After Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity are the most popular rightwing talk hosts in America, defining for millions the definition of the term conservative. Lately, Beck has focused on attacking progressivism, often stressing that the progressive foreign policy of President Woodrow Wilson, who wanted to make the world safe for democracy, was identical to that of George W. Bush. Hannity takes a very different view, stating, You can57;t deny that George Bush was conservative on national security issues. Yet, Beck does deny this, quite regularly. Whos right? Better yet, whos conservative?
That depends on your definition. The notion of making the world safe for democracy is unquestionably a liberal or progressive sentiment, but it is also true that it has been standard foreign policy for the mainstream Right for some time. Self-described conservatives have associated endless military intervention with American toughness and viewed those who questioned the governments wisdom in waging war as weak or anti-American. This has certainly been the view of Limbaugh and Hannity, and for most of Bushs eight years it was also the view of Beck.
Yet the notion of America as the worlds policeman is not remotely conservative in the traditional sense, but neoconservative, a term most mainstream right-wingers are either ignorant of, embarrassed of, or dont use because the wholesale takeover of the conservative movement by the neocons has made the neo prefix unnecessary.
Neoconservatives care about one thingwar (and where they can wage it). Says contributing editor to the Weekly Standard, neocon Max Boot: Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad, a progressive, Wilsonian vision, if there ever was one. As for traditional conservative concerns like limited government, fiscal responsibility, and constitutional fidelity, these are ideas neoconservatives will occasionally pay lip service to, so long as none of these principles interferes with their more important task of global military domination. It is no coincidence that George W. Bushthe first full-blown neoconservative presidential administrationdid not limit government, was not fiscally responsible, and shredded the Constitution, while still implementing the most radical foreign policy in American history. Writes conservative columnist George Will, The most magnificently misnamed neoconservatives are the most radical people in this town.
Conservatives now seem more willing to question their recent radical past, and a populist right-wing movement consisting of tea parties, town hall protests and states rights rhetoric is not conducive to neoconservativism. With traditional conservatism being represented in its modern form most prominently by so-called paleoconservatives like commentator Pat Buchanan or libertarians like Texas Congressman Ron Paul, Boot recently described such non-neo-conservatives to Newsweek: A lot of them tend to be libertarian cranks: neo-Confederates, really insane, racist, xenophobic types. Libertarian cranks could describe the current crop of constitutionally minded, anti-government protesters, and so-called neo-Confederates primary concern has always been states right, an increasingly hot topic. As for his portrayal of traditional conservatives as really insane, racist, xenophobic types, Boots criticism is not unlike the Lefts attempts to portray anti-Obama tea partiers as racist, and serves as a reminder of neoconservatives progressive inclinations.
Defending his comrades, Boot told Newsweek, Neocons are vilified as being barely human beasts who have to be kept chained in a cage somewhere, lest they start eating babies alive or something, but when you look at the spectrum of conservative thought, they are actually fairly centrist. The people who kind of speak to the rank and file of the Republican Partythe Newt Gingriches, the Rush Limbaughs, the Sean Hannitys they57;re actually fairly supportive of an aggressive foreign policy.
Until recently, Boot was correct. Being part of the rank-and-file of the Republican Party meant being a neoconservative, whether mainstream conservatives were conscious of it or not. But as the grassroots Right continues to revisit conservatisms limited-government roots, this ideological shift creates much less fertile ground for neoconservatives, most of whom remain busy either applauding Obamas troop escalation in Afghanistan or criticizing the president for not attacking Iran, Yemen, or North Korea yet.
Neoconservatives never have been conservative, neither was Bush on national security, and these points must be hammered home before the Right can achieve a sturdier ideological footing. Laughably, Boot complains that neocons have been vilified as being barely human beasts who have to be kept chained in a cage somewhere, and yet without hesitation slanders real conservatives as libertarian cranks, neo-Confederate, and racists. Its time for the Right take neo out of conservative, chain neoconservatism to progressivism, and put these liberal beasts back in their cages.
After Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity are the most popular rightwing talk hosts in America, defining for millions the definition of the term conservative. Lately, Beck has focused on attacking progressivism, often stressing that the progressive foreign policy of President Woodrow Wilson, who wanted to make the world safe for democracy, was identical to that of George W. Bush. Hannity takes a very different view, stating, You can57;t deny that George Bush was conservative on national security issues. Yet, Beck does deny this, quite regularly. Whos right? Better yet, whos conservative?
That depends on your definition. The notion of making the world safe for democracy is unquestionably a liberal or progressive sentiment, but it is also true that it has been standard foreign policy for the mainstream Right for some time. Self-described conservatives have associated endless military intervention with American toughness and viewed those who questioned the governments wisdom in waging war as weak or anti-American. This has certainly been the view of Limbaugh and Hannity, and for most of Bushs eight years it was also the view of Beck.
Yet the notion of America as the worlds policeman is not remotely conservative in the traditional sense, but neoconservative, a term most mainstream right-wingers are either ignorant of, embarrassed of, or dont use because the wholesale takeover of the conservative movement by the neocons has made the neo prefix unnecessary.
Neoconservatives care about one thingwar (and where they can wage it). Says contributing editor to the Weekly Standard, neocon Max Boot: Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad, a progressive, Wilsonian vision, if there ever was one. As for traditional conservative concerns like limited government, fiscal responsibility, and constitutional fidelity, these are ideas neoconservatives will occasionally pay lip service to, so long as none of these principles interferes with their more important task of global military domination. It is no coincidence that George W. Bushthe first full-blown neoconservative presidential administrationdid not limit government, was not fiscally responsible, and shredded the Constitution, while still implementing the most radical foreign policy in American history. Writes conservative columnist George Will, The most magnificently misnamed neoconservatives are the most radical people in this town.
Conservatives now seem more willing to question their recent radical past, and a populist right-wing movement consisting of tea parties, town hall protests and states rights rhetoric is not conducive to neoconservativism. With traditional conservatism being represented in its modern form most prominently by so-called paleoconservatives like commentator Pat Buchanan or libertarians like Texas Congressman Ron Paul, Boot recently described such non-neo-conservatives to Newsweek: A lot of them tend to be libertarian cranks: neo-Confederates, really insane, racist, xenophobic types. Libertarian cranks could describe the current crop of constitutionally minded, anti-government protesters, and so-called neo-Confederates primary concern has always been states right, an increasingly hot topic. As for his portrayal of traditional conservatives as really insane, racist, xenophobic types, Boots criticism is not unlike the Lefts attempts to portray anti-Obama tea partiers as racist, and serves as a reminder of neoconservatives progressive inclinations.
Defending his comrades, Boot told Newsweek, Neocons are vilified as being barely human beasts who have to be kept chained in a cage somewhere, lest they start eating babies alive or something, but when you look at the spectrum of conservative thought, they are actually fairly centrist. The people who kind of speak to the rank and file of the Republican Partythe Newt Gingriches, the Rush Limbaughs, the Sean Hannitys they57;re actually fairly supportive of an aggressive foreign policy.
Until recently, Boot was correct. Being part of the rank-and-file of the Republican Party meant being a neoconservative, whether mainstream conservatives were conscious of it or not. But as the grassroots Right continues to revisit conservatisms limited-government roots, this ideological shift creates much less fertile ground for neoconservatives, most of whom remain busy either applauding Obamas troop escalation in Afghanistan or criticizing the president for not attacking Iran, Yemen, or North Korea yet.
Neoconservatives never have been conservative, neither was Bush on national security, and these points must be hammered home before the Right can achieve a sturdier ideological footing. Laughably, Boot complains that neocons have been vilified as being barely human beasts who have to be kept chained in a cage somewhere, and yet without hesitation slanders real conservatives as libertarian cranks, neo-Confederate, and racists. Its time for the Right take neo out of conservative, chain neoconservatism to progressivism, and put these liberal beasts back in their cages.
There seems to be so much ignorance of the term on this forum that I thought I would post one man's opinion.
The first time I heard the term neo-con/neo-conservative, it was used to describe former left-wingers who had suddenly "found religion" and become lovers of war (for the most part, they were still liberal or ambivalent on "social issues" (i.e. abortion, gay-rights). They found a home in the modern Republican party of the Bush's. (although Reagan probably had a few in his admin, too. )
Some of those included Kristol (senior), Wolfowitz and Lieberman. Because these men are Jewish, the term neo-con became synonymous. It followed that criticizing neo-cons became the same as criticizing Jews. Too much of that and you'd be painted with the dreaded term anti-semite. This is what happened to Pat Buchanan.
Sadly, this is what passes for most political discourse these days.
I don't look at it the same. One doesn't have to search too hard to find neo-cons who are NOT Jews. Cheney, the Bush's, and most talk show hosts for example. (Mike Church on satellite is an exception.)
My view of neo-cons (both the Jewish and non-Jewish variety) is this: to the extent that they want to wage unconstitutional wars abroad, they need to be opposed and defeated.
And when someone waves the term "anti-semite" they can put it where the sun don't shine.
Bot Eye, my mother died 23 years ago. We never had a basement. So I see your sorry ass is till posting at that site for losers. Now I know why you fit in!!
Hey, your comment opened the ball, not mine. I'm just calling you on it.
Some here professed to be ignorant of the term 'neocon'. Were you one of those? Maybe you might try to clarify or discuss the definition instead of demonstrating what some insist are neocon behaviors.
There is no such thing as neocons. Just a disparaging term used by Paultards and their ilk to trash Bush and the Juze.
Denying the word doesn't make it go away. Too many are proud of their Neocon heritage and what it has accomplished. You can blame it on a certain religion or ethnic group if you want, which portrays you as not being as ignorant as you pretend, but there are plenty from other faiths and ethnic groups who adhere to the Neocon tenets.
The darkies call themselves and other darkies niggers. So it seems the darkies would disagree with you. They just get upset when non-darkies use the term.
Show me someone who throws around the term neocon, and I'll show you someone who is content to throw Israel under the bus, almost without fail.
From the article:
Neoconservatives care about one thingwar (and where they can wage it). Says contributing editor to the Weekly Standard, neocon Max Boot: Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad, a progressive, Wilsonian vision, if there ever was one. As for traditional conservative concerns like limited government, fiscal responsibility, and constitutional fidelity, these are ideas neoconservatives will occasionally pay lip service to, so long as none of these principles interferes with their more important task of global military domination. It is no coincidence that George W. Bushthe first full-blown neoconservative presidential administrationdid not limit government, was not fiscally responsible, and shredded the Constitution, while still implementing the most radical foreign policy in American history. Writes conservative columnist George Will, The most magnificently misnamed neoconservatives are the most radical people in this town.
That's a perfect example of what I meant in post #7. The "anti-semite" card. Kind of ironic - given some of your posts - that you're the one playing it.
Show me someone who throws around the term neocon, and I'll show you someone who is content to throw Israel under the bus, almost without fail.
That sounds great. When does it happen?
And lots of other countries need to follow Israel under that bus. Anybody who puts another country's welfare as the priority and expects the US to send her youth to fight it's wars is a damned traitor.
Show me someone who throws around the term neocon, and I'll show you someone who is content to throw Israel under the bus, almost without fail.
Show me someone who IS a neocon and I'll show you someone who believes that Pollard was a hero and would equally sell out American to advance the interests of a foreign nation.
Tell me how the "survival" of Israel is a necessary element to the survival of America.
Day 5 of Packrat refusing to register here. Day 3 Of Boofer The One Eyed Wonder Bot refusing to answer: When is Blackwell going to have the recount?
Ooh goody.... I got you to use "Jew" and "anti semite" which is code for: discussions of the subject (which is Neocon in this case) must be dissuaded and ridiculed. Glad I hit your sore spot. I hope the ADL is paying you well.
Okay - there's one of two possibilities here:
One, you posted your reply to me and meant to post it to "dont eat that" instead.
-or-
Two, you have the reading comprehension of an idiot.
Tell me how the "survival" of Israel is a necessary element to the survival of America.
He's probably got blowup signs of Pollard decorating his basement walls. I hope he rots in hell. He want your grandkids to die in support of another social experiment.
Ooh goody.... I got you to use "Jew" and "anti semite" which is code for: discussions of the subject (which is Neocon in this case) must be dissuaded and ridiculed. Glad I hit your sore spot. I hope the ADL is paying you well.
#36. To: mininggold, war even though you have me bozoed, you leftist shill (#34)
That name goes way back, but I'm not him.
Sorry I got a little hot at you - it was just disappointment coming out.
This is a discussion that needs to happen - and nothing bugs me more than people who play various "cards" - race, anti-semite, whatever - to shut down political discussion.
BTW - I see that willie is posting on this thread. I'd ping him, but he's got me bozo'ed. I'm sure it's due to my tagline (too bad - I had him and a few others in mind when I wrote it.)
Oh well - I guess he's just intimidated by my stellar logic :-)
You'd run into a HUGE 1st amendment problem...but your sentiment is probably spot on...
I have a real issue with arms exports as well. There is nothing in the USCON that allows the Congress to build another nation's military.
Yeah... essentially giving them our "outdated" weaponry when most of the time all it takes is just a couple of modifications and they will have the updated version.