Neocons are anti-fascist, classical liberals who champion Western liberalism.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

This from a post on You Tube by one nyomythus. Has anyone ever heard this definition of a NeoCon before? I've hard the blowhards describe themselves as all kinds of heroes, but never as a liberal. Is this their new game?

The whole post is
" Hitchens is an ally to Neoconservatives. It is a mistake to think that Neocons are Christians and especially of the of the Farwell brand, if that's what you are saying. Generally speaking, I think most Neocons are ex-Leftist who will have nothing more to do with post-modern liberals and anti-Western Leftist. From what I've read, Neocons are anti-fascist, classical liberals who champion Western liberalism."

-nyomythus on YouTube


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkAPaEMwyKU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eradaronline%2Ecom%2Fexclusives%2F2007%2F05%2Fchristopher%2Dhitchens%2Danderson%2Dcooper%2Djerry%2Dfalwell%2Ephp

[CJCRANE]

1. ...as a result of whose ideas

Iraq was turned from a secular socialist country into a tribal islamic fundamentalist state.

Nice try.

[Vincardog]

2. nyomythus forgot to use the sarcasm icon

[melody]

3. Well, they call themselves neo-conservatives for a reason

If they see themselves as liberals, why call themselves "new conservatives"?

No matter what they see themselves as, liberal they are *not*.

[Bronyraurus]

4. That's basically right

Neoconservatives are mostly ex-socialist Jewish intellectuals who broke with the wussified liberal dogmas of the 60s and 70s and seek to expand western democracy and modernity to the rest of the world by making use of America's prestige and power. Iraq was a bit of a bump in the road for them, wasn't it?

In my experience, most people on this board have no idea what the term means, but they sure do throw it around anyway.

[tabasco]

30. Can you name some names so I can research?

It seems nobody wants to name names of these former liberals.

[baldguy]

34. That's their propaganda talking.

The real aim of neocons is to expand the power of the corporatocracy over that of national govts USING America's prestige and power. They're not champions of Western democracy & civilization - they're cancerous parasites within it.

[Selatius]

46. They are champions of western democracy. The problem is they're a bunch of "useful idiots"

The Neocons truly believe in their ideology. They are true believers, through and through, and nothing will pierce their bubble, not even the fact that they are being used by interests on Wall Street to advance the agenda of a few powerful people at the expense of the many.

[TwilightGardener]

66. Very well said--not sure of the corporatocracy part, but certainly

they couldn't give a shit about democracy. That's just their "foot in the door".

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

91. LOL

[Vincardog]

5. nyomythus forgot to use the sarcasm icon

[rudeboy666]

6. Classic Liberalism

Actually, libertarians indentify themselves with Classical Liberalism (see wiki and other net sources).

You must make the distinction between modern liberalism and the broader classical liberal tradition (of which modern liberalism is an ofshoot or the true heirs of the tradition).

[iverglas]

26. it's code, not infrequently seen here at DU

The main problem is that "liberal" as it is used in the US at present has an idiosyncratic meaning that is not consistent with its use outside the US or in the US in an earlier era.

As it is used, I find it quite pointless. Anybody can call him/herself a "liberal" -- you can support free speech and reproductive rights, and oppose universal health care and trade union rights and affirmative action. Or vice versa. The two elements of political thought in the modern era (leaving aside more modern developments like collective rights) -- individual freedom and social justice -- are all muddled up, and people who support one, the other or both can call themselves "liberals" in the US.

I always recommend Phil Ochs's classic from the 60s for those who don't get the antipathy to liberals and liberalism that many of us feel.


Artist/Band: Ochs Phil
Lyrics for Song: Love Me, I'm a Liberal
Lyrics for Album: There But for Fortune
I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal


Other tracks on that album:

1. Phil Ochs - What's That I Hear?
2. Phil Ochs - One More Parade
3. Phil Ochs - Too Many Martyrs
4. Phil Ochs - Power and the Glory
5. Phil Ochs - I Ain't Marching Anymore
6. Phil Ochs - Draft Dodger Rag
7. Phil Ochs - Highwayman
8. Phil Ochs - Here's to the State of Mississippi
9. Phil Ochs - There But for Fortune
10. Phil Ochs - I'm Going to Say It Now
11. Ochs Phil - Is There Anybody Here?
12. Ochs Phil - Cops of the World
13. Phil Ochs - Ringing of Revolution
14. Ochs Phil - Santo Domingo
15. Ochs Phil - Bracero
16. Phil Ochs - Love Me, I'm a Liberal
17. Phil Ochs - Changes
18. Phil Ochs - When I'm Gone

Neo-liberals /classical liberals don't have the taste for social justice that some people who call themselves "liberals" do.

[iverglas]

45. classical liberalism -- people really need to know what they're talking about

There's such political ignorance in this thread, I thought I'd just try to draw some attention to the assistance available with the concepts.

[rudeboy666]

7. duplicate

[rudeboy666]

8. duplicate

[Az]

9. Many NeoCons did come from the ranks of the extreme left

At the center of the NeoCon ideal is the notion that the people must be told what is right and wrong. There is a fear of social collapse inherent to the NeoCon philosophy. For many it is the uncertainty of what progress brings that creates the fear in them. These are the old school religious conservatives. But for many former extreme liberals it is the idea that so many do not get what they get so they must be made to see the right way of thinking.

NeoCons seek to constrict diversity of views because to them such systemic incoherence leads to social chaos. They fear that society cannot adapt and will shatter if stressed too much. In some ways they are correct. The society we know today bears little resemblance to the society of a decade ago. That society and its values have fallen from their former place. A new society with new values has risen in its place. Progress invites such constant revolution. But there are those that fear change and others that fear that change is not happening fast enough or in the right way. And these are who the NeoCons appeal to in the end.

[melody]

15. Extreme left, extreme right = same craziness in different flavors

I don't care what they call themselves, they're neither "liberal" or "conservative".

[etherealtruth]

20. ...just crazed

[tabasco]

31. Can you name some names?

Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney? Who are these former liberals and leftists?

[Az]

38. David Horowitz leaps to mind

He was once a Marxist liberal activist. However he later came to reject such positions and now is an ardent supporter of the war in Iraq and other Neocon favorites.

[tabasco]

80. That's one!

Hardly enough to make the claim that "neocons are former liberals."

Just because a few of them are former liberals is not a correct basis for that claim.

[Az]

82. Not my claim

I have consistently claimed that NeoCons are a combination of conservatives afraid of social progress and former extreme liberals that became disillusioned with democratic society and its slow pace of change and apparent inconsistency of advances.

[tabasco]

84. Hi Az!

Didn't mean to suggest that. :hi:

[Az]

40. David Brock is another name

The founder of Media Matters started out as a liberal became disillusioned and joined the opposition. He turned into an attack dog for the Neocons until he came back to his senses and blew the whistle on the right.

[tabasco]

81. That's two so far!

Two names does not make a basis to claim "neocons are former liberals."

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[TwilightGardener]

14. Perhaps they started out wanting to expand western democracy,

but I believe that by the time Chimpy took the WH, that became just another cover story to get in and stay in Iraq (along with WMD's, etc.). They had to know it wasn't going to happen post-Saddam, and they devoted scant effort and resources to making it a reality--they weren't serious about it, just keeping the ruse going with their puppet government and purple fingers. Neocons are now about military might, oil, and Israel. Nobody buys "spreading democracy" anymore.

[unpossibles]

16. I disagree for one reason

many of the same players have had a long history of destroying and overthrowing democratically elected leaders in South America, Central America, Africa, Asia, etc. The only Democracy they want to spread is of the extreme right version.

I've been doing some research into the history of most of the NeoCons, and many of them come from Intelligence backgrounds and have so much blood on their hands (all Leftist and socialist blood of course) that I am shocked they aren't all in jail.

Seriously. Look up the histories of the Bush family and their friends: Secord, Armitage, Cheney, Hunt, Buckley, Shackley, Rodriguez, Negroponte, Gates, Poindexter, etc. They're all old-school CIA spooks who know how to bullshit and have a lot of experience thwarting the will of people. And killing the ones they can't thwart.

For starters, look at the Iran-Contra scandal and the events and things leading up to and/or facilitating it and those following it, such as the United Fruit Company and the CIA coup in Guatemala, Zapata, Bay of Pigs, October Surprise, Halliburton, the PNAC, the 2000 election, Wackenhut, Enron, the drug war/prison overpopulation, etc. You will find the same people and some really bizarre connections.

I know it sounds like crazy conspiracy theories, but when you consider that all of these men have been in big business with each other for the last 40-50 years (some since WWII), and that most have some rather strange connections which are quite well documented.

It's really too much to go into in one post, but if you want more info, it's out there. It's scary though, and amazing that more people don't even know about the various CIA coups of democratically elected leaders in Iran, Guatemala, and other places.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

47. Francis Fukuyama speaks

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=266122006

Francis Fukuyama, who wrote the best-selling book The End of History and was a member of the neoconservative project, now says that, both as a political symbol and a body of thought, it has "evolved into something I can no longer support". He says it should be discarded on to history's pile of discredited ideologies.

In an extract from his forthcoming book, America at the Crossroads, Mr Fukuyama declares that the doctrine "is now in shambles" and that its failure has demonstrated "the danger of good intentions carried to extremes".

In its narrowest form, neoconservatism advocates the use of military force, unilaterally if necessary, to replace autocratic regimes with democratic ones.

Mr Fukuyama once supported regime change in Iraq and was a signatory to a 1998 letter sent by the Project for a New American Century to the then president, Bill Clinton, urging the US to step up its efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power. It was also signed by neoconservative intellectuals, such as Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, and political figures Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and the current defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

... "By definition, outsiders can't 'impose' democracy on a country that doesn't want it; demand for democracy and reform must be domestic. Democracy promotion is therefore a long-term and opportunistic process that has to await the gradual ripening of political and economic conditions to be effective."

That may help. ;)

Fukuyama was the one who decided that history was over -- that liberal democracy as practised in the United States was the peak of human evolution, and now just needed to be imposed on everybody else.

[iverglas]

48. and the infamous letter to Bill Clinton

again, just trying to help out!

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5527.htm

Archived from: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

PNAC letters sent to President Bill Clinton

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams
Richard L. Armitage
William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner
John Bolton
Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama
Robert Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol
Richard Perle
Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld
William Schneider, Jr.
Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz
R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

[unpossibles]

73. we apparently disagree

my point is "neoconservatives" do include the PNAC (which I mentioned) and many in this administration who have been conservatives as far back as I can tell. I don't buy the whole "used to be liberals" crap because I don't see much evidence of it, outside of a couple of individuals. The people I mentioned all have the same ties as the alleged NeoCons, as well as similar goals and similar rap sheets, so whether they're in the same "club" or just in bed together to abuse their power doesn't really matter to me.

They've been about strong-arming the world since the 40's and have only gained momentum. So maybe I misunderstand the term, but in my opinion, them calling themselves neoconservatives or former liberals is akin to Hitler calling himself a Socialist: it's a way to confuse the subject.

How about we just agree that they're authoritarian power junkies?

[Bronyraurus]

22. I half agree

They care about Israel, and they dig military might, but they don't really give a shit about oil. These guys aren't running Exxon.

[TwilightGardener]

27. Neocons are married to the Bush/Cheney cabal, (that's their "vehicle")--

and those old oil guys are most certainly interested in oil. Control of oil is how we're going to control the world--control supply, control prices, control economic advances by other competitors (China, India)--why do you think we're starting an "African Command"? I'll bet to establish a presence in/near Nigeria. To fight terror? Spread democracy? Or to loot the "black gold" from a country weakened by strife and unable to produce oil to its capacity?

[Bronyraurus]

43. That's right

The neocons have never had a vehicle like the Bush administration. Other GOP administrations were wise to be a bit skeptical of their eagerness to tramp all over the globe.

[unpossibles]

74. don't forget Operation Ajax

where the CIA overthrew a democracy in Iran because they (along with the British) feared losing control of Iranian oil reserves if the Iranians decided to nationalize their oil.

Sounds to me like they prefer oil and right wing politics over actual democracies. This spreading democracy bullcrap is just that - a cover for their actual intention, which is power. Oil = power. Military = power.

Democracy does not.

They've done the same thing over and over for the past 50 years.

[tabasco]

32. Can you name some names?

Who ARE these former leftists?

Cheney? Perle? Wolfowitz?

You seem to know a lot about them but I have yet to see one name.

Are they the secret neocons nobody knows about behind the curtain?

[Bronyraurus]

41. Not Cheney

Although he has borrowed their ideas. Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz are the biggies. Then Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith. I've named them downthread.

[rudeboy666]

11. Classic Liberalism....sorry for the duplicate posts...tech bug

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[WilliamPitt]

13. That was the idea...but then they got power, and got paid.

It isn't the idea anymore.

[Bronyraurus]

25. They got paid for what?

Neoconservatives are in crisis because they've tested their beliefs in Iraq and it's turned into a disaster.

But there are bitter-enders who still want to go after Iran, Syria, and the rest. It's not about money. It's still about ideology- an ideology whose stock has split the floor wide open in the last few years.

[sutz12]

17. I've heard 'neo-cons' being called 'neo-liberals' before...

I think it is just another attempt to slander and degrade liberals in general.

I don't really care where the neo-cons came from, but I wish real conservatives would boot them out. I can deal with a classic Eisenhower/Goldwater era conservative. This new crowd just gives me the willies.

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. 'neocon' is a foreign/defence policy stance; 'neoliberal' an economic/trade one

Neocons are/were people wanting large military spending because they though the Soviet Union was a massive threat, or, now, 'Islamists'; neoliberals are in favour of global free trade, leavgin as much as possible to market forces, and privatisation of many functions that many countries have nationalised or municipal (like utilities).

Neocons were people who had newly come to call themselves conservative (they've been around long enough that a new generation may always have held the position). Neoliberals say they are going back to the 'classical liberal' stance of the 19th century - which was free trade, and anti-tariff.

Neither implies a social stance.

[TwilightGardener]

56. Yep--neocons don't concern themselves with social-conservative concerns.

[porphyrian]

18. Co-opt the good, accuse others of the bad first, tactics they've used all along. - n/t

[windy252]

19. If they're antifascists, then why do they seem to have

such a love for fascism in our own government. That makes no sense.

[ComerPerro]

21. not true at all, Conservative propaganda bullshit

its just a pathetic attempt by conservatives to try and blame failures of conservatism on liberalism.

"Oh, well, those people, those conservatives. They aren't *really* conservatives. They are liberals."

[Bronyraurus]

24. Ha. You don't get it.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

77. They aren't really conservatives or liberals in the classic sense.

Their ideology is basically made up of the worst aspects of both.

[tabasco]

28. It may have started with Pat Buchanan.

I heard him claim that the neocons are all former liberals who switched sides under Reagan.

A little fact checking should debunk that hogwash post haste.

[Bronyraurus]

29. You're wrong

You don't know what a neoconservative is.

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

[tabasco]

36. I'm wrong about what? What Pat Buchanan said?

I reported what Pat Buchanan said. What is the basis of your statement that I do not know what a neocon is?

Please, what is the basis for that statement? I am waiting.

Your link makes the same claim that Buchanan makes but it names no names.

I suppose they are a super-secret group since nobody knows who they are.

The prominent neocons we know about are certainly not former liberals so your claims, and those of the CSM, appear to be bullshit.

[Bronyraurus]

42. It names them in the link

on one of the side boxes. "The prominent neocons we know about," as you have it, are probably not neocons, because you don't know what a neocon is.

[Hamlette]

33. True. Many worked for Senator Jackson (D-WA) in the 70s

Perle, Wolfowitz did I know. And Bill Kristol's dad, who is seen as a "founder" of neoconservativism was a socialist.

I prefer to think they couldn't bamboozel the Dems into their crazy wars so they joined the GOP. Well, Perle says he's still a Dem.

Check Wikipedia. The whole history is there. They are not concerned with abortion rights or gays or other social issues. They are trying to figure out what to do with US power now that the cold war is over and they think we should export Democracy...at the point of a gun.

[tabasco]

37. Even if true - - so what???

Reagan used to be a Democrat.

[Bronyraurus]

44. Look, the term is very specific

it describes a real group of people who are primarily concerned with a particular foreign policy.

Do some reading.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. Examples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Podhoretz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Abrams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bennett
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Kagan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeane_Kirkpatrick
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Muravchik
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pipes

You say "so what"? The 'what' is that they were new to conservatism. They had been liberal, socialist or even Trotskyist; but their hatred of Stalinism, and the Soviet Union, became their overriding concern. So they ended up moving to the side where there would be the most defence spending. Socially, they aren't particularly conservative, on the whole (but they want a strong government that can defeat any potential enemy, and they are happy with using pre-emptive force, so they're not libertarians).

[tabasco]

83. How many neocons are there? Ten?

You named eight names. If there were only ten neocons in the world, the claim that "neocons are former liberals" might hold some water.

Howeever, there are hundreds of PNAC and AEI neocon assholes who were never liberals. Therefore, the claim that "neocons are former liberals" is unfounded and intended to indict liberals with the neocon disasters.

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. You seemed determined to ignore what people write about neoconservatives

Here, try something else:

The "godfather" of neoconservatism is Irving Kristol, who had been a youthful Trotskyite. He defined a neoconservative as "a liberal who was mugged by reality." This definition is clever, memorable, and accurate. It called forth the definition of a neo-liberal by M.I.T. economics professor Lester Thurow: "A liberal who was mugged by reality, but who has declined to press charges."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north180.html

More from Kristol (author of "Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea."):

Even I, frequently referred to as the "godfather" of all those neocons, have had my moments of wonderment. A few years ago I said (and, alas, wrote) that neoconservatism had had its own distinctive qualities in its early years, but by now had been absorbed into the mainstream of American conservatism. I was wrong, and the reason I was wrong is that, ever since its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s, what we call neoconservatism has been one of those intellectual undercurrents that surface only intermittently. It is not a "movement," as the conspiratorial critics would have it. Neoconservatism is what the late historian of Jacksonian America, Marvin Meyers, called a "persuasion," one that manifests itself over time, but erratically, and one whose meaning we clearly glimpse only in retrospect.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp

Live with it.

[tabasco]

87. LMAO! You seem to ignore common logic!

Maybe you and Lew Rockwell and Pat Buchanan have a lot in common!

Here's a definition from Princeton University:

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=neocon

Notice no mention of "former liberals."

OK, here's Free Dictionary definition:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/neocon

Someone who "subscribes to neoconservatism."

Hmmmm....no mention of former liberals.

You see, claiming that all neocons are former liberals is like claiming that all apples are green. It's just not true. In fact, most of those who "subscribe to neoconservatism" have never been a liberal. Here's a list of people who could be described as "subscribing to neoconservatism" - the PNAC signatories.

http://www.king-george.biz/wst_page5.html

As soon as you can show that most of these fucks are former liberals, you can claim that neocons are former liberals. Until such time ....


Live with it, Muriel.

[muriel_volestrangler]

88. 'Logic'? You're not using logic, just asserting your definition

We can all play the dictionary game - Merriam-Webster:

1 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and U.S. national interest in international affairs including through military means

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=neoconservatism

You are claiming that being a PNAC signatory is a defining condition of being a neoconservative. But look on the site, and what do we find:

Whatever the shortcomings of "coercive democratization," it has at least the virtue of realizing the dangers we face now and the corrupt and thuggish character of the regimes in place today. As the late editor Michael Scully once said: "neoconservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, while neoliberals are liberals who have been mugged by reality but refuse to press charges."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20030724.htm

[TwilightGardener]

39. Neocons don't give a rat's ass about democracy--that's their cover story

for taking over weak/unpopular countries and regimes for either oil, other resources, or strategic footholds--it's using our military power to grab (and then guard) the goodies, and protect Israel. The "democracy" thing is the smiley-face mask they put on their operations so the world doesn't call bullshit. They couldn't give a crap about people in other countries, or their welfare. They are actually very isolationist, except for Britain (who is probably pretty sorry about going along with Iraq), because they flout the UN and other international organizations, and they don't seek diplomacy or alliances--that might hamper their goals or invite scrutiny. They are essentially using America's goodness and moral reputation to do very, very bad things in the name of democracy.

[Hamlette]

69. we are using the term neocons differently

I don't think the classic definition includes stealing oil. It is a perfectly legitimate argument to say the oil barons used the neocons for an intellectual reason to go to Iraq but neocons themselves really are exporters of democracy because they think democracies will be less threatening to the US.

[unpossibles]

75. as long as those democracies are not Leftist

then they get overthrown by their friends (who aren't NeoCons I suppose, but contend it doesn't matter) in the CIA/oil/drugs/arms trade, such as the Bush family.

For how much they love spreading democracy they sure do overthrow a lot of them.

[tkmorris]

52. You're right, but........

I have never heard anyone use the word "liberal" together in a sentence with Scoop Jackson. I know, you didn't say that either but the implication the OP refers to seems to be that Neocons are recalibrated liberals, and that's just not the case.

[Az]

53. Overstating the claim

The claim is not that NeoCons are recalibrated Liberals. It is that some NeoCons are recalibrated Liberals.

[TwilightGardener]

55. Right--there are some today who were former liberals, but it's now

an unholy brew of varied interests who signed up to project our military power for different end goals.

[Az]

58. That is a subset of their tactics

Their main goal is not necessarily to project the military of the US onto the world. Their main agenda concerns the morality of the nation. It is about power. Control. And freezing change. Change is the thing they fear the most. That is what they want the power for. To keep change from coming.

The point of the war has always been to present the nation as a glorious beacon for democracy, freedom, and bravery. They hope to whip up patriotism through such a means in order to make the people pliable.

The initial attempts to foster this control came about by means of incorporating the religious right. It was the NeoCons that brought this block to the voting booth. Prior to the 70s the religious right was largely disinterested in politics. They saw it as corrupt and beneath them. Something that could only tarnish their beliefs.

But the NeoCons saw their single minded convictions as just the sort of control they sought over society to keep it from eroding. Thus they began courting the religious right on issues that played to their interests. The Vatican's war with abortion and birth control provided one such lever and the recent upset in schools caused by Madeline Murray O'Hare provided the other lever.

By the time Reagan was running the religious right and the NeoCons had created a voting base that could change the face of politics. It was this they brought to Reagan and made the deal. Reagan himself was not a NeoCon but he saw the value in the voting block they offered him. Thus he brought many NeoCon members into his cabinet and administration. This is how they got their foothold

Their notion of the might and right of the US and all it stood for resonated with Reagan's ego and thus he played up their notions of military might against the Evil Empire of the Soviet Union. And for a time this was enough to whip up the patriotic fervor the NeoCons were seeking. All without the need to actually go to war.

But when the wall fell everything changed. Triumph doesn't make patriots. It makes people complacent. Disinterested in trumpeting how great we are. Without an enemy to challenge there is no reason to beat our chests. So they started looking for a new enemy.

The drug war was their first attempt. But fighting a war against your own citizens is a losing battle. So they eventually turned to the constant struggle in the middle east. There were plenty of bad guys there to choose from. So they chose their old ally Hussein. They set him up as a patsy and when he took the bait they declared a war against him. But because the new Pres still wasn't fully in their camp they could not get him to commit to a full fledged invasion to demonstrate our might and create the template for a new crusade.

The NeoCons still in the halls of power tried to bring a plan to Congress to build up the US military in order to project our power into the world. This was after the Cold war was over. It was laughed out of congress.

It was at this time that they began to rethink their strategy. This is where PNAC came into play. PNAC was their group set up to find a way to instigate US fervor for an ongoing conflict. They came to the conclusion that it was not just defeating bad guys that was required to inflame the US but that we had to be attacked. A Pearl Harbor type event was needed in order to motivate the citizenry to back an ongoing campaign against a new Evil Empire.

The entire point for all of this is to create a two pronged attack on the hearts and minds of Americans. By rallying a fanatic group of religious zealots to create a moral base from which to drive society and combining this with the fear from the outside and the belief in our own might they could blind the public to the fact that they were being lead by the nose and that their rights were being eroded in the name of establishing a morally stagnant society. The goal of which was to forever eradicate progressive society and create a frozen and controllable environment from which the elites could rule.

[Bronyraurus]

61. You have absolutely no idea

what you're talking about.

You clearly have no clue what neoconservatism is. Read the damn CSM article before you continue to make a fool of yourself.

[Az]

62. Some reading for you

Go read up on Leo Strauss. It might be informative for you as well.

[Hamlette]

68. As much as it pains me, because it is so rare, I respectfully disagree Az

This clip from Wikipedia sums it up quite well:

Believing that America should "export democracy," that is, spread its ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject U.S. reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives. Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives may be characterized by an idealist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and a much weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and, in the past, a greater acceptance of the welfare state, though none of these qualities are necessarily requisite.

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

The whole article is worth reading.

[Az]

76. I have read it and I don't see it disagreeing with my position

They believe in a strong central government controlling the society by providing a fixed moral center. They are idealists and they believe that their ideal must be the one that rules the nation and the world. Not only are they idealists but they are elitists as well.

There are going to be a mix of types within the NeoCon movement. True believers and disbelieving manipulators such as Rove. It is interesting that the master mind behind the most religiously fundamentalist administration is an atheist. Karl Rove has no religious belief and yet he has been behind the rise of an administration that forms much of its power from the support of the evangelical Christian movement. This is exactly the sort of ploy Strauss would have dictated.

[Hamlette]

78. nor is Rove a neocon

Nor is Bush. Neocons are not for controlling central governments, they just have not beef with the welfare state. I don't see anything in their writings where they are afraid of change or in favor of a strong central government. Nor do I see anything in their writings about a fear of social collapse. I don't think the neocons ever courted the religious right nor did they bring a voting block with them to Reagan OR Bush. They didn't rally the religious right and they are not particularily religious in fact I venture that many if not most of them are Jewish and while I understand there is a right wing in the Jewish tradition I don't think its these guys. They are big supporters of Israel and it part it might be that some are Jewish but I honestly think its because they are big promoters of democracy and Israel is the only democracy in the middle east. I don't think the neocons had anything to do with the drug war and would bet they never gave it much thought. They are more socially liberal than traditional conservatives.

[Az]

79. I suspect part of the problem

in identifying the nature of NeoCons or even identifying individual NeoCons is the fact that it is not a self appointed label. In the end we may be trying to label shadows.

[tkmorris]

57. But none of them were ever "Liberal"

Even if some of them worked with Democrats back in the 60's and 70's, or declared themselves to be one, they were ANYTHING but liberal. At the core of Neocon belief is a desire to project American power throughout the world militarily. This not a liberal idea, and never was. It's true that you can find many Dems from the past who had similar opinions, but they weren't liberals either. A modern day example of such a Democrat is Joe Lieberman.

[Az]

59. See my post above

The military is just a tool to them. It is not the goal.

[TwilightGardener]

63. I agree with some of what you say. They definitely needed to employ

fearful enemies for motivating us, because there's no way Americans (and the world, really) would have gone along with attacking a country that posed no immediate threat without that fear. I do believe that in the mix of neocons, however, are some who DO see the expansion of the military-industrial complex as a goal, and not just a tool--that's where the profiteering comes in, as well as creating a new class of battle-experienced warriors, testing our military technology, etc. There are some whose primary goal is oil/resources, there are some who want to protect Israel, there are some (fundies) who signed on because they want to instigate the rapture. It's not a homogenous group. But in order to justify our wars and our troops dying, they have certainly exploited terrorism to a real advantage, which is a shame because it IS a real threat, and the neocons are making it worse. They have done so much damage to our alliances, our world standing, and our security, it's shocking that so many are still in positions of power.

[Az]

65. There is definately interplay there

A major force in this nation is the Pentagon and the Military Industry. In fact nothing much happens that affects this grouping without its say so. The end of the Cold War left this financial powerhouse without a cause for which to justify massive continued spending. The opportunistic core of the NeoCon movement would of course see the advantage of playing into this powerhouse. And of course this will bring many opportunistic members of the military advocates into association with the NeoCons.

[Hamlette]

67. no, Scoop was not a liberal

he was a hawk. Neocons came from that part of the Democratic party that hated Stalin. Some were Trotskyites for the same reason (hatred of Stalin).

[Truthseeker013]

35. "Hu-WHA?"

To quote the great American scientist Hubert Farnsworth.

Or, to quote that great philosopher S. Dogg, "What sh*t's *he* been smokin'? An' can I get some?"

[Jed Dilligan]

49. I'd say that's accurate

For reasons given by other posters here (Smith, Malthus, reformed Trotskyites, etc.).

"Neo-liberal" encompasses both the "neo-conservatives" and the "New Democrats" quite succinctly.

[rucky]

51. A PNAC Primer

this is the definitive article on the PNAC...

http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm

[Larkspur]

60. That means they are Stalinists then

[Jed Dilligan]

64. I think Wolfowitz was a Trotskyite

back in the sixties. One way to look at neo-con-ism is it's a new take on "continuous revolution."

[H2O Man]

70. For a good description

of the neoconservatives split from progressive politics, read Chapter 35 of Taylor Branch's book, "At Canaan's Edge: America in the King Years 1965-68." The split came during the period when King took his stance against the Vietnam War. At the approximate same time, Israel was involved in the Six Day War.

Progressive activist Michael Harrington coined the word "neoconservative" to define the group that resulted from the "merger of labor-wing Shactmanites into the larger movement associated with Irving Kristol," which was invested in a "strong military purpose with a utopian residue focused on Israel." (page 620)

[Odin2005]

71. That moron needs to read up on Leo Strauss.

Strauss's political views are pretty much the opposite of Karl Popper's "open society." Neo-Conservatism is all about giving the public "noble lies" (a notion from Plato's disgusting totalitarian political theory Popper despised) in order to prevent the "moral decay" they think Liberalism and an open society causes. Neo-Cons are basically fascists. The notion of Neo-conservatism as a foreign policy position is one of those "noble lies."

[Blashyrkh]

72. ANTI-fascist? Should give it away there he's full of the proverbial (and literal) shit.

[Californian Dreamer]

86. A more correct statement would be:

Neocons are anti-liberal, classical fascists who condemn Western liberalism.

Yeah, that sounds about right

[Lydia Leftcoast]

89. It IS true that most of the first generation of neocons started as leftists

They were mostly Communists and Socialists in the 1930s and 1940s. Evidently they were black-and-white thinkers, because they did an about-face after Khrushchev condemned Stalin and became hawks on Communism and advocates of "spreading democracy," forcing it on people if necessary.

But they, especially in the second generation, have morphed into imperialists.

[nyomythus]

90. First post

Greetings, nice to see lots of different voices here.