Can we all agree to use the term "neocon" correctly? Please.

[Hamlette]

Neocons are a group of ppl who came from OUR side of the aisle. Many of them met working for Senator Scoop Jackson (D-Washington) during Vietnam. Others were actually socialists.

Somehow their wires got crossed. They sort of morphed. Originally they believed we should us US military force to HELP people who were in need of our help. Now they think we should do it because we can or democracy is such a good thing we should force it on others at the point of a gun or because we need oil. (Remember, the biggest neocon of all is Richard PERLE who is STILL a DEMOCRAT.)

This is NOT standard conservative thought. Conservatives have historically been the isolationists (See: WWI, WWII, and Vietnam. In all three cases it was the dems in office who got us involved first. And while yes, the argument can be made that it was a dem in office when events overseas demanded action, it was the GOP at home that fought our involvement, at least as to WWI and WWII.)

It's a pet peeve of mine when people use the term Neocon to apply to all republicans or crazy right wing republicans. Military intervention is not always wrong. A good argument can be made for saying we should use it right now in Darfur and it was the right thing to do in Bosnia and certainly it was right in WWII (harder case for WWI and impossible case in Vietnam).

Not all right wing crazies are neocons.

rant over

carry on

[Runcible Spoon]

1. hahaha that's the best historical revisionism I've seen in a while. Golfclap to you.

Neocons don't just want war, they want to FUCKING PROFIT FROM IT. Please research PNAC, and visit them on their new site if you like: http://www.defenddemocracy.org/

Let's get one thing straight: neocons are a thousand more times nefarious and greedy than traditional conservatives. They serve no other God than the Almighty Dollar.

Defending them has NO PLACE on this site, regardless of how implicit so-called Dems have been in enabling global privitization of militaries, war profiteering, and the wider evils of neoliberal capitalism. Richard FUCKING PERLE is one of the WORST of them. :grr:

[Hamlette]

4. I am NOT saying neocons are not dangerous assholes, I'm saying not all republicans are neocons

people use the term to mean "republican".

And while you accuse me of being an historical revisionist (I am not, read the wiki entry) at least you recognize there is a difference between neocons and traditional conservatives. Which was my freaking POINT. When someone here posts the latest from the "neocons" and it says NOTHING about the beliefs of neocons, it rubs me the wrong way and makes us look as moranic as the freepers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

Neoconservatism... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' ... many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

5. Hamlette, you are on the right track

There are Repukes who are clearly not Neocons. There are still a few Rockefeller Repubs like retiring Rep Jim Ramstead, one district over from me here in MN, various isolationist Repukes and the whacked out Libertarians like Ron Paul and Bob Barr in the greater Repig orbit, These folks call themselves Repigs more out of habit than conviction, given the takeover of the Repig party by the religiously insane and the neocon fascists.

The real conservatives have been systematically purged along with the moderates and Rockefeller Repubs by the religiously insane and the fascists. It may be hard for younger DUers to believe, but 35 years ago the Republican party was a responsible and conservative party. They were wrong, but they weren't crazy, Lunatic Republicanism arrived only with the rise of King Ronnie the Simple. He was the front man for the looniest elements that bubbled up in the Repig party after the Goldwater disaster in 1964. Nixon, while he played a blatantly racist card, was not a part of that. It was Wm F, Buckley, Falwell and Robertson that whelped the modern Repig party and the neocons. Big reactionary money that lamented the death of the Gilded Age decided to coopt the nitwit religious to create the Reagan coalition of chickens who would vote for Colonel Sanders. Smirko the Wonder Chimp is the ultimate and paramount achievement of this movement - a brain-damaged complete moron who will do what his minder (DicKKK) tells him to do.

The Neocons are nothing but Fascists in false flag clothing. They are enemies of humanity that should be exterminated root and branch.

[Changenow]

29. Most current Republicans are neocons, or vote with them

so if they aren't it doesn't matter. Some Democrats are also neocons.

The current usage identifies neocons as those who support the PNAC imperialistic manifesto.

[Joe Chi Minh]

38. There's nothing new about one-time Communists becoming virtual fascists. Indeed,

it has become a cliche, in the UK, and doubtless elsewhere. Your one-time Democrats would not have been Communists, but the likes of Kucinich would be regarded as the equivalent in the dingy minds of the current US "right".

[treestar]

68. No, even doing that, we couldn't be as moranic as freepers

Freepers label liberal economic policies as "socialism." Freepers see environmentalism as "communism."

Most Republicans today are in favor of wars of American imperialism. Maybe they aren't all strictly neocons. But they are always in favor of spreading American power, which is generally the goal of the neocons. Why are they in favor of the war with Iraq without admittng that none of the reasons for it hold water? Because what they really like about it is the show of force by the biggest military in the world.

I've even heard some of them put it: the war in Iraq teaches other countries a lesson. Other countries see what happened to Iraq; they won't get uppity.

[kevinmc]

9. http://www.defenddemocracy.org / .. Oh Jeez .... they gathered all the Freaks .....

and started another site .... I didn't know about this one.

Biographies


Board of Directors


Steve Forbes
Board Member
CEO Forbes Magazine

Dr. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick
Founding Member, 2001-2006
Fmr. Ambassador to the UN

Jack Kemp
Chairman Emeritus
Fmr. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development


Distinguished Advisors


Judge Louis J. Freeh
Fmr. Director of the FBI

Sen. Joseph Lieberman
(D-CT)
U.S. Senate

Newt Gingrich
Fmr. Speaker of the House

Robert "Bud" McFarlane
Fmr. National Security Advisor

Max M. Kampelman
Fmr. Ambassador

R. James Woolsey
Fmr. Director of the CIA

Board of Advisors


Gary Bauer
President
American Values


Bill Kristol
Editor
Weekly Standard

Rep. Eric Cantor
Chairman (R-VA)
Task Force on Terrorism


Hon. Richard D. Lamm
Fmr. Governor
Colorado

Frank Gaffney
President
Center for Security Policy


Sen. Zell Miller
(D-GA)
Former U.S. Senator

Gene Gately
Former Intelligence and Defense Official


Richard Perle
Former Chair of the Defense Policy Board and FDD Advisor

Charles Jacobs
President
American Anti-Slavery Group


Steven Pomerantz
Former Assistant Director
FBI

General P.X. Kelley
USMC (RET)


Oliver "Buck" Revell
Former Associate Deputy Director
FBI

Charles Krauthammer
Syndicated Columnist


Frances Townsend
Fmr. Chair of the White House Homeland Security Council

[pnorman]

19. Thanks for that website!

Here's the Bio part of it: http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies.htm

That the Neo-cons aren't true conservatives, is something that needs to be fully understood by all here. In this time of EXTREME peril to our Nation and our democratic institutions, we are finding many hard-core conservatives lining up on the same side as we are. Paul Craig Roberts is just ONE major example.

Many here are familiar with that Anti-War website, and it's occasionally cited here on DU, Here it is to check out: http://antiwar.com/ Also check out the list of contributors: http://antiwar.com/columnists.php Most are clearly left/liberal, but there are still a few old-fashioned conservatives there.

pnorman

[Clark2008]

52. Lieberman is not a "D."

There should be an "I" after his name.

Traitor.

[Political Heretic]

13. Sigh... try to read at least one fucking sentence of OPs before responding.

My god...nowhere did he say anything that could even be remotely construed as a "defense" of neocons

[SoxFan]

53. The OP is correct

Read up on your modern history.

For most of his career Dick Cheney was not a neoconservative. He was a traditional Wall Street Republican. He worked in the Ford White House, for god's sake.

What happened in the late 1990s and early '00s is that some conservatives took the Cold War-era neoconservative approach embraced by Scoop Jackson, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, and Ben Wattenberg, and mutated it into a weird creature that was at once hyperinterventionist but disdainful of international institutions.

[14thColony]

64. I guess I missed the part

where Hamlette defended neocons...

Darn, I just re-read the OP...must've missed it again...

[KharmaTrain]

2. It's A Perverted Term...

Just like National Socialist being truly socialist.

But then, what's in a name? It's who you associate with that is your measure. If you think about it, many who constitute the power structure of the modern repugnican party have Democratic roots. Be it the Scoop Jackson wing or Dixiecrats or the so-called "Raygun Democrats". And in turn, many moderate Republicans have been pushed aside...gone are the George Romneys and Jacob Javits.

IMHO, many view neo-cons by their current association with this regime...going back to PNAC in the 90s and whose leaders were incorporated into this regime. Even in 2000, the GOOP claimed they were against "nation building" and opposed the Kosovo and Bosnian intervention...but that all went out the window on 9/11.

Most true Conservatives find little in common with today's repugnican party. From its large government/defecit spending to the Iraq fiasco to FISA and violations of civil and individual rights, that's why you see many who have either moved to independent or even Libertarian.

Cheers...

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

3. You are right

Pat Buchanan is a paleo-conservative isolationist and he is as crazy a right winger as there is. Many of the wingnuts are not neocons in the strict sense of the word. Neocons are fundamentally fascistic at their core. They are inevitably for imperialism, rabidly blind nationalism and the exporting of their system at the point of a rifle barrel, to the detriment of everyone not in the top 1%. Old style conservatives would loathe them with undying passion. Goldwater would not recognize them. Robert Taft would not recognize them. Dwight Eisenhower would kick their asses from here to kingdom come as the representatives of the military-industrial complex he dreaded so deeply. They are the worst of Woodrow Wilson mixed with the worst of Benito Mussolini.

Can you even begin to imagine Ike countenancing the seizure of people's computers at random or spying on the entire populace? Those were preciesly the type of policies he led armies to destroy. Can you imagine Barry Goldwater winking at torture? I can't. Though they were conservatives in the true sense of the word, Ike and Goldwater profoundly believed in the Constitution and in democracy even when they were on the losing end of elections. Neoconservatism is nothing more than fascism (defined by Mussolini as the fusion of governmental and corporate power) dressed in different rhetorical clothing. It is inimical to democracy, to conservatism, to liberalism, and to everything decent and human. To be a neocon is to define yourself as an enemy of humanity.

[Youphemism]

6. I thought neocon referred to republicans who try to convince us Obama thinks he's "The One." /nt

[Doug.Goodall]

7. The meaning of 'neocon' has changed through usage

Dr. George Lakoff ( of the former Rockridge Institute ) had some good information about how groups take over the meaning of words anc change them to meet their own requirements.

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/books

Just like the right wingnuts (Limbaugh, Boortz, Coulter) have framed the word 'Liberal' to evoke a negative response other groups have put significant efforts into framing the word 'neocon' to bring up negative responses. Some of the frames applied to 'neocon' are conflicting which results in a loss of meaning when the word is used.

I think the word is broken, and needs to be retired from political discussions.

[scarletwoman]

59. The label "Neocon" has a very specific meaning, it's not broken.

It's only people who are ignorant of its meaning that misuse it. The OP is making an admirable attempt to relieve some of that ignorance.

Just because someone points to a rock and calls it a tree, doesn't mean that the meaning of the word tree is broken, it means that the person calling a rock, "tree" obviously doesn't know what a tree is.

sw

[wyldwolf]

8. yes, a perverted form of Wilsonian Liberal Internationalism

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. yes, I would actually have to agree with your definition..one might say a very extreme form

[Hamlette]

48. yep, sounds right to me

Fukuyama is one of the thoughtful neocons. If you can find his interview on the Daily Show it is great. He basically says at the end of the cold war with only one super power the neocons argued that that it is ourjob to advance democracy around the world. That is a shocking concept to "true" conservatives. True, old, pleo conservatives don't believe ppl change or that government can make ppl change or that power or the military can make ppl or culture change. By the time Fukuyama was on with Jon Stewart he was saying, basically, "what were we thinking. American military power can't hasten the spread of democracy around the world, that's just nuts."

If Bush were a neocon, he'd drop the pretense of saying we invaded Iraq to fight terrorism. He'd just say: we need to turn them into a democracy and the only way to do that is by invasion and occupation. If the majority of the GOP did not believe Iraq was a threat to our safety, they would not go along with it. The neocons needed the cover of terrorist threat to carry out their grand plan.

Wattenberg was on Jon Stewart this week. He's a neocon from our side of the aisle. He said only 1% of Americans consider themselves to be neocons. (He went on to say some nonsense about if you didn't call it neoconservativism 60% would agree with it.) What he wants to say is use American military power to get rid of dictators. What Jon said was "It doesn't work so its a terrible idea."

We've struggled with what to do with dictators throughout history. (see: Allende and the Shah of Iran and what's going on in Darfur.)
Neocons are just the latest smart alecks who think they've figured it out.

[eridani]

66. We INSTALLED the friggin' Shah, and deposed Allende

Both actions were in the service of corporate thuggery.

[Douglas Carpenter]

69. and both involved overthrowing the results of democratic elections and done with bi-partisan support

however, they occurred in the cold war era when a "by any means necessary" approach dominated the philosophy of both parties.

It is disingenuous to describe Allende as a "dictator", just as it is disingenuous to describe Chavez as a dictator unless one was to describe all the other tyrants from their regions with far, far worse human rights records as both of them put together as dictators also. They may not be the iconic leaders of the masses of left-wing mythology, but the selective use of the word "dictator" to describe questionable and non-compliant but democratically elected governments is downright Orwellian. Just as the selective use of the word "terrorism" to describe those who use nasty tactics is disingenuous when it only applies to those who are noncompliant with American political or commerical interest.

Still the old bi-partisan cold warriors who defended this policy and many other atrocious policies were not by and large neocons, although no doubt the embryonic neoconservative movement would have no doubt supported it too.

What differentiates neoconservatives from the old bi-partisan consensus, is that the old hawks would have been guided by both the concept of opposing any hint of the expansions of a Soviet friendly world and more importantly the concept of "national interest" which of course meant commercial interest. This is what has guided almost all powerful states throughout history.

The neocons are essentially utopian ideologues who are largely driven by their twisted vision of making a new world from the ashes of the old. Kind of upside-down Marxism.

[Hamlette]

75. my bad, not well worded

what I wanted to say is we deposed the democractically elected head of Iran and put the Shah's back in but I couldn't (still can't) remember the name of the guy we got rid of.

I think we are making the same point. The US has used horrible means to get rid of dictators and I also agree, we do it when it serves our corporate masters, not mankind in general (see Darfur and Rwanda where we should of helped but they didn't threaten corporate interests.)

[CJCRANE]

10. The PNAC group

have used neocon ideas as a smokescreen for their true intentions (e.g. "spreading democracy" is really just cover for war profiteering).

That's why the two groups have become blurred and now "neocon" is used to refer to anyone in or connected to the Bush-Cheney regime who have been complicit in their policies.

By default that includes most Republicans (and now we find that even "maverick" McCain was on board with the PNAC agenda back in 2002 when he falsely connected the anthrax attacks to Iraq).

[flpoljunkie]

11. Joe Lieberman, honorary Co-Chair of Committee to Liberate Iraq with his good buddy McCain, Co-Chair

Of course, Evan Bayh was the other honorary Co-Chair of the Committee to Liberate Iraq.

I do so hope Obama does not pick Bayh as his VP. It would be a very deep disappointment.

[Political Heretic]

12. neocons represent the corporate wing of politics and belief in forceful conquest of assets

[nc4bo]

16. It may not have always but it certainly does now. nt

[arewenotdemo]

63. I would argue that that would cover the majority of American politicians

over the course of American history.

What about the extremely intimate relationship most neocons have with Israel?

I believe that is what separates this current gang of war criminals from those of the past.

[Political Heretic]

67. Nah, the difference lies whether one believes force is a first or last resort

neocons blend Friedman politco-economic philosophy with strike-first aggression.

Say what you want about politicians, many of them are Keynesian and many of them don't believe in preemptive aggression as the means to ends - even ends of corporate interests.

[rucky]

15. With all the Republican-led anti-war rallies going on...

I see where people may get confused.

:rofl:

[ChazII]

17. Not all right wing crazies are neocons

no, in my book that would make them paleocons. :evilgrin:

[NorthCarolina]

18. Neocon=DLC=Blue Dog

they're all interchangeable as far as I'm concerned and I don't have much use, and zero respect, for the whole lot of them.

[nc4bo]

20. I find myself taking it a step further Neocon=DLC=Blue Dog=Rethugican-"light"=One of "them".

maybe wrong thinking on my part but it is what it is.

[NorthCarolina]

22. I'm sick and tired

of the perverted, bigoted, hypocritical "conservative" mindset being given political power over all of us. Now Obama is apparently considering bigots like Kaine and Bayh for VP?? God help us.

[SoxFan]

57. Yes, let's nominate a Lee/Sanders ticket

We might carry Berkley and South Burlington.

[Douglas Carpenter]

21. sometimes, but not necessarily - Neocon as it is now used refers to a foreign policy worldview

One could be very liberal on social issue but still support an extremist interventionist foreign policy.

One of the first genuine Neocon organization which is still around and was the breading ground for many in the neocon click is "Social Democrats USA" they broke off from the original American Socialist Party, became active Democrats and rabid supporters of Scoop Jackson before becoming diehard Reaganites, a number taking up positions such as working on Jeane Kirkpatrick's staff. They actually would still officially define themselves as Democratic-Socialist.

Some members of the DLC are clearly in the neocon camp, some are not.

[wyldwolf]

25. ah, "progressive" fairy tales...

[NorthCarolina]

27. ah, blind "conservative" accusations....

[wyldwolf]

28. of the two of us, only mrone2 has said something completely unprovable

[NorthCarolina]

30. Go ahead big shot, prove your "progressive fairy tail" claim

[wyldwolf]

31. ok, this is the part where you dodge and divert.

you said, "Neocon=DLC=Blue Dog." Completely untrue. And now I expect you to do and say just about anything to avoid backing it up.

[NorthCarolina]

32. Sorry, but in ideology they are all "conservative" leaning

look it up, Wikipedia is a great place for you to start.

[wyldwolf]

36. divert, dodge...

:rofl:

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

40. spin, divert, dodge...

[NorthCarolina]

41. Thanks for proving my point

:hi:

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

60. thanks for proving mine, which is...

Anytime a "progressive" spouts some nonsense about the eeeevil DLC, they can never back it up and then must run away from it.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. No. Necon and Neoliberal are different

Some neocons (almost all) are neoliberals, many (but not almost all) neoliberals are neocons.

The neocon domain is geopolitics and can also be defined as american exceptionalism and triumphalism. As the OP points out, the genesis of the neoliberals is actually from the cold war democratic party hawk faction - and goes back even further to former socialists like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz and the magazine Commentary, which was more or less the official neoconservative mouthpiece.

The neoliberal domain is economics, with 'liberal' here meaning economic liberalism as in the revival of laisse-faire anti-keynesian economic theory emanating from the Chicago Business School at the University of Chicago and of course from Milton Friedman, the founder (at least on the american side) of the movement.

Obviously (as Naomi Klein has carefully documented) these ideological movements are intertwined, a congruence she defines as Disaster Capitalism. However we should be clear on the differences. The economic sphere is not the same as the geopolitical sphere.

[SoxFan]

56. Neoliberalism: two meaning

One usage is the "classical liberalism" you refer to, which is essentially libertarian conservatism.

The other usage was coined by former Washington Monthly editor Charlie Peters in the early 1980s. he used the term to refer to younger (ie, boomer) Democrats who were pro free trade, technologically savvy, reformist, and more open to public-private fusion solutions. Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, and Bruce Babbitt were the sort of guys who were termed neoliberals.

[SoxFan]

54. Intellectual laziness and historical ignorance

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Yeah sure, in most of the world they are called neo-liberals

But a con by any other name would smell as foul. Termimology does not change the rat bastard common denominators shared by the 'real conservatives' and the neos. In fact, the 'real' cons abandoned their principles and marched lock step with the neo-cons, for a decade, so any confusion about who conned who is resting firmly on their own shoulders.

[dansolo]

24. The people you are referring to were called neo-liberals

These are the people who want to use American might to "help" the rest of the world. There are still plenty of them left in the Democratic Party. The neo-cons have a different agenda, using the same means. They want to wield control over other countries to control their natural resources, through military or economic means.

The people you are referring to are referred to as paleo-cons, or "old-school" conservatives. They don't like the policies of the neo-cons, but they are complicit in letting them continue to get away with what they do because it means that the Republicans remain in power. They are more than willing to sacrifice their conservative principles when it is other Republicans who are involved. In my book, that makes them just as guilty.

[Coexist]

26. neo = new, con = conservative.

[babylonsister]

33. "came from OUR side of the aisle"???

Is that where Wolfowitz, Rummy, et al, came from? Maybe you need to do some research.

[bornskeptic]

34. Wolfowitz did. His first political job was as an aide to Scoop Jackson.

Rumsfeld was always a Republican as far as I know,but calling Rumsfeld a neo-conservative is probably a reach.

[babylonsister]

35. Here's some links: they both are...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz

[mitchum]

43. The original neocons (Kristol,Podhertz, etc...) did come from our side of the aisle

The original poster has done his/her research

[RichardRay]

51. Rummy is NOT a neocon

He may be a neocon running dog, but there are lots of those. Thirty years ago you'd have been happy to sit down to a potluck and talk progressive politics with most of the leading lights of neoconservatism; now you'd want a really long spoon for any sort of a meal with the same people.

[SoxFan]

58. Wolfowitz was a Democrat

On a number of issues not related to national security and foreign affairs, he's actually still relatively liberal, sort of a New Deal type.

[mitchum]

45. I wonder why the the neoconservatives are not isolationists...

hmmm...

[BlooInBloo]

47. Rightly or wrongly, language changes tiger. Either get on the bus, or be left behind...

Historical word origins are fun, but they're historical nonetheless. Whether or not a term's origin is how the term is *currently* used is a live issue.


EDIT: And you're perfectly welcome to stay at the bus stop whining about it until the cows come home - please don't take what I say as "fascist" or some stupid crap like that.

[janx]

49. True.

Political parties change as well, and I think we're about to see some of that happen for the best during the upcoming election.

[Hamlette]

50. so do you think neocon means any republican?

you might be right, they are all neocons now because they have to defend Bush's misadventure in Iraq.

[harun]

71. There are a few who are not, Ron Paul is not a neocon. I would not

coin Patrick Buchanan as one either.

There are a few Dem's who are neocon's. Regardless of the original history of the word it denotes a specific group who adhere to a well defined ideology today. An ideology that when examined closely is disturbing to many people. That term is gone over in detail here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html

The original posters disgust at people using the term today to not reference what it once meant is misguided, unrealistic and inaccurate.

[Hamlette]

74. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

I think neocons are a small percentage of the GOP. I don't think the majority of conservatives are imperialists.

Odd how we apparently each read the article at your link to support our positions.

I think the neocons have had an undue influence on American foreign policy.

Maybe the parties are morphing and the neocons will take over the GOP. If so, it is a HUGE change from conservatives of old and I think would shock some people who identify as GOP today. (The republicans I know support the war in Iraq because they buy into Bush's argument that if we don't fight them there, we will fight them here. When I ask them if they support wars to export democracy they say "no".)

And in my OP I didn't mean to express disgust. I was referring to a post where someone said his dad answered a neocon email and I didn't see anything in the email that was neocon. Just garden variety republican lies.

My fear is that we make neocons the boogie man and a republican who is just as crazy comes along and says I am not a neocon. Then we say either "yes you are" or "we really disagree with all conservatives." I think calling republicans neocons lets them off the hook for their other terrible ideas (ie neoconservativism doesn't care about oil or abortion or gay marriage.)

[harun]

76. It seems like "most" dem's and repub's are not Imperialists but

somehow legislation and issues come up and end up going the way of Imperialism (over and over). So maybe they are not Imperialists (overtly) but the Corporate interests they continually serve are sure as hell Imperialist.

The MSM will not use terms like Imperialist, Military Interventionist, Military Industrial Complex, oppressing the middle (or lower) class, corporatist, pro-upper class, or a myriad of other terms that actually describe accurately the groups they are referring to. So I guess we can add neocon to that list.

[scarletwoman]

55. Thank you for trying. It always bugs me to see the term "Neocon" thrown around as though it's just

a synonym for "Republican". It has always meant to me the very specific group of players who formed the core of the PNAC and their specific foreign policy philosophy of global hegemonic domination through military force.

It also should be pointed out that another salient feature of the Neocon group is their close connection with the Likud party of Israel. C.f. "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" -- the 1996 paper prepared for Benjamin Netanyahu by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and others.

A good overview of the Neocons can be found here: http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html

I am not minded to surrender accuracy to other peoples' mental laziness.

sw

[Douglas Carpenter]

61. correctly speaking, I doubt one could really call Bush, Cheney or Bolton neocons

Bush is just an idiot. Cheney is just evil and simply out for the wealth and power and John Bolton is just nuts.

They are not themselves in any ideological sense neoconservatives. They simply found common cause with them.

[Ichingcarpenter]

62. Total Crap Revisionist Apologetic Propaganda.....

But I have to admit you used disinformation very well.
to confuse the definition for new readers.

You discuss nothing on the evolution of the social/political/ philosophical but put
them in the same can as the neo-liberalistic free traders. There are too many
historians here that know WTF they are talking about.

[Douglas Carpenter]

65. An Absolutely Excellent book about Neoconservatism by Jacob Heilbraunn

They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons

by Jacob Heilbrunn

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51TexXf%2ByLL._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

The author makes a point of differentiating between neoconservatives and standard modern conservative. He also differentiates between traditional hawks of either party and neoconservatism. He does argue that there certainly are still some important neoconservtives within both the Democratic Party and the British Labour Party although certainly their dominant influence is within the Republican Party

Publisher Comments:

The neocons have become at once the most feared and reviled intellectual movement in American history. Critics on left and right describe them as a tight-knit cabal that ensnared the Bush administration in an unwinnable foreign war.

Who are the neoconservatives? How did an obscure band of policy intellectuals, left for dead in the 1990s, suddenly rise to influence the Bush administration and revolutionize American foreign policy?

Jacob Heilbrunn wittily and pungently depicts the government officials, pundits, and think-tank denizens who make up this controversial movement, bringing them to life against a background rich in historical detail and political insight. Setting the movement in the larger context of the decades-long battle between liberals and conservatives, first over communism, now over the war on terrorism, he shows that they have always been intellectual mavericks, with a fiery prophetic temperament (and a rhetoric to match) that sets them apart from both liberals and traditional conservatives.

Neoconservatism grew out of a split in the 1930s between Stalinists and followers of Trotsky. These obscure ideological battles between warring Marxist factions were transported to the larger canvas of the Cold War, as over time the neocons moved steadily to the right, abandoning the Democratic party after 1972 when it shunned intervention abroad, and completing their journey in 1980 when they embraced Ronald Reagan and the Republican party. There they supplied the ideological glue that held the Reagan coalition together, combining the agenda of “family values” with a crusading foreign policy.

Out of favor with the first President Bush, and reduced to gadflies in the Clinton years, they suddenly found themselves in George W. Bush’s administration in a position of unprecendented influence. For the first time in their long history, they had their hands on the levers of power. Prompted by 9/11, they used that power to advance what they believed to be America’s strategic interest in spreading democracy throughout the Arab world.

Their critics charge that the neo-conservatives were doing the bidding of the Israeli government — a charge that the neoconservatives rightfully reject. But Heilbrunn shows that the story of the neocons is inseparable from the great historical drama of Jewish assimilation. Decisively shaped by the immigrant exerience and the trauma of the Holocaust, they rose from the margins of political life to become an insurgent counter-establishment that challenged the old WASP foreign policy elite.

Far from being chastened by the Iraq debacle, the neocons continue to guide foreign policy. They are advisors to each of the major GOP presidential candidates. Repeatedly declared dead in the past, like Old Testament prophets they thrive on adversity. This book shows where they came from — and why they remain a potent and permanent force in American politics.

link on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/They-Knew-Were-Right-Neocons/dp/0385511817/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217853246&sr=1-1

link on Powell Books:

http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9780385511810-1

.

[eridani]

70. The Dems were anti-imperialist in 1900, but gave it up shortly after

At the time of our imperial attack on the Phillipines, anti-imperialist were found both on the left and on the right. The left opposed it on the grounds of human solidarity; the right on the grounds that an imperial government was of necessity a large government. Andrew Carnegie offered to buy the Phillipines for a hundred million and set the country free.

[LWolf]

72. Neocons and Neolibs;

what's the difference, and who are the Democrats?

[14thColony]

73. Using terms that harken back to the end of the Roman Republic

could we be seeing a shift in American politics that will result in the emergence of an 'imperialist faction' and a 'republican faction'? Nothing says all the members of the imperialist faction have to come from one party - if this is in fact a sea-change and a shift to a new era in American politics, then imperialists and republicans will come from all over the political spectrum to coalesce into their new alignments. Democrat versus Republican will then fade into the past as meaningful descriptives.

[ieoeja]

77. I will take one stab at the impossible.

South Vietnam had a smaller population and military than the North. And they were a bit slower getting organized as a country with different people jockeying for power in the South while the North was unified under Ho Chi Minh. By the time one group of non-communists prevailed in the South -- there was never any question of the communists prevailing in the South as their numbers were too small even with the non-communists splintered -- the North had invaded.

Enter the US Marines. Exit the North Vietnamse Army.

While the USMC guarded their northern border, the South Vietnamese got their act together building an army ready to fight the North. And so the Marines began to withdraw and be replaced by ARVN. The "US couldn't win" crowd likes to conveniently ignore the fact that the South (1) overwhelmingly opposed communism and (2) had an army made up of men who, like the North, spent years fighting the Japanese during their occupation. The first ARVN was no pushover. They were just smaller than the NVA to start with.

Enter Oswald. Exit Kennedy.

With Johnson's ascension to power, the Pentagon began whispering into LBJ's ear, "by winning this war ourselves, we will demonstrate our willingness to fight thereby forcing the USSR to scale back their agitation worldwide." Army and Air Force brass assured LBJ our military could win the war outright for the South in a matter of months. Navy/Marine leadership cautioned otherwise. Ignoring the fact that the Navy/Marines had been figthing and winning these kind of wars for a century and a half, LBJ let the Army/Air Force have their way.

The first thing they did was get rid of the strong South Vietnamese military leadership, replacing them with a bunch of men with whom we could "do business".

Enter USA/USAF. Exit ARVN.

So, no, it was not an impossible case in Vietnam. Certainly, *WE* could not have won. But South Vietnam could have. In fact, they almost certainly would have with just occasional assistance from us. Even after we stunted their growth then abandoned them in '73, they held off til '75.

Compare this to Cambodia and China four years later. It took the NVA all of 8 days to conquer Cambodia, then a little over a month later, with the bulk of their first line units still in Cambodia, it took the NVA reserves about 3 weeks to whip China.

Clearly the South Vietnamese were a much tougher nut to crack. Imagine how they would have fared with just a little help from us, instead of us taking over the damned war then ignoring it when things didn't go our way.