Neocons

[I Shrugged]

So where do the neocons go now? Some of them supported Hillary, if you had not noticed.

[moda0306]

I'm still trying to figure out a really good consistent definition of neoconservative.

I don't consider Trump to at all be a reliable non-interventionist. I believe the markets agree with me, after seeing how well the military industrial complex firms performed today compared to the rest of the market.

From the looks of it to me, pretty much all post-WWII political activity involved in very heavy foreign intervention by the establishment of both parties. The "Truman Doctrine" carried all the way through the cold war, and even after that they just found new excuses to maintain a muscular intervention position.

His VP is a neo-con. I say he essentially adopts a different form of interventionism. Just like Bush II did. He ran as a non-interventionists (no more nation building), then decided that we'd build democracies in the Middle East. That was just applying a finer polish on our neo-con turd. Rather than supporting dictators like we had been for decades... we'll just kick them out and establish democracies.

As usual... soldiers lose, taxpayers lose, citizens of countries we fight lose, other issues lose (distracted by war), but somehow the military industrial complex wins.

I think we won't see a whole lot different going forward. But I've been bad at predicting so it should be interesting. I just know I'm deeply skeptical of our government in ways I've never been before. That's surely not trumps fault... well not entirely anyway.

[clacy]

I think the Neo-Cons will end up backing the Globalists. IMO, both political parties are re-aligning, and it's becoming Globalists vs Nationalists.

Neo-Cons are open border, pro-foreign entanglement, so they will keep gravitating towards the Dems, which seem to be fixated on open borders (globalism).

on the original question about what the neocons will do, i think they are already globalists, so no change there.. the interesting thing may be what happens during the next election cycle. if Hillary is prosecuted and her emails and corruption take down a good sized chunk of the democrat party with her, it might be the end of the democrat party as we know it.. if at the same time a populist, nationalist, tea party movement with trump providing the wedge splits the republican party or takes control of it, then you might see former democrats leftist and neocon republicans joining up in one party, and the non neocon republicans being in another...

[clacy]

I'm still trying to figure out a really good consistent definition of neoconservative.

I don't consider Trump to at all be a reliable non-interventionist. I believe the markets agree with me, after seeing how well the military industrial complex firms performed today compared to the rest of the market.

From the looks of it to me, pretty much all post-WWII political activity involved in very heavy foreign intervention by the establishment of both parties. The "Truman Doctrine" carried all the way through the cold war, and even after that they just found new excuses to maintain a muscular intervention position.

His VP is a neo-con. I say he essentially adopts a different form of interventionism. Just like Bush II did. He ran as a non-interventionists (no more nation building), then decided that we'd build democracies in the Middle East. That was just applying a finer polish on our neo-con turd. Rather than supporting dictators like we had been for decades... we'll just kick them out and establish democracies.

As usual... soldiers lose, taxpayers lose, citizens of countries we fight lose, other issues lose (distracted by war), but somehow the military industrial complex wins.

I think we won't see a whole lot different going forward. But I've been bad at predicting so it should be interesting. I just know I'm deeply skeptical of our government in ways I've never been before. That's surely not trumps fault... well not entirely anyway.

One clear indicator is if you're constantly talking tough towards Russia/Syria and discussing setting up no-fly zones against a nuclear armed country (Russia), in one of the seemingly endless supply of useless Middle East countries (Syria) that we (US) have destabilized in the last 15 years, then you are probably a Neo-Con.

[moda0306]

clacy,

I'd probably agree. It's easy to look at the last 15 years and just say "NEOCON." Hillary was a NEOCON.

But was Eisenhower a neocon? Kissinger/Nixon? Reagan? Bush I?

It seems to me everything post WWII is a game of ping pong between "Liberal" interventionism and "Conservative" interventionism. I always kind of thought "neocon" is essentially an interventionist post-WWII Republican that doesn't want total war.

It just seems like a sloppy term. It all just seems like different versions of armed intervention to me. If Trump allies with Russia, changes some of our relationships with dictators, continues to sell them weapons, bombs the $hit out of ISIS, and invades the Iraqi oil field with troops to get the oil out, is that "neoconservatism?"

[clacy]

One clear indicator is if you're constantly talking tough towards Russia/Syria and discussing setting up no-fly zones against a nuclear armed country (Russia), in one of the seemingly endless supply of useless Middle East countries (Syria) that we (US) have destabilized in the last 15 years, then you are probably a Neo-Con.

I like the Jeff Foxworthy vibe.

This might be the one site that could find comedic value in "you might be a neo-con" jokes ...lol

if --Oceania is at war with with Eurasia:... Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia
if -- Oceania is at war with Eastasia:.... Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
then you might be a neocon....

if you believe that breaking a bunch of windows will stimulate the economy...

you might be a neocon

if protecting the constitution, and the freedom it guarantees is so important to you that you will destroy both to protect them from our enemies...

you might be a neocon

if you got your job as a lobbyist for the military industrial complex because it is directly related to a political appointment that you recently held....
if you got your political appointment because it is directly related to a job as a lobbyist for the military industrial complex that you recently held.....

you might be a neocon

[Mountaineer]

You might be a neocon if you prefer selling guns over Bibles.

You might be a neocon if you prefer flexible lies over absolute truth.

You might be a neocon if you prefer studying your portfolio over studying the classics.

You might be a neocon if you let world events influence you more than your closest neighbors' needs.

You might be a neocon if you worry more about the speck in my eye than you do the log in your own.

You might be a neocon if your brain has been programmed by reality TV (or college professors).

You might be a neocon if you prefer internet sensationalism more than a good book.

You might be a neocon if you desire to operate outside of your circle of influence.

You might be a neocon if you ignore history, or try to rewrite it.

You might be a neocon if you are unable to think critically.

You might be a neocon if you think you are not.

[clacy]

"You might be a neo-con if....

.....you use the term foreign entanglement with a smile on your face"

.....your brother in law sits on the board of Northrop Grumman"

.....you can justify supporting and funding both sides in a foreign war"

.....you working for a *think tank* is a noble profession"

[MachineGhost]

I'm still trying to figure out a really good consistent definition of neoconservative.

It just means foreign policy liberalism, i.e. intervention and influencing of foreign regimes (think CIA Iran puppet, Voice of America, etc.). It's leftover ideological crap from the Cold War and Democrats. I think Romney best exemplified it when he said he was an Eisenhower Republican, i.e. American Exceptionalism, which is rather ironical because Eisenhower was the one that presciently warned us about the military-industrial complex. But no one political pays any attention to history as they're too busy fetishing their inner ideology.

I don't consider Trump to at all be a reliable non-interventionist. I believe the markets agree with me, after seeing how well the military industrial complex firms performed today compared to the rest of the market.

That's just because he wants to increase military spending, which I admit, does seem at odds with a anti-NeoCon stance. But it could just be pablum for the military vote. OTOH, we do need to modernize the military and that takes more spending. It's been neglected in favor of neoliberal economics since the Wall fell.

I think we won't see a whole lot different going forward. But I've been bad at predicting so it should be interesting. I just know I'm deeply skeptical of our government in ways I've never been before. That's surely not trumps fault... well not entirely anyway.

If Trump can't pull it off, it is hopeless and government must be destroyed.

[MachineGhost]

It just seems like a sloppy term. It all just seems like different versions of armed intervention to me. If Trump allies with Russia, changes some of our relationships with dictators, continues to sell them weapons, bombs the $hit out of ISIS, and invades the Iraqi oil field with troops to get the oil out, is that "neoconservatism?"

I would say no. You need to look up the history of NeoConservatism. It is a liberal (modern not classic) ideology with specific long-term ideological goals. Just fixing the shit they all made in the Middle East wouldn't qualify.

I hope they do go back over to the Democrat party because that's where they all came from. Birds of a feather...

Now, look, I'm not unsympathetic to the ideal, but it's become a crony capitalist business opportunity nowadays. If we hadn't intervened in WWII or Palestine, the world would be a vastly different place. But exploiting that cultural heritage is how they continue to get away with bamboozling people wag the dog style while laughing all the way to the bank.

OTOH, buy the Aerospace and Defense ETF. <shrug> Americans have clearly decided they don't care about principles anymore.

[moda0306]

I looked up the term. It didn't seem very concrete and begged more questions than it answered.

Since 1945, these all seem to be common elements of foreign policy:

1) Permanent war-time state on the premise that we have enemies with nukes that want to take over the world and/or kill some of us.

2) CIA shadily supporting "strategic" partners via proxy wars. Committing illegal acts galore since they're operating in secret.

3) Young poor men bare the ultimate price of any active foreign engagement, with the best case scenario being they get decent pay, pension and admiration back home.

4) Policy-makers benefit hugely at best if they're "right," and benefit modestly at worst if they're wrong.

5) Military industrial complex benefits modestly at worst and massively at best depending on how much "military activity" is going on.

6) Areas with rich natural resources get used as pawns.


When looked at in terms of incentives, it's the same shit different pile.

[MachineGhost]

Neoconservatism draws on several intellectual traditions. The students of political science Professor Leo Strauss (1899–1973) comprised one major group. Eugene Sheppard notes that, "Much scholarship tends to understand Strauss as an inspirational founder of American neoconservatism."[39] Strauss was a refugee from Nazi Germany who taught at the New School for Social Research in New York (1939–49) and the University of Chicago (1949–1958).[40]

Strauss asserted that "the crisis of the West consists in the West's having become uncertain of its purpose." His solution was a restoration of the vital ideas and faith that in the past had sustained the moral purpose of the West. Classical Greek political philosophy and the Judeo-Christian heritage are the essentials of the Great Tradition in Strauss's work.[41] Strauss emphasized the spirit of the Greek classics, and West (1991) argues that for Strauss the American "Founding Fathers" were correct in their understanding of the classics in their principles of justice. For Strauss, political community is defined by convictions about justice and happiness rather than by sovereignty and force. He repudiated the philosophy of John Locke as a bridge to 20th-century historicism and nihilism, and defended liberal democracy as closer to the spirit of the classics than other modern regimes.[42] For Strauss, the American awareness of ineradicable evil in human nature, and hence the need for morality, was a beneficial outgrowth of the premodern Western tradition.[43] O'Neill (2009) notes that Strauss wrote little about American topics but his students wrote a great deal, and that Strauss's influence caused his students to reject historicism and positivism. Instead they promoted a so-called Aristotelian perspective on America that produced a qualified defense of its liberal constitutionalism.[44] Strauss influenced Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, editor John Podhoretz, and military strategist Paul Wolfowitz.[45][46]

...

During the early 1970s, Socialist Michael Harrington was one of the first to use "neoconservative" in its modern meaning. He characterized neoconservatives as former leftists – whom he derided as "socialists for Nixon" – who had become more conservative.[10] These people tended to remain endorsers of social democracy, but distinguished themselves by allying with the Nixon administration with respect to foreign policy, especially by their endorsement of the Vietnam War and opposition to the USSR. They still endorsed the welfare state, but not necessarily in its contemporary form.

Irving Kristol remarked that a neoconservative is a "liberal mugged by reality", one who became more conservative after seeing the results of liberal policies. Kristol also distinguished three specific aspects of neoconservatism from previous types of conservatism: neo-conservatives had a forward-looking attitude from their liberal heritage, rather than the reactionary and dour attitude of previous conservatives; they had a meliorative attitude, proposing alternate reforms rather than simply attacking social liberal reforms; they took philosophical ideas and ideologies very seriously.[76]

During January 2009, at the end of President George W. Bush's second term in office, Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, proposed the following as the "main characteristics of neoconservatism": "a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms", a "low tolerance for diplomacy", a "readiness to use military force", an "emphasis on US unilateral action", a "disdain for multilateral organizations" and a "focus on the Middle East".[77]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism