7 June 2008
Neoconservatism 101
Posted by Joy Bischoff under: Guest Blogger .
Guest Blog by Sharon Anderson
Neoconservatism is a term that has been bandied around for several years. I have heard the term used in a negative context but have not been exactly sure what it meant. A couple of days ago, however, I watched a short video on this subject. It is a five minute excerpt where Ron Paul explains a little of the history of neoconservatism and outlines thirteen characteristics of those who espouse this ideology.
They believe in
1. Permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual
2. Redrawing map of middle east (and they are willing to use force to do it)
3. Using preemptive war to achieve desired ends
4. Using of what ever means necessary to achieve desired ends
5. Allowing a welfare state
6. Promoting American empire
7. Lying because it is necessary for the state to survive
8. Strong centralized federal government
9. The running of society by the elite
10. Opposing American neutrality
11. Despising and smearing libertarians and constitutionalists
12. Attacking individual liberties
13. Unconditional support of Israel and Likub party.
It is the neocons who have the most to say about the direction our country is going.
Paul asks if freedom and the Republic can survive the take over of the very effective neoconservatives who are well placed in positions of influence in government and the media. Neocons are not conservatives who are dedicated to limited Constitutional government. Recently they have come from the far left, and liberals are now aligning themselves with this movement.
Paul concludes, Neoconservateves represents “big government, welfare at home, and using military might to spread their version of American values throughout the world. If the neocons maintain control of the conservative government in Washington, the ideas championed by conservatives of limiting the size a scope of government will be a long-forgotten dream.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4df1soW7Dho&eurl
Even though neoconservatism is admittedly a label and all neoconservatives might not subscribe openly to each of these points, we can see why Bush and McCain are considered neoconservatives. We can also see why a change in the political party doesn’t make a difference in what is happening in our country and in our nations foreign policy. (See Purpose 2 – The Secret behind the Political Spectrum.)
I agree with Paul, that these neoconservative policies are dangerous to our liberty and the Constitution, but it isn’t possible to say a lot in five minutes so I wanted to find out more. Wikipedia has an extensive article on the topic of neoconservatism which seems to corroborate what Paul said.
Here are some excerpts from that article:
Left-wing past of neoconservatives
Author Michael Lind argues that “the organization as well as the ideology of the neoconservative movement has left-liberal origins.”
Bush Doctrine
The Bush Doctrine of preemptive war was explicitly stated in the National Security Council text “National Security Strategy of the United States”, published Sept 20, 2002 “We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed… even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack… The United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.
”
Conflict with libertarian conservatives
Libertarian conservatives are ideologically opposed to the expansiveness of federal government programs and regard neoconservative foreign policy ambitions with outspoken distrust. They view the neoconservative promotion of preemptive war as morally unjust, dangerous to the preservation of a free society, and against the principles of the Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative
11 Comments so far...
Joy Bischoff Says:
7 June 2008 at 12:56 am.
Many of our readers will agree with this blog on neoconservatives, many will not. Some may agree in part and that is fine, we are all free to decide for ourselves.
Neoconservatism 101 Says:
7 June 2008 at 1:56 am.
[…] darkdruid wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptNeoconservatism 101 Posted by Joy Bischoff under: Guest Blogger. Guest Blog by Sharon Anderson Neoconservatism is a term that has been bandied around for several years. I have heard the term used in a negative context but have not been exactly sure what it meant. A couple of days ago, however, I watched a short video on this subject. It is a five minute excerpt where Ron Paul explains a little of the history of neoconservatism and outlines thirteen characteristics of those who espouse this […]
Matt Says:
7 June 2008 at 9:30 am.
Wow this is a touchy subject. The dems like to label us neoconservatives so the word makes me cringe but when I read the substance I agree with most of it. I think we need a lot more national security than democrats think we do. Basically I think Reagan had it right. But that doesn’t mean I like the idea of us having gone into Iraq without enough reason to justify it. At the time I thought we did but now I don’t. Afghanistan is a different story, they were supporting al qaeda. Anyway, I guess it is better that we face hard facts and try to redefine conservatism back to what it was originally meant to be by the founding fathers.
Mac Says:
7 June 2008 at 12:22 pm.
I’m mostly on the other side here. Some of this sounds like liberals and some of it like conservatives so it is a little confusing. Maybe it is suppose to be, IDK? If we show weakness to the world we are in big trouble. I think our show of force in Iraq has deterred other terrorist attacks. I also strongly support Israel. I’m not sure what we should do about Iran but I know I don’t want Israel wiped off the map.
E.E. Says:
7 June 2008 at 12:28 pm.
It seems by now there is enough evidence for #9, the elite running things, that we should be able to see that the conservative movement has been a least a little bit hijacked. We know the left has been almost totally hijacked so it shouldn’t be too offensive to us to admit what is obvious. We have to have to courage to stare it in the face or we get the wool pulled over our eyes. Let’s not pull the wool over our own eyes.
Sharon Anderson Says:
7 June 2008 at 2:51 pm.
Regarding support of Israel: This is a complex issue. For example, I wonder about the Separation Wall in Palestine and don’t pretend to understand all the implications of what is going on, but I have heard it said that we can make a distinction between the Jewish people and the State of Israel.
Many look for the fulfilment of Biblical prophecies regarding Jewish people but the Jewish tradition, religion, culture and people do not necessarily equal Israel. So while we might support the Jewish people as part of the House of Israel, it doesn’t mean we have to unconditionally support the policies of the state of Israel. Failure to support all those policies does not necessarily make someone anti-Semitic (or even anti-Israel) any more than failure to support everything that OUR government does makes one unpatriotic or anti-American.
Sharon Anderson Says:
7 June 2008 at 3:03 pm.
Mac, I agree with you that it is important for American to be strong, but it troubles me to see the rundown condition of our military and how our many foreign involvements are sapping our strength and even compromising our ability to defend ourselves here at home.
Jan W. Says:
7 June 2008 at 5:52 pm.
Sharon, there is a new thought for me. I am for a strong military but right now our military is in shambles. PTSD is out of control and soldiers aren’t getting promised benefits. If we were attacked we would be in terrible shape. I’m not sure what the answer is but I do know that if something happens with Iran we are in very big trouble. I can’t imagine a draft being really successful because of the rebellious attitude of so many young people today. Maybe both the far left and the far right neocons are bad for our military strength.
Benjamin Says:
7 June 2008 at 6:13 pm.
No question that there are neocons out there. They are the ones pulling for the new world order.
Cavetrollhead Says:
8 June 2008 at 10:40 pm.
OK everyone, I try to remain uncontraversial but I have to say what a lot of readers are thinking:
Well I believe this is accurate information on what Ron Paul believes. However, I don’t think most other people would agree to this definition.
I don’t like what I think are neocons, but I don’t think that what I would call neocons are what Ron Paul would call them.
Ron Paul has a habit of throwing out half baked accusations and ideas, I think. (But maybe mine is a half baked accusation and idea.)
IMO, the problems we face will be solved at the individual level -everyone repenting of our sins and learning the constitution. Too many people are accepting the iniquity in themselves and looking for conspiracy around every corner and someone to blame for their life’s frustrations.
Example:
My wife is from Ukraine. When she was young, (late eighties) there was some humanitarian aide sent from the West. There was a whole bunch of people who believed that warming up to the west was a dangerous conspiracy. Her Grandma was one of them. She was always repeating some conspiracy information that she or someone else dreamed up. One day, my wife’s family received some butter. It was salted butter, something that Ukrainians didn’t have before. When her Grandma tasted it, she insisted that it was poison and that the US was trying to kill them all. She and MANY people fought perestroika tooth and nail and bunkered in to their poverty. Luckily they didn’t prevail or revolt. They all had “very good information” but they all were dead wrong. Perestroika was the best thing that ever happened to Ukraine in modern times.
Enters the internet.
My point is that we are living in the MISinformation age, and filtering through every half baked idea is impossible. No one has that kind of time.
So I am ignoring all the wolf crying. You can call it burying my head but Ron Paul seems like to me like the new Ross Perot. Only instead of black helicopters, it is a whole bunch of unprovable theory.
The constitution is simple and if we believe it to be divinely inspired all we have to do it follow it. If we are not doing that, that should be our main focus. Everything else is a distraction.
Hank Says:
8 June 2008 at 11:22 pm.
I’m somewhere in the middle on this. The founders warned us against a lot of things that our government is doing right now. For example, that quote by George Washington about entangling foreign alliances. I think Ron Paul goes overboard the other way and a lot of people are being so aggressive about conspiracies and it turns the rest of us off. We have to watch out for that pendulum and react by slipping all the way to one side or the other. Just my two cents.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.