency, plus willful ignorance toward the project for the new American century. None of that will change things or convince anyone to the contrary because it's all documented and recorded for posterity. exactly. our pal das totally follows the pnac party line to the max, but claims he knows nothing about it. unfortunately, for him, and others like him who do choose to keep their heads in the sand, as you say, it's in black and white, written by their own hands. and of course, the little article concerning neocons it TOTALLY without any credibility whatsoever. There's people with their heads in the sand also over PHONY "Savior" Obama. You can't deny that. It's NO better than willfully ignoring the evil of Dubya. It's just as disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Dec 10, 2009 2:43:52 GMT
This PNAC nonsense is completely and utterly ridiculous. It has nothing whatsoever do to with the decisions by the Bush Administration. It is just a wet dream of liberals (idiots all). Please stop it with the nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Dec 10, 2009 4:20:10 GMT
This PNAC nonsense is completely and utterly ridiculous. It has nothing whatsoever do to with the decisions by the Bush Administration. It is just a wet dream of liberals (idiots all). Please stop it with the nonsense.
|
|